University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A History Of The Canadian Radio League: 1930-1936

(USC Thesis Other)

A History Of The Canadian Radio League: 1930-1936

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright by REV. JOHN EGLI O’BRIEN, S.J. 1964 A HISTORY OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE 1930-1936 by Rev. John Egli O'Brien, S.J. A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OP THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Communication) June 196* + UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K LO S A N G E L E S 7, C A L IF O R N IA This dissertation, written by . . . . J . olm.. .Egl i. . . 0 . ! Er i e . n . , . . . S . . . J. . ... under the direction of Dissertation C o m mittee, and approved by all its membersz has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y .... t S Dean D a te J.U . n e ..................... DISSERTA1 S/i ION C O W I T T E E ...... Chairman * TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM................................ 1 General introduction ..................... 1 Purposes.................................. 12 Personal purpose ....................... 12 Scholarly purpose.........................13 Social purposes...........................13 Statement of the problem.................15 Limitations................................ 16 Assumptions................................ 17 Review of the literature .......... 17 Statement of sources searched ........... 17 The literature...........................18 Integrative summary....................... 21 Method and procedure ........... ..... 23 Sources of data...........................2*+ Organization and interpretation of the data 29 Criticism of the data....................... 30 External criticism ..................... 30 Internal criticism . ................... 31 ii CHAPTER PAGE II. THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON RADIO BROADCASTING: 1 9 2 8 - 1 9 2 9................................ 33 Historical setting ....................... 33 The British Broadcasting Company........ *+0 Crisis in Canadian broadcasting.......... *+3 The Royal Commission..................... M+ The Commissioners....................... M+ The work of the Commission............. Preparation of the Report............... 51 Analysis of the Report................. 53 Reactions to the Report................... 58 Bowman answers La Presse............... 62 Opposition to the Report begins to grow . . 66 The Listeners' Group................... 68 Summary.................................. 69 III. CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE: ORGANIZATIONAL PHASE . 72 Pounding of the Canadian Radio League .... 72 Preliminary organization ............... 75 First promotional pamphlet of the League . . 79 Contents of the pamphlet............... 79 The League becomes a reality ............. 89 The "active" executive ................. 90 The honorary executive ................. 90 Initial French Canadian support ......... 92 iii CHAPTER PAGE Regional groups ......................... 9^ Revised policy statement of the League . . 95 Newspaper support ....................... 101 Support from organizations...............103 The League formally constituted ........... 105 First formal meeting......... 105 First press release...................... 107 Publicity from the release...............119 First communication with the government . , 119 Summary.................................. 121 IV. THE LEAGUE BEGINS OPERATIONS................ 126 Organizational activity.................... 126 Regional developments ................... 127 "A Case for Nationalized Broadcasting" . . . 129 The League clarifies its policy........... 139 The League’s new booklet................ lk7 Opposition to the League.................. 159 The League and the Government ........ l6^f Delegation to the Minister of Marine . . . 165 The Ashcroft-Spry debate ................. 168 The Ashcroft article ................... 169 The Spry article........................ 172 The League plans a second meeting...........175 Summary .........................178 iv CHAPTER ' PAGE V. THE LEAGUE MARKS TIME WHILE RADIO JURISDICTION IS REFERRED TO THE COURTS: FEBRUARY 1931- JANUARY 1932 ............................ 186 Second meeting of the League......... 186 Canadian Radio League budget and finances 188 League statement to the Minister of Marine 189 The opposition counterattacks ........... 192 League activities: Spring, 1931 ...... 196 The "Spry-Gibbon Tourney"................. 202 Gibbon’s article in the Canadian Forum . . 202 The C. P. R. becomes involved ...... 206 Spry’s article in the Canadian Forum . . 209 Gibbon demands an apology......... 212 The League and the newspapers ............213 The courts and radio jurisdiction......218 Intermittent activity of the Radio League . 226 Summary............. 236 VI. THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE AND THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RADIO BROADCASTING, 1932 ... 2 * 4 - 5 Executive meeting of the League ..........2 * 4 - 5 Delegation to the Minister of Marine .... 2 * 4 - 8 Government announcement of special Radio Committee ............. 2 * 4 - 8 v CHAPTER VII. PAGE League preparations for the Parliamentary Committee......................... 250 Initial proceedings of the Parliamentary Committee......................... 253 First evidence of the Radio League . . . 260 League activity during the Committee hearings....................... 26* + Subsequent proceedings of the Parliamentary Committee......................... 280 Spry testifies a second time ........ 283 Major concerns of the Committee.... 292 Special Committee reports to the House of Commons..................... 293 Similarities between the Report and the League proposals ................... 296 Reactions to the Report of the Special Committee......................... 297 Summary............................. 307 PROGRAM OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE: 1932-1936 .............................. 313 The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932 . 313 League activity: June 1932-December 193^ • 31** The League and the Parliamentary Committee of 193**................. • 317 vi CHAPTER PAGE Pinal Report of the 193*+ Committee .... 320 Difficulties of the Radio Commission . . . 321 The League and radio reorganization: January to October, 1935 ............... 322 Plaunt's proposal for radio reorganization 326 Murray's views on reorganization..........329 Conference on Canadian-American affairs . 333 Plaunt’s outline for a draft memorandum . 333 Post-election activity on radio reorganization ................... 336 Activities of the American radio networks 339 Campaign of the private commercial stations...............................3*+0 Claxton’s views on the memorandum .... 3^0 Consultation with the Hon. C. D. Howe . . 3*+2 Claxton prepares a draft Act..............3^6 Departmental Draft Act ................. 3^9 Plaunt's preparations for the Parliamen- taxy Committee......................... 353 Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission...............................356 Brief of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters ......................... 357 Brief of the Canadian Radio League .... 358 vii CHAPTER PAGE The campaign to have Gladstone Murray named General Manager.............. 365 The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . . . 371 Subsequent efforts to revive the League . . 37*+ The Canadian Radio and Television League: 1955-1956 376 The Canadian Broadcasting League: 1958-1962 . ....................... 378 Summary............................. 391 VIII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.... *+03 Summary............................. **03 Conclusions......................... ^37 Implications....................... W+ Recommendations for further study.... *4*8 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... APPENDIXES................................... *+60 APPENDIX A. Description of the Alan B. Plaunt Papers: 1930-191 +1 . . . ^62 APPENDIX B. Canadian Radio for Canadians, March, 1932 *f65 viil LIST OP TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Canadian Broadcasting Licenses, 1922-1929 . . 36 II. Canadian Receiving Set Licenses, 1922-1928 . 37 III. Summary of Editorial Comment on the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broad casting, October 2, 1929 60 IY. List of "Some Canadian Newspapers Giving Editorial Support to Plan to Put Broad casting on Public Service Basis" ........ 85 Y. "Some of the Canadian Organizations Favouring the [Aird] Plan"......... 88 VI. Organizations Favoring a National Broad casting System, December 8, 1930 109 VII. Newspapers Favoring a National Broadcasting System, December 8, 1930 110 VIII. Members of the National Council and of the Executive Committee of the Canadian Radio League as of December 8, 1930 ........... 115 IX. National Council and Executive Committee of the Canadian Radio League as of January, 1 9 3 1 .................................. 1^9 ix TABLE PAGE X. Some Canadian Publications Pavoring Broad casting as a National Service, January, 193 1 .................................. 157 XI. Proposed Operating Budget for the Canadian Radio League, December, 1930-May, 1931 . . 190 XII. Statement of Receipts and Disbursements of the Canadian Radio League to January 29, 1932 .................................. 191 XIII. New Members of the Radio League, January- March, 1 9 3 1 .......................... 199 XIV. Classification of Canadian Broadcasting Stations by Ownership and by Power, March 11, 1932 ......................... 255 XV. Receiving Set Licenses for the First Ten Months of Fiscal Year 1931 ............. 256 XVI. Average Length of Broadcasting Day in Each Canadian Province, 1932 259 XVII. Organizations and Individuals Which Appeared before the Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting at the Request of the Canadian Radio League ............... 278 XVIII. Major Organizations and Individuals Which Appeared before the Special Committee on Radio in Opposition to a Nationally Owned x TABLE PAGE and Operated Broadcasting System ........ 28l XIX. Statement of Receipts and Disbursements of the Canadian Radio League to May 28, 1932 30^ XX. Analysis of Contributions to the Canadian Radio League from December 13, 1930 to April 12, 1932 .......................... 305 XXI. Slate of Prospective Members for the Board of Governors Submitted to Vincent Massey by Alan Plaunt, October, 1935 3*+5 XXII. Delegation of the Canadian Broadcasting League to Meet the Right Honorable John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada* July 18, 1958 381 XXIII. Members of the Broadcasting League Who Were Unable to be Present for the Meeting with the Prime Minister....................... 383 xi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Coverage of Canadian Broadcasting Stations, 1930 . .................................... 117 2. Canadian Radio Coverage of American Broad casting Stations, 1930, and Proposed Coverage for a Canadian National Broad casting Sjstem......................... 118 xii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION To understand how broadcasting developed in Canada, it is necessary first to recall how the nation itself grew and developed and to reconsider briefly some of the attempts which have been made over the past hundred years to form a nation on the east-west axis as opposed to what would have been the more natural north-south alignment. An eminent Canadian historian has written: There is no doubt that the Canadian federation itself, as it was formed in the l860*s, was a resultant of pressures from the United States. The scattered British provinces came to recognize that for them it was a case of unite or be absorbed. Our nation thus came into existence as an attempt to maintain a scattered group of provinces against the magnetic power of the United States. No one has ever pretended that the arrangement by which these provinces, and others subsequently added, came together into one political framework was, from the point of view of logic, geography, and economics, ever more than artificial. Con federation will never be understood unless it is viewed as the creation of a political entity based on the faith that in time this artificial 1 entity would take on reality, that the akeleton would become clothed with flesh and nourished with blood. 1 National policy dictated the building of the first transcontinental railway, the Canadian Pacific, "through the happy conjunction of public and private effort," in , order to join the new nation from sea to sea. National policy likewise dictated the passage of the Bank Act of 1873 which "prevented our financial structure from becoming a mere adjunct of that of the United States."^ National policy, in 1 8 7 8, dictated the imposition of the tariff in order that the national community might "retain some degree L . of control over the national economy." National policy was again evident in the building of the second and third transcontinental railways and, more especially, in the decision after the first world war to retrieve them from the edge of bankruptcy^and merge them to form the Canadian 5 National Hallways. Public Archives of Canada, Royal Commission on Broadcasting, Box 3 6, Exhibit 2^9. Brief of the Canadian Radio and Television League. Professor A. R. M. Lower of Queen's University, Kingston, prepared the brief for the League. On September 17, 19?6, he appeared before the Committee personally and submitted, as an individual, the same brief in expanded form. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. ^Ibid. ^Ibid. These interactions of public and private effort were considered essential because of the geographical vastness of the new nation, its comparatively small population, its pockets of regional interests, its two cultures, and its proximity to the much more populous and wealthier nation to the south. In the 1920’s a new spirit began to manifest itself on the Canadian scene. Young intellectuals, eager to hasten the birth of a genuine Canadian culture, founded the Associated Canadian Clubs, the Canadian Teachers’ Federa tion, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, and 6 the Canadian Forum. The Honorable Brooke Claxton, looking back on the period some thirty years later, recalled the tempo of the era as one in which every kind of organization, national and local, cultural and religious, political and commercial was at a peak of activity hardly equalled since. This is also true of art. I remember having the first showing of the Group of Seven to be held in Montreal at my house in 1927. All these were manifestations of the growth of national feeling— it was nationwide, spontaneous, inevitable. It cut across political, racial and social lines. Indeed it was curiously a-political As the decade drew to an end, Canada's membership ^E. A. Corbett, We Have With Us Tonight (Toronto; Ryerson Press, 1957), p. 10*+. ^Ibid., citing a letter from the Hon. Brooke C2axton. I f in the League of Nations and her place on the Council of the League contributed to the growth of this national feel ing but serious obstacles stood in the way of developing "unity of conviction and aspiration among the whole g people." A tendency to sectionalism, already strong in a country of such vast distances, was strengthened by deci sions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which widened the scope of provincial powers at the expense of Federal power even though the British North America Act was drafted with a "strong bias against provincial sovereignty and with intent to throw the balance toward federal suprem acy. A further obstacle in the way of developing a genuine national consciousness was the influx of American ideas and culture into Canada. In the course of the Marfleet Lectures which he delivered at the University of Toronto in January, 1929, William Bennett Munro, Professor of American History and Government at Harvard University and at the California Institute of Technology, presented a brief summary of American cultural penetration when he declared: ^William Bennett Munro, American Influences on Canadian Government (Toronto: Macmillan Company, 1929), P. 83. 9Ibid.. p. 30. 5 It is inevitable, of course, that the influence of American political practice upon Canada should be far-reaching. The juxtaposition of a neighbor which so far outranges Canada in population, wealth, and world-importance means that every branch of Canadian life and thought must be sub jected to an overwhelming psychological pressure from the south of the line. American influence upon Canada is more powerful than all other for eign influences combined, American newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and American motion pic tures are daily carrying American political ideas into every hamlet in the Dominion, The radio will accentuate this pressure. for the broadcasting stations nay no heed to international boundaries temphasis added], One might, perhaps, generalize by saying that in the government and politics of Canada most of what is superimposed is British; but most of what works its way in from the bottom is American, Canada may try to forget or ignore the presence of the United States as a neighbour; but Canadians cannot, for the influence of the Republic touches every phase of their daily walk and conversation.10 But just as some believed that radio would accen tuate this psychological pressure from the south, so others believed that radio, if properly used, could become the single most important factor in drawing all parts of the country together and in developing a national consciousness, Graham Spry was to summarize the potential of radio in late 1930 in these words: A national radio system, intelligently directed, would give Canada many of the stimuli her national life requires. It would stimulate musical composi tion, dramatic composition and the talent to inter- S ret both. It would enable different sections of anada to speak their hopes and problems unto the others. It would give this country the basis of an 10Ibid., pp. 91-92 6 informed public opinion such as the educational system, the press, the theatre, the motion pic ture, our literature have not yet given. Here is a majestic instrument of national unity and national culture. Its potentialities are too great, its influence and significance are too vast, to he left to the petty purposes of selling cakes of soap.H As will become clear in the course of the study, this view of broadcasting was adopted in the main by lead ers of opinion in the churches, the universities, the bank ing and business community, the national organizations and the newspapers, by Royal Commissions and Parliamentary Committees which studied broadcasting, and by the Federal Government. A diametrically opposite viewpoint, which will also become evident as the study progresses, was propounded by radio interests. For them radio was, and over a span of thirty years continued to be, primarily a business. Economics alone dictated the location of stations; econom ics dictated the affiliation of Canadian stations with American radio networks; economics dictated the importation of American program:; which could be had for a fraction of what it would have cost to produce Canadian programs; and economics dictated a type of programming which would be most likely to attract and hold mass audiences. This group ^-Graham Spry, "A Case for Nationalized Broadcast ing," Queen’s Quarterly. 38:169, Winter, 1931. proposed to model Canadian broadcasting after the American system in which broadcasting was primarily an industry. It can be aigued with some degree of probability that the concept of broadcasting "as a business" would have been eliminated from the Canadian broadcasting scene in 1929 if -the economic depression had not occurred at that time. The Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broad casting recommended the complete nationalization of broad casting in Canada but funds, which would have made nationalization possible, were no longer available. As in earlier times national policy once again dictated a combina tion of public and private effort so that a mixed system of broadcasting resulted. The public system was established by the Government to operate nationally on a "public ser vice" basis, the private system remained in commercial hands and continued to operate on a "business" basis. Its role was to complement the services of the national system in local areas. But the compromise never amounted to more than an uneasy truce. Prom the evidence it will become clear that private broadcasters never accepted the prin ciple of a single national system in which they were to play a permanent but complementaiy role. Prom the evidence it will also become apparent that their philosophy of broadcasting in I9 6I : differed hardly at all from their philosophy of thirty years earlier. Striking similarities between conditions and attitudes in the 1930's and those in the 1960's may be seen in the following examples. In 1929 the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting found that the majority of programs on Canadian stations originated outside the country, that commercial stations were established mainly in urban areas, that Canadians generally were dissatisfied with broadcasting and that they 12 desired Canadian programming. By way of contrast, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported that commercial radio stations in i960 spent only $1.)+ million for talent and other artist fees from net advertising revenue of million, that commercial television stations spent less than half a million dollars from net advertising revenue of $23A million."^ In 1959* the Board of Broadcast Governors (BBG) announced the 55 per cent Canadian content rule for television programming which would become effective in ■ 1 L l 1962. The Canadian Press reported the objections of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to the new ruling as follows: 12 Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, Report (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1 9 2 9), pp. 5-6. ■^Albert A. Shea, Broadcasting: The Canadian Wav (Montreal: Harvest House, 1963), p. 67. lIfSOR/59-l +56, Canada Gazette Part II. Vol. 93, No. 23, December 9j 1^59. 9 . . . the 55^ rule would defeat the purpose of the [Broadcasting] Act. Quality in programming would suffer • • • [and] the heavily subsidized CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] would be out bidding private stations for the limited Canadian talent available. [The Association] proposed that the percentage rule be dropped altogether in favor of a gradual building of Canadian creative and performing talent or, if the BBC insisted on a percentage, it could set one for the CBC and let private stations operate at half the mark.1' The Canadian content rule in programming was watered down subsequently and its complete enforcement was post poned because of the objections of the commercial broad casters Again, in 1936, the Canadian Association of Broad casters advocated before the Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission that the government broadcasting agency should not compete with private stations for commer- 17 cial business. The Association recommended that the 1^Canadian Press dispatch, The Montreal Star, November 12, 1959. * i £ ■ LOShea, op. cit.. pp. 58—59• Vide Albert A. Kroeger, "International Television," Television Magazine. 20:81, July, 1963. In this article tfroeger shows how American producers have found ways to circumvent quota restrictions. Sig Mickelson, head of Time-Life Broadcasting’s interna tional operations, is cited as follows: "We thought we might get in on the Canadian production quota if we had the show’s [The Mighty Hercules cartoon series] sound track prepared in Canada. The producer took the idea to Ottawa and they accepted it. And we were given not 50 per cent but a 100 per cent Canadian content credit— and Commonwealth status for the sale of the show." ■^Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commis sion, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1936), P. 553. 10 agency should produce and distribute programs but that it 18 should neither own nor operate stations. In 19&3* offi cials of the commercial television network (CTV) foresaw the gradual elimination of the CBC from the commercial field over a ten-year span, with the Corporation divested 19 of all ownership and operation of stations. In their view the CBC would thus become a producer of Canadian pro grams which would be broadcast over the commercial stations 20 on instructions from the BBG. In 1929> C. A. Bowman who was a member of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting believed that one national system was all that Canada could afford because of a lack 21 of advertising revenue. In 1961, with the authorization of the BBG, CTV Television Network Limited began operations with stations in these eight urban areas— Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and OO Halifax. A serious loss of advertising revenue was l8Ibid.. p. 552. 19Shea, on. cit.. pp. 72-73. 20Ibid. ^Statement by Charles A, Bowman in a recorded interview with Alan Thomas at Nanaimo, British Columbia, February l8? i9 6 0. The tape is filed in the Special Collec tions Division of the University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver. 22Shea, op. cit.. p. 71. 11 experienced immediately by the CBC. In hie annual report for 1961-1962, the President of the CBC stated: While a precise estimate is not possible, CBC gross commercial revenues for the 1 9 6 1 -1 9 6 2 fiscal year were of the order of between $1 0, 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 and $1 2, 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 less than they would have been under the single-station policy. This, of course, is due to the limited number of advertising dollars avail able to television in Qanada [emphasis added 1. Whether or not there will be a further drop in CBC commercial revenues in the coming year cannot be forecast with any degree of assurance. The second network and second stations have already stated that they will require far greater revenues than they have achieved during the past year. The additional dollars needed can only come at the expense of the CBC, its privately-owned affiliates, and other advertising media, or through the crea tion of new advertising dollars. ^ Even this cursory review of Canadian broadcasting recalls to mind the old expression: "Plus 9a change, plus c’est la meme chose." One striking difference however emerges from the comparison. Commercial broadcasters in the I9 6 0's no longer accepted the complementary role in one national system with English and French counterparts which Royal Commissions and Parliament clearly intended that they should play. A series of compromises over the years have had the end result of creating not one national broadcasting system but the beginning of two national sys tems, each with its own philosophy of broadcasting and competing for the same audiences and limited commercial revenue. 23Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Annual Report 1961-1962, pp. 16-1 7. 12 This study proposes to bring into focus these opposing philosophies of broadcasting by investigating in depth the policies and the programs of the Canadian Radio League during the period 1930-1936. It will also consider briefly conditions which prompted former members of the Canadian Radio League to revive the old League as the Canadian Radio and Television League in 1955 and as the Canadian Broadcasting League in 1958. II. PURPOSES The findings of the study should be significant for several reasons. Personal purpose. The writer, a Canadian who would be returning to a Canadian university after completing graduate studies in communication, became concerned with broadcasting conditions in Canada in the early I960's. The nationally owned and operated broadcasting system appeared to be under almost constant attack in some quar ters; misgivings concerning the future of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were expressed in magazine and newspaper articles. At the outset the writer believed in a general way that the continuance of the Corporation was in all proba bility a good thing for Canada but he held no strong con victions on the matter. He was convinced that profitable 13 discussion on the future of Canadian broadcasting presup posed a clear understanding of the policies and forces which had shaped the development of Canadian broadcasting in its first thirty years. Consequently he became inter ested in studying the Canadian Radio League which flour ished during the years 1930-1936 and strongly supported the policy of a nationally owned and operated broadcasting sys tem. Scholarly purpose. No evidence appeared that a study of the Canadian Radio League was undertaken prior to 1962 when this investigation was begun. This would be jus tification enough for a detailed study of the era in which the Canadian Government established a national broadcasting system. In the initial stages of the study a wealth of material on the period of Canadian history which was under investigation became available for the first time. In the spring of 1962, Mrs. H. A. iyde, widow of Alan Plaunt, presented the Plaunt Papers to the University of British Columbia. This unexpected windfall added a new scholarly dimension to the study. Social purposes. Firstly, several attacks on the Canadian Broadcasting League appeared in print in 1 9 62 which challenged the claim of the League and of the earlier Radio League to be representative of Canadian life; a main Ik theme of the attacks was that the League never missed an opportunity "to do a little campaigning for the cause of p if socialized broadcasting." The study should provide the means of evaluating objectively these and similar allega tions . Secondly, after preliminary investigation it appeared that the policies which originally dictated the establishment of a national broadcasting system were no more acceptable to the commercial broadcasters in 1 9 6 2 than they were in 1932. Hence the findings of the study should be relevant to these broadcasters’ better understanding of broadcasting problems in Canada in the 1960's and beyond. Thirdly, the findings of the study should be useful to the Canadian Government, the Board of Broadcast Govern ors, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and to the Canadian people generally. The study investigated the foundations upon which Canadian broadcasting policy had rested. If, as some believed, there were to be a change in that policy, then new directions could be charted with more assurance than otherwise because of an understanding of the policies and circumstances which led to the mixed system of broadcasting 2^Bob Blackburn, "How Representative Is It?" The Toronto Telegram. April 2, 1 9 6 2; The Letter-Review IFort Erie, Ontario], March 12, 19&2, p.2. This is a duplicate page with variations. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS, INC. ik theme of the attacks was that the League never missed an opportunity "to do a little campaigning for the cause of oh socialized broadcasting." The study should provide the means of evaluating objectively these and similar allega tions. Secondly, after preliminary investigation it appeared that the policies which originally dictated the establishment of a national broadcasting system were no more acceptable to the commercial broadcasters in 1962 than they were in 1932. Hence the findings of the study should be relevant to these broadcasters' better understanding of broadcasting problems in Canada in the 1 9 6 0's and beyond. Thirdly, the findings of the study should be useful to the Canadian Government, the Board of Broadcast Govern ors, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and to the Canadian people generally. The study investigated the foundations upon which Canadian broadcasting policy had rested. If, as some believed, there were to be a change in that policy, then new directions could be charted with more assurance than otherwise because of an understanding of the policies and circumstances which led to the mixed system of broadcasting ^ Bob Blackburn, "How Representative Is It?" The Toronto Telegram. April 2, 1962; The Letter Review [.(Toronto], rnrch 1 2, 1962, p. 2. 15 which Canada enjoyed in the early I960's. Fourthly, the findings should also he useful to groups in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and a number of underdeveloped countries which were considering the establishment of a mixed system of broadcasting in 25 1962. A study of Canadian problems and resultant policy decisions which led to a mixed system of broadcasting in the 1 9 3 0's should be helpful to these groups, providing insights on much of what they might expect to encounter in their respective countries. III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The problem of this study was to write a histoiy of the Canadian Radio League and then to attempt to assess the influence of the League upon the formulation and develop ment of Canadian broadcasting policy. A priori at least three hypotheses could be enun ciated: 1. The Radio League exerted little or no influence upon the formulation of Canadian broadcasting policy; the policy developed quite independently of the organized efforts of various groups. 2. The Radio League influenced broadcasting policy 25 Kroeger, pp. cit.« pp. 7^, 7 8. 16 decisions but any attempt to isolate and then to assess the distinct contributions of the League would be practically impossible because the League was but one force among many. 3. The Radio League influenced decisions of broad casting policy to such an extent that without the League Canadian broadcasting quite probably would have developed along distinctly different lines. IV. LIMITATIONS In a brief description of two later revivals of the Radio League, viz., the Canadian Radio and Television League (1955) and the Canadian Broadcasting League (1958), an attempt was made to place them in their proper histori cal context. This did not imply a detailed study of the later Leagues for the documents which would be required in such a study were not available. Comparisons between broadcasting in the 1930*s and in the early 1 9 6 0's were based upon clearly identifiable general principles that were operative in both periods rather than upon a detailed analysis of the programming, the specific policies, or the organizational structures of the national broadcasting system or of the private commer cial broadcasting organizations. A separate study would be needed to analyze in detail the national broadcasting system and the commercial systems in the early 1 9 6 0’s and to compare the two systems with each other. V. . ASSUMPTIONS 17 A central assumption was that reliable source mate rials on the Canadian Radio League existed, that the mate rials could be discovered, and that they would be made available to the researcher. A similar assumption presupposed that reliable source materials concerning the opponents of the League were in existence and that they, too, would be made avail able to the researcher. An assumption of the study was that striking simi larities existed between conditions and forces which shaped the development of Canadian broadcasting in the 1930’s and the conditions and forces which operated in Canadian broad casting in the early 1 9 6 0*s. VI. REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE Statement of sources searched. Cards in the Libraries of the University of Southern California and the University of British Columbia were examined under the headings Radio-Television-Communications. The Cumulative Book Index for the period 1930-1962 was consulted under the heading of Canadian publications. The Canadian Periodical Index for the years 1937-1962 was examined. No reference to the Canadian Radio League was discovered in these 18 o f \ sources. The Index to American Doctoral Dissertations, Sparks1 Bibliography of Doctoral Dissertations in Radio and Television, and the Journal of Broadcasting list of doctoral dissertations and of master's theses in broadcast ing were examined for the period 1 9 3 0 -1 9 6 2 but no refer- 27 ences to the Canadian Radio League were uncovered. The literature. The following sources, while not concerned primarily with the Canadian Radio League, con tained references to the League and were discovered through personal interviews with former members of the Radio League. Five chapters of Chariesworth's "I'm Telling You." which was published in 1937, described the evolution of 2^The Cumulative Book Index (annual editions 1932 to 1962; New Yorks The H. H. Wilson Company). Canadian Periodical Index (annual editions 1938 to 19*+8); Canadian Index to Periodicals (annual editions 19^8 to 1 9 6 2; Ottawa: The Canadian Library Association). 27 'Doctoral Dissertations Accepted by American Univer sities (annual editions 1933 to 19 5^ J New York: The H. H. Wilson Company); Index to American Doctoral Disserta tions (annual editions 1955 to 1 9 6 2; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms). Kenneth R. Sparks, A Bibliography of Doctoral Dissertations in Television and Radio (Syracuse. N. Y.: Syracuse University School of Journalism, Newhouse Communi cations Center, 1 9 6 2). Also "Doctoral Dissertations in Television and Radio," Journal of Broadcasting. 1077-383 > Fall, 1957; "Graduate Theses and Dissertations on Broad casting: 1920-1956," Journal of Broadcasting. 2:55-90, Winter, 1957-1958; Franklin M. Knower, ' ‘ Graduate Theses and Dissertations on Broadcasting: 1956-1958," Journal of Broadcasting, k:77-87, Winter, 1959“19oO; F. M. Knower, 'Graduate Theses and Dissertations on Broadcasting: 1959“ i9 6 0," Journal of Broadcasting. 5055-370, Fall, 1 9 6 1. Canadian broadcasting and included references to the 28 activities of the Canadian Radio League. Charlesworth maintained that the League played "an active part in behalf of nationalization" during the hearings of the Parliamen- 29 tary Committee in 1932. The League was a "nebulous organization, in reality consisting of a very small group, which had the support of many citizens."^ The League’s leaders, with the exception of Graham Spry, were displeased by not being appointed to the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission which was established in 1932.^ The submission of the Radio League in 1936 to the Parliamentary Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission was to Charlesworth "as 32 deceptive a document as I have ever read."J The Radio League "foisted on Mr. Howe [the responsible Minister] the new [broadcasting] set-up and lobbied it through the 33 Commons." In "We Have With Us Tonight" which was published in 1957, E. A. Corbett described the activities of the 3 1+ Canadian Radio League. According to Corbett, Alan Plaunt ^Hector Charlesworth, I’m Telling You (Torontoi Macmillan, 1937), pp. 35-13*+. 29Ibid.. p. 127. 3QIbid. 3 1Ibid.. pp. 127-128. 32Ibld.. p. 1 2 8. 3 3Ibid. 3l f E. A. Corbett, op. cit.. pp. 56-61. 20 founded the League to "carry the battle for public control of radio broadcasting in opposition to the strongly- developed lobby financed by the supporters of private con- • 3 < trol."^ Plaunt financed the League almost entirely by himself and persuaded Gladstone Murray of the British Broadcasting Corporation to come to Canada for the purpose of meeting with the government and advising on procedures which might be adopted to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting. Corbett maintained that Murray did not recommend "a public service monopoly" but rather a partnership between public and pri- 37 vate radio. This concept was unacceptable to Plaunt and ■ 5 0 to other members of the Radio League. Passing reference was made to the "astonishing pub lic career of the Canadian Radio League" by Alan Thomas in 39 a journal article which was published in i9 6 0. He sin gled out two aspects worthy of mention, viz., that Brooke Claxton and Louis St. Laurent were among the League’s mem bers and that the League enjoyed the support of the press which "evidently concluded that the public domain was a - ^Ibid.« p. 58. ^^Ibid., pp. 58-59. 3?Ibid.« p. 59. 3£*Ibid. 3^Alan Thomas, "Audience, Market, and Public— An Evaluation of Canadian Broadcasting," Canadian Communica tions. 1:29-30, Summer, i9 6 0. 21 satisfactorily safe place for this threatening newcomer [broadcasting]. In "Broadcasting: The Canadian Way” which was pub lished in 1963, Albert A. Shea stated that Graham Spry and Alan Plaunt were the founders of the Canadian Radio League in the late 1920's, that the League was active during the hearings of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting in 1 9 2 9, that it was revived in the mid 1950's, and that it was reorganized again in i960 as the Canadian Broadcasting l+l League. According to Shea the League always stressed the necessity of a national broadcasting service for 1+2 Canadians. The major weakness of the League was that little effort was made to include the membership of national organizations in the programs of the League although the leaders of these organizations were members of the League's National Council.^3 Integrative summary. Prom these few sources it appeared that the Radio League was founded in the late 1920's, that it was active during the hearings of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting in 19295 and that it was ^Ibid. ^Shea, on. cit.. p. 91. lf2Ibid. ^ ibid., p. 92. 22 again active on behalf "of nationalization" during the hearings of the Parliamentary Committee of 1932. One source named Graham Spry as the founder, another named Alan Plaunt, and a third named both men. A description of the League from these sources would indicate that it con sisted of a very small group which had the support of many citizens, that it was formed to "carry the battle for pub lic control of radio broadcasting in opposition to the strongly-developed lobby financed by the supporters of pri vate control," that it stressed the necessity of a national broadcasting service for Canadians, and that it was financed almost entirely by Plaunt. Gladstone Murray, the nominee of the League for the position of general manager in a national broadcasting system, supposedly advocated a partnership between public and private radio; this partner ship was unacceptable to the League. The League was active during the hearings of the Parliamentary Committee of 1936, supposedly foisting upon the Minister the new Broadcasting Act and lobbying it through Parliament. The major weakness of the League was that it made little effort to include the membership of affiliated organizations in its programs. The League was said to have reappeared in the Canadian scene in the mid 1950’s and again in I960 as the Canadian Broadcasting League. VII. METHOD AND PROCEDURE 23 Of the various methods available to the researcher, historical method was obviously the one most suited to the study. Neither the experimental nor the empirical method offered a research plan which was appropriate to describe and explain the development of trends in Canadian broad casting during the period 1930-1936. Critical method, as a distinct method, was rejected on the grounds that many of its elements would be included inevitably in historical method. What was required was a research plan which would be comprehensive enough to include the broad general out line of the development of the Radio League and at the same time be specific enough to detect causal relationships which might appear between the programs and policies of the League and subsequent broadcasting legislation. Hence by elimination historical method remained as the one most suited to the study because it would include ( 1) an attempt to gather as complete documentary evidence on the Canadian Radio League as was possible and (2) an attempt to interpret critically the total evidence so that an evaluation of the role of the League in the formulation of broadcasting policy might result. Prom preliminary investigation it was discovered that Father Henri St. Denis of Ottawa University was a member of the Canadian Radio League during the period 2k kk 1930-1936. A meeting was arranged with Father St. Denis in August, 1961. He informed the writer of the existence of papers and documents concerning the Radio League which were in the possession of Mrs. H. A. Dyde, the widow of Alan B. Plaunt. The writer planned to ask Mrs. Hyde's per mission to examine the papers at her home in Edmonton, Alberta, during the summer of 1962. Meanwhile Alan Thomas, Director of the Communications Division of the University of British Columbia, entered into negotiations with Mrs. Dyde to have the collection transferred to the Special Collections Division of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Mrs. Dyde agreed to the suggestion and the transfer was completed in the late spring of 1 9 6 2. During a visit to the University in June, 1962, the researcher was informed of the new acquisition. Sources of data. The Alan B. Plaunt Papers were the single most important source of data for the study. Com prising twenty-seven boxes of material, the collection con tained the correspondence of Alan Plaunt for the period 1930-19^1» the correspondence of Graham Spry for the period 1930-1932, miscellaneous Radio League correspondence, news paper clippings on the Radio League and miscellaneous Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission on. cit.. pp. 3^6-377. 25 materials. An itemized description of the collection is in Appendix A. The Minutes of Evidence of three Parliamentary Com mittees which investigated broadcasting during the period 1 9 3 0 -1 9 3 6 were the next most important source of data, viz., the Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting (1932), the Special Committee on the Operations of the Commission under the Canadian Broadcasting Act (193^)> and the Special Com- mittee on the Canadian Radio Commission (1936). Copies of the Broadcasting Acts of 1932, 1936, and ^6 1958 were obtained from the Queen's Printer, Ottawa. Por a factual description of broadcasting conditions in the 1920's, the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio 1+7 Broadcasting (1929) was invaluable. The files of the Commission were preserved in the Public Archives of Canada, Ottawa and were a valuable supplementary source. Compris ing five folders of material, they included summaries of ^Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, 1932, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1932); Special Committee on the Operations of the Commission under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1932, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King's Printer, 193*+)» Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission, op. cit. ^Canada, 22-23 G-eorge V, Chapter 51; Canada, 1 Edward VIII, Chapter 2*+; Canada, 7 Elizabeth II, Chap ter 2 2. l . 7 'Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, Report (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1929). / 26 hearings in various cities, copies of submissions which were made to the Commission, newspaper reports, general correspondence, and resolutions from representative organi- kft zations. A master’s thesis on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by D. B. Sumner and an unpublished manuscript on Canadian radio during the period 1920-191 +0 by Albert A. Shea also provided valuable background information, as did Appendix II of the Report of the Royal Commission on Broadcasting (1957) which gave a brief history of Canadian L.O broadcasting. 7 A recorded interview with C. A. Bowman, one of the Royal Commissioners in 1929? provided valuable 50 insights into the workings of the Commission. Bowman was interviewed by Alan Thomas on February 18, I960, and a copy of the tape was deposited in the Special Collections Division of the University of British Columbia Library. Three journal articles by Graham Spry, co-founder of 51 the Canadian Radio League, were studied. "A Case for ^Public Archives of Canada, Ottawa. Files of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, 1929* L lQ 7D. B. Sumner, "The Canadian Broadcasting Corpora tion" (unpublished Master’s thesis, Queen's University, Canada, 191 +9)> Albert A. Shea, "Broadcasting in Canadas 1920-191 +0" (unpublished manuscript, CORE Research, Montreal) Royal Commission on Broadcasting, Report (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1957), pp. 297-306. 50 7 Statement by Charles A. Bowman, loc. cit. 51 Graham Spry, "A Case for Nationalized Broadcast ing," Queen's Quarterly. 33:l5l-l69, Winter, 1931; Graham Spry and R. W. Ashcroft, "Should Radio Be Nationalized in 27 Nationalized Broadcasting" and "The Canadian Broadcasting Issue" were published in 1931; "Radio Broadcasting and Aspects of Canadian-American Relations" appeared in 1936. The Reports of the Royal Commissions on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences (1951) and on Broadcasting (1957) provided material for an understanding 52 of broadcasting conditions in the 1950's. The files of both Commissions were preserved in the Public Archives of Canada; they comprised thirty-one volumes of evidence and 53 twenty-two volumes of evidence respectively. Special attention was given to the submissions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and the Canadian Radio and Television League. New sources of data were uncovered through personal interviews. S. A. Corbett, former Director of the Canadian Association for Adult Education, Toronto, and a member of Canada?" Saturday Night, January 2b, 1931; Graham Spry, 'Radio Broadcasting and Aspects of Canadian-American Rela tions," in W. W. McLaren, A. B. Corey, R. G. Trotter (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Canadian-American Affairs Held at St. Lawrence University % June 17-22. 1935 (New York: Ginn & Company, 193&), pp. 106-119. 52 'Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, Report (Ottawa: King’s Printer, 1951); Royal Commission on Broadcasting, Report (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1957). ^Public Archives of Canada, Ottawa. Piles of the Royal Commissions on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences and on Broadcasting. the old Canadian Radio League, provided information on the Radio League and on the later organization, the Canadian 5 * + Radio and Television League, which he founded in 1955. Albert A. Shea of CORE Research, a broadcasting research organization in Montreal, provided a copy of an unpublished manuscript on Canadian radio in which reference was made to 55 several chapters of Charlesworth’s ’ ' I’m Telling You." Rather St. Denis, in addition to directing the researcher to Mrs. H. A. Dyde, also informed him that David Kirk was the acting chairman of the Ottawa Executive of the Canadian Broadcasting League. Subsequently an interview was arranged with Kirk who allowed the files of the Broadcast ing League to be examined and outlined the plans and activ- / 56 ities of the League for the summer and fall of 1962. As the investigation proceeded it became evident that the leaders of the Radio League desired to incorporate many features of the British broadcasting system into the one which they advocated for Canada. Hence two books on the British Broadcasting Corporation were added to the ^Statement by E. A. Corbett, personal interview at the Office of the Canadian Association for Adult Education, Toronto, September 11, 1962. 55Albert A. Shea, "Broadcasting in Canada: 1920- 19^0," op. cit. ^Eiles of the Canadian Broadcasting League: Office of the Chairman, Ottawa Executive, Canadian Broadcasting League, 111 Sparks St., Ottawa, Canada. 29 source materials for the study, Briggs’ "The Birth of Broadcasting1 1 (1961) and "Sound and Television Broadcasting in the United Kingdom" (I960) . ' * ' 7 Organization and interpretation of the data. During the first reading of the source materials, extracts were made of relevant material which filled five standard note books of approximately 100 pages each. In addition, approximately 1000 photostat copies were obtained of perti nent materials in the Plaunt Papers and in the files of the Royal Commissions on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences and on Broadcasting. These data were then separated and classified on the basis of the following divisions of time: 1. Radio conditions in the 1920’s. 2. The Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, 1928-1929. 3. The founding of the Canadian Radio League and its organizational phase, 1930-1931. *+. Initial policies and programs of the League, 1931. 5. League activity while radio jurisdiction was cn 'rkaa Briggs, The Birth of Broadcasting (London: Oxford University Press, 1961); Sound and Television Broad casting Services in the United Kingdom (Toronto: tJnited Kingdom Information Service, I960). 30 referred to the courts, 1931_1932. 6. The League and the Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, 1932. 7. Program of the League from 1932-1936. 8. Subsequent efforts to revive the League in 1951 * - and in 1958. Within each unit of time the materials were further separated and treated under thematic headings in the belief that this would facilitate a detailed comparison between the policies and objectives of the League, the policies and objectives of the opponents of the League, and subsequent broadcasting legislation. Every attempt was made to dis cover and elucidate fairly the developing positions of both the opponents of the League and of the League itself. Causal relationships which might be found to exist between League policies and subsequent broadcasting legislation could thus be more easily identified. This procedure would also lessen the danger of positing the post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. VIII. CRITICISM OP THE DATA External criticism. Usual difficulties of estab lishing the authenticity of historical data and of estab lishing the meaning of what the data were intended to convey were small in this study. Alan Plaunt, the Honorary Secretary of the Canadian Radio League, majored in history while in university; a keen historical sense may be perceived in the way he pre served the records of the League's activities. A carbon copy of every letter which was sent from League headquar ters was preserved in the files along with all the corres pondence which the League received. Publications of the League, policy statements and memoranda, publicity releases, newspaper clippings, and financial accounts were carefully preserved. The investigation yielded no suggestion of fabricated or garbled documents; on the contrary, the iden tity of the various individuals was clearly established along with supporting statements which showed the consist ency of their views. In addition the provenance of the documents attested to their genuineness and established beyond a reasonable doubt their authenticity. Internal criticism. The credibility of the data was established by submitting them to a fourfold test which is demanded of all historical evidence. The leaders of the League were university graduates, they were disinterested commercially, and they believed firmly in the potential of radio as an instrument in nation-building. Not only were they able and willing to speak truthfully, but they wrote articles and booklets which received wide distribution and which clearly outlined the policies and programs of the League. When these public statements were compared with the material in the private correspondence files, a perfect consistency of policy emerged. Further corroboration was obtained by comparing these public and private statements of the League with the statements in League submissions to the Parliamentary Committees of 1932, 193*+» and 1936. CHAPTER II THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON RADIO BROADCASTING: 1928-1929 In the succeeding chapter it will he established that the Canadian Radio League was founded in October, 1930, thirteen months after the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting submitted its Report to the government. The League proposed to organize Canadian opinion in favor of a national broadcasting company along the lines which were recommended by the Royal Commission. Hence the study begins with the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting and S. considers in detail the work of the Commission. I. HISTORICAL SETTING In September, 1919» the Canadian Marconi Company in Montreal obtained the first broadcasting license in Canada and began experimental broadcasts in December of that year.^ The government transferred the licensing authority in 1922 D. B. Sumner, "The Canadian Broadcasting Corpora tion" (unpublished Master’s thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, 19^9)j p. 7; Royal Commission on Broadcasting, Report (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1957), p. 297. 33 3^ from the Department of the Naval Service to the Department of Marine and Fisheries; the new authority, in its first year of operation, issued thirty-four licenses to commer- o cial broadcasting interests. Two of the nine provinces, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, were without broad casting stations; in the remaining provinces New Brunswick had one station, Quebec six, Ontario eleven, Manitoba one, 3 Saskatchewan two, Alberta six, and British Columbia six. Ety far the greatest number of these stations was situated I I in the larger cities of each province. By 1927 the number ^Ibid. The Report stated that thirty-four licenses were issued in 1922 but in the itemized list named only thirty-three stations; Albert A. Shea, "Broadcasting in Canada: 1920-19^0M (draft manuscript, January, I960), p. 3> citing Weston Wrigley, "Early Canadian Broadcasxing Records," Annual Edition of Radio and Electrical Sales. 19^1-19m-2, p. 3 9. ihis source stated that "twenty licenses were issued during May, 1922, and thirteen more stations were licensed by the end of the year"; Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting,.-Report (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1929)? p. 26. The statistics printed in the Report, which were taken from the records of the Department of Fisheries and Marine, listed sixty-two commercial broadcasting licenses for fiscal year [April 1 through March 31] 1922-1923. This number included "16 phantom stations," defined as those "which own no physical equipment, but are allotted a dis tinctive call signal and are licensed to operate over sta tions having physical equipment." ^Royal Commission on Broadcasting, Report (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1957), pp. 297-298. ^Ibid.; Sumner, op. cit.. pp. 9-10; Royal Commission on Radio Sr'oadcasting, Report (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1929), P. 6. 35 of stations had more than doubled, all nine provinces had radio service, and the pattern of concentration in the 5 larger cities remained. Table I, page 3 6, contains offi cial data of the Department of Marine and Fisheries con cerning the numbers of broadcasting licenses in the years 1922-1929. Table II, page 37* contains official numbers of receiving set licenses at an annual cost of $1.00 each and shows that the number climbed from 9,99+ in 1922 to 296,926 in fiscal year 1928. As sound broadcasting developed, it brought with it new problems for the young nation. In the absence of any international broadcasting agreements, interference from United States and Mexican stations created havoc with Canadian receiving sets.^ In 1923 the United States, ignor ing the existence of Canadian broadcasting stations, had allocated every wave length in the band to its own sta- n tions. It was not until nine years later that a solution was found whereby the United States agreed that Canada should have the use of fifteen channels, seven of which g were to be exclusive. 5 Royal Commission on Broadcasting, loc. cit.; Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit.. pp.' 27-29. £ °Sumner, op. cit.. pp. 7-8; Royal Commission on Broadcasting, op. cit .. pp. 298-299. 7Ibid.. p. 298. 8Ibid.. pp. 298-299. 36 TABLE I CANADIAN BROADCASTING LICENSES, 1922-1929a Fiscal Year Private Commercial Amateur Total 1922-23 62 8 70 1923-2^ k6 22 68 1921+-25 63 17 80 1925-26 55 16 71 1926-27 73 23 96 1927-28 8^ 15 99 1928-29 12 21* 1929-30 78b 9 87 aStatistics from the Canadian Department of Marine and Fisheries, cited in the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, 1929* p. 26. ^This number includes sixteen licenses for "phantom" stations which were defined as "stations which own no physi cal equipment, but are allotted a distinctive call signal and are licensed to operate over stations having physical equipment TABLE II CANADIAN RECEIVING SET LICENSES, 1922-1928® 1922-23 1 9 2 3-2^ 192^-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 Northwest Territories Yukon British Columbia k 2,769 3 12 6,0^9 17 23 9 , W b6 31 1^,776 9*0 1*0 1 8 ,5 6 1 ill 23,^07 Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba 1,99^ 2,655 1,722 5,8^3 9,303 6,553 7,152 15,9^ 1^,503 10,588 2 2 ,2 3 8 18,005 1^,936 26,635 1 9 ,2 8 8 1^,957 27,358 2 0,^ 50 Ontario Quebec New Brunswick 11,677 9,250 h-30 ^1,3^7 1 8 ,2 1 1 l,2* f 0 6 0 ,1 1 0 2 1, 1^1 2 ,6 1 2 102,50^ 39,207 2 ,9 6 8 125,012 51,3^7 b]k?5 1^5,263 if9 751 6,285 Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island 970 138 2,772 163 3 ,2 8 8 202 *+,998 289 7 ,1 0 6 587 8,587 757 Total 9,95*+ 31,609 91,996 1 3 ^ ^ 8 6 215,650 268,055 2 9 6 ,9 2 6 Statistics from the Canadian Department of Marine and Fisheries, cited in the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, 1929, P. 27. 38 9 Program content was another source of irritation. Numerous complaints reached the Department of Marine and Fisheries on the quality and on the amount of advertising carried by Canadian stations, on the use of American record ings, and on the almost total lack of Canadian program ming.^ In addition stations in Montreal, Toronto, and Windsor served as outlets for American networks.^ Thought ful Canadians in all walks of life saw in this situation a 12 threat of "cultural annexation." Another cause for complaint was the concentration of commercial broadcasting stations in the cities, where advertising revenue could easily be found, with the result 1^ that vast rural areas of the country were without radio. J Regulation of program content was another matter of iL. concern. The Department of Marine and Fisheries had ^Sumner, op. cit.. p. 9» Royal Commission on Broad casting, op. cit.. p. 2 9 9. •^Sumner, loc. cit.: Royal Commission on Radio Broad casting, op. cit.. p. 6 ; Royal Commission on Broadcasting, loc. cit. Ushea, loc. cit. I p itoyal Commission on Broadcasting, loc. cit. ■^Sumner, op. cit.. pp. 9“10; Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, loc . cit.: Royal Commission on Broad casting, op. cit.. p. 298. "Of the total power of all sta tions in Canada in 1931 (3^,000 watts), approximately half was concentrated in the Montreal and Toronto areas." iL, Sumner, op. cit.. p. 9. 39 restricted direct broadcast advertising to the hours before 6 P.M., and in 1925* because of the continuing complaints, eliminated direct advertising altogether. ' This in turn brought forth the charge that the department was restrict ing freedom of speech.^ Meanwhile the railways had become interested in radio broadcasting. Sir Henry Thornton, President of the Canadian National Railways (CNR), saw in radio an opportun ity for the company to improve passenger service and to 17 secure widespread publicity. Consequently in 1923 he created the radio department of the Canadian National Rail- 18 ways. The company installed sets in the parlor cars of the line; by 1930 eighty coaches were so equipped.^ On July 1, 1927, the radio branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries arranged a nationwide broadcast for 20 the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation. 1^Ibid. l6Ibid. ■^Shea, op. oit.« p. 5, citing D'Arch Marsh, The Tragedy of Sir rienry fhomton (Toronto: n.n., 193?), Chapter 3. •^Ibid.. p. 7, citing G. W. Olive, "Radio Network Broadcasting in Canada," Electrical Digest (Toronto), March, 1936, p. 38. ^-9lbid.. p. 8 , citing G. W. Olive, "Experience of Carriers Whose Trains Are Equipped with Radio," Proceedings of the American Association of Passenger Traffic Officers (Seventy-fourth Annual Convention, Atlantic City, 1930), P. 121. PO Ibid.; Sumner, op. cit.. p. 8 . IfO The railway, telegraph, and telephone companies pooled their resources; twenty Canadian stations, using nineteen 21 thousand miles of wires, carried the program. The Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), unlike its com petitor, neither owned stations nor equipped its coaches with receiving sets. Instead it began sponsoring radio programs which it distributed over its own circuits to sta- 22 tions across the country. A network began to take shape in eastern Canada; by the end of 1927 stations in Moncton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Quebec were employing some chain broadcast- 2^ ing. In the following year stations in Halifax, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver joined pl+ the eastern network, making it continent-wide. The British Broadcasting Company. As the chorus of complaints regarding radio continued to mount, the Honorable Mackenzie L. King, the Canadian Prime Minister, in 1926 invited Charles A. Bowman, Editor of the Ottawa Citizen, to accompany him to London for the Imperial Conference which 25 lasted from October 19 through November 18. While in 21Ibld. 22Shea, op. cit.. p. 9. 2^Ibid.. pp. 8-9 . 2l f Ibid.. p. 9. 2^Statement by Charles A. Bowman in a recorded inter view with Alan Thomas at Nanaimo, British Columbia, hi London King and Bowman inspected the facilities of the British Broadcasting Company. A fellow Canadian, Major Gladstone Murray, Director of Publicity and Public Rela- 26 tions for the Company, was their guide. The Company was the sole broadcasting licensee in Great Britain. Then in its fourth year of operations, as of January 1, 1927, it would become the British Broadcast- 27 ing Corporation. Its national system of broadcasting stations had more than two million licensed receiving pQ sets. Control of broadcasting rested with the state 29 while the Company operated the broadcasting stations. The Company had a fixed share of revenue frcm licenses "which in 1 9 2 6, amounted to five hundred thousand pounds"; it operated on the basis of "public service rather than commercial exploitation."^ February 18, i9 6 0. The tape is filed in the Special Collec tions Section, University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver. The writer listened to the tape twice; he made notes the first time, then checked the accuracy of the notes while the tape was replayed. Statements from the interview which appear in the dissertation are based immediately on these personal notes. 26Ibid. 2?Asa Briggs, The Birth of Broadcasting (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 12$, l58. pQ ^°United Kingdom Information Service, Sound and Tele vision Broadcasting Services in the United Kingdom (London: Central Office of Information, September, I9 6 0), p. 2 . 2 9Ibid. 3°Briggs, on. cit.. p. 230. h2 Bowman arranged for Mr. King to broadcast; King 3 agreed on the condition that Bowman would write the talk. He was the first commonwealth premier to broadcast in Britain. He read his talk "without having seen it before- The vision and the achievements of the British Broadcasting Company impressed the Canadians greatly. After returning to Canada, Bowman gave serious thought to copy the British system, he did think that radio was devel oping improperly in Canada and that the country would have to find a new way to an adequate national broadcasting ser- , 3*+ vice. Bowman began a crusade for better radio with a series of articles in the Ottawa Citizen. He enlisted the support of several prominent Canadians, among whom were Charles A. Magrath; the Premier of Ontario, Howard Ferguson; and Harry and Fred Southam of the Southam Publishing Com- 3 5 pany. In a letter to his brother on May 11, 1928, Fred Southam commented: the correspondence between Messrs. Bowman, Magrath and Ferguson which you submit with your letter of hand •" 32 33 radio. Although he did not believe that Canada should Statement of Charles A. Bowman, loc. cit. ^^Ibid. 3l+Ibid. ^3 the 10th instant emphasizes another form of American propaganda which we, in Canada, are permitting largely by default, and Mr. Bowman does well to call attention to it. I am glad to note that Premier Ferguson is fully seized of the danger. I consider the matter of such importance that I am sending copies of the correspondence to the several newspaper executives, with the request that they give it consideration. Crisis in Canadian broadcasting. Events of 1928 forced the government's hand. The International Bible Stu dents Association, which was commonly known as the Jehovah's Witnesses, was the licensee of four stations, one each in 37 Saskatoon, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Toronto. Numerous complaints had reached the Department of Marine and Fish eries to the effect that the association "was pacifist, 38 unpatriotic, and that it attacked other denominations.'0 When the Minister, Mr. P. J. Cardin, refused to renew the licenses, "the uproar that ensued rather frightened offi- 39 cialdom but the cancellation stood." Cardin, one of the ■^Letter from Fred Southam to Harry Southam, May 11, 1928 (Bowman MSS in the Special Collections Section, Univer- sity of British Columbia Library, Vancouver). 37 Statement by Charles A. Bowman, loc. cit.; Sumner, op. cit.. p. 9. 38Ibid. ^Hector Oharlesworth, I'm Telling You (Toronto: Macmillan, 1937)? p. 59; Sumner, loc. cit. ¥f key men in the Cabinet, convinced the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet that a royal commission was needed. Cardin announced in the House of Commons that the government would appoint a royal commission to inquire into the radio situation in Canada and make suitable recommenda- *f0 tions. II. THE ROYAL COMMISSION The Commission was appointed under Order in Council P.C. 2108 of December 6, 1928. Its purposes were: to examine into the broadcasting situation in the Dominion of Canada and to make recommendations to the Government as to the future administration, management, control and financing thereof.1 The Order in Council suggested three acceptable courses: (a) the establishment of one or more groups of stations operated by private enterprise in receipt of a subsidy from the Government; (b) the estab lishment and operation of stations by a Government- owned and financed company; and (c) the establish ment and operation of stations by Provincial Gov ernments.4-2 The Commissioners. The government named as Chairman of the Commission Sir John Aird, President of the Canadian Lq Statement of Charles A. Bowman, loc. cit.; Sumner, loc. cit.. citing Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1928, pp. 3672, 3708. ^-Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit.. P. 5. ^ Ibid.. p. 6. ^5 Bank of Commerce. At the time of his appointment he was "about seventy years old, a charming, entertaining, and suave gentleman and a strong defender of the private enter' C. A. Bowman, Editor of the Ottawa Citizen. He believed that some type of public ownership was essential if Canada third member was Augustin Frigon, Director-General of Tech nical Education in the Province of Quebec. Bowman remem bered him later as "a very fine type of person, not too self assertive, and highly concerned about Quebec." Prom his experiences with the Quebec Provincial Hydro Commission Prigon saw the weaknesses in public ownership and thought politics would play the same role in the proposed company as they had in the Hydro Commission. Both Aird and Prigon opposed public ownership while Bowman alone favored I 4 .6 it. Donald Manson, Chief Inspector of radio for the Department of Marine, became Secretary of the Commission. He was "clever and a capable secretary but at the outset b7 cautious and opposed to public ownership." 1+3 prise system." The second member of the Commission was were to have a truly national broadcasting system The The work of the Commission. The Commissioners ^statement by Charles A. Bowman, loc. cit ^Ibid. decided to visit other countries before beginning the pub lic hearings in Canada. They would investigate how broad casting was conducted in each so as to have a basis of 1*8 comparison later for the Canadian hearings. Accordingly they arranged a tour which lasted almost four months in the *f9 period of January through April, 1929. Because the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was under attack by some persons in Canada, the Commission ers decided to begin the tour in America instead of 50 England. The National Broadcasting Company (NBC) in New York received the Commission very cordially, explained its system of operations, and showed the Commissioners the plans for future development of broadcasting in North 51 America, which of course included plans for Canada. While the Commission was in the United States, the Honorable Vincent Massey, first Canadian envoy to Washington, hosted 52 a luncheon at which Franklin Roosevelt was present. Roosevelt expressed the hope that "they would decide to rngke 53 radio government controlled and operated." 1+3 Ibid. 1+9ibid. ^°Ibid. 51Ibid. 5? 'Ibid. It is not clear from the interview whether the Commissioners were actually present at the luncheon or whether Vincent Massey reported to them the remarks of Franklin Roosevelt, at that time the Governor of New York State. 53Ibid. ^7 From New York the Commissioners proceeded to 5 1+ England. In London they had discussions with the Post master-General and with Sir John Reith, the Director-General 55 of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Sir John put every facility at the disposal of the Commissioners so that they might understand the organizational structure of the Corporation, its relationships with the government, its financial operations, and its concept of "public service broadcasting."'*8 The engineering feats of the Corporation impressed the Commissioners as being superior to the 57 American achievement. Before leaving England the Commis sion met with the Board of Governors of the BBC; at this time Sir John Aird, "very much impressed, began to lose his 58 preconceived prejudices." The Commission visited France next and discovered that private radio interests were in such disfavor that the government was about to recommend national ownership and 59 control. After visiting Paris they proceeded to Germany, 60 Holland, Belgium, and Ireland. Then they returned to Canada and began the public hearings in Victoria on April 17 , 1929.61 p. 18. A+Ibid. 5^Ibid. % Ibid. ^7Ibid. 58Ibid. ^9Ibid. 6QIbid. 8^Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit.. *+8 The Commission held public hearings in twenty-five cities, which included the capitals of the nine provinces, heard 16M- witnesses, and received 12*f statements from 6 2 individuals and organizations. In cities where preparatory committees had studied 63 radio the hearings were especially fruitful. Chicoutimi, for example, presented an excellent brief, much better according to Bowman, than did Toronto. In Toronto the Globe and Hail had not been able to obtain a license, while both of its competitors, the Toronto Star and Toronto Telegram, operated broadcasting stations. A delegation from the Globe and Mail appeared before the Commission, accused the Department of Marine of gross favoritism, and 65 requested that all restrictions on broadcasting be lifted. W. S. Campbell represented the Canadian Manufacturers* Association and declared that broadcasting should remain within the private enterprise system. Alex Marshall of the same association held that although a commission might con trol and coordinate broadcasting, private ownership of sta- 66 tions, with revenue from advertising, should be continued. 62Ibid.. pp. 18-23. 6 ^ ■^Statement of Charles A. Bowman, loc. cit. 6IfIbid. 6^Ibid. 66 Public Archives of Canada, Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, Vol. 1, No. 227-9-9. **9 W. T. Burford of the All-Canadian Congress of Labour argued that broadcasting was a monopoly and that it should be a public monopoly in which the government owned and operated all stations. He maintained that much of the broadcasting coming into Canada from the United States was, in essence, propaganda. He argued further that the listeners should c r t pay for the total cost of broadcasting. ' J. P. A. Mclsaac of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire, which had sixty thousand members in more than seven hundred Canadian branches, argued in favor of government owned, operated, 68 and controlled broadcasting stations in Canada. J. Arthur Dupont, director of radio for La Presse in Montreal, expressed the opposite view in a letter to the Commission. He advocated private ownership, limitation of the number of stations in the country, and the erection of 69 as many high powered stations as possible. The Canadian Pacific Railway sent a letter to the Commission in which it 70 advocated that broadcasting remain a private enterprise. The Engineering Institute of Canada had conducted a private poll among its members; it reported to the Commission that "one hundred forty-six members had voted for private 67Ibid.. No. 227-9-10. 68Ibid. 69Ibid.. No. 227-10-3 70Ibid., No. 227-10-6. 50 commercial stations with a government subsidy and that sixty had voted against it."7^ Mr. G. E. Ritchie of the Halifax County Radio Association appeared and argued in favor of "the establishment of a dominion wide system of high powered stations owned by the government and operated by 72 an independent commission." By June 20, 1929? the Commission had held sessions in twenty-three cities across Canada and had arrived in Charlottetown. On that occasion the (Charlottetown) Guardian said in part: An emphatic demand for more broadcasting from Canadian sources has been strongly evident in all centers where sittings were held. National radio broadcasting as a means of drawing the different provinces together has been a very noticeable yo feature of the tour through both east and west. While the tour was in progress the Commission had sought expressions of opinion from each of the nine provin cial governments. Seven of the provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, had subscribed to a common resolution which read as follows: . , , The Government of (province) is ready and willing to enter into negotiations with the Govern ment of Canada and the Governments of the various Canadian Provinces, with a view to the organization 71Ibid. 72Ibid., No. 227-12-5. 73Ibid., No. 227-13-1. 51 of radio broadcasting on a basis of public ser vice, by some method that may be mutually agreed upon by the said Governments. . . .7^ The statements of New Brunswick and Quebec contained reservations concerning the rights of the dominion govern ment in the field of broadcasting, Quebec maintaining that it did not intend "to waive its rights of jurisdiction which have been granted to it by the British North America Act and this in so far as radio broadcasting is con- 75 cemed." The Commission concluded the hearings in Ottawa on July 3, 1929. Then the Commissioners began to study the findings and to prepare the final report. Preparation of the Report, By July of 1929 Sir John Aird was definitely in favor of a nationally owned and operated broadcasting system and had become the "umpire 76 of the Commission." Bowman and Prigon spent the next few weeks working on separate drafts of a report. While the work was going forward, Aird informed them that he would 77 concur on the final draft if they could reach an agreement. O h . Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit.. pp. 2^-25. 75Ibid.« p. 25. ^Statement of Charles A. Bowman, loc. cit. 77Ibid. 52 Bowman wished to include the word Royal in the company's title; Brigon wished to eliminate the tremendous overhead rj O and was preoccupied with provincial rights. Bowman believed that the company should be organized as in Britain by Royal Charter, so as to avoid many of the constitutional difficulties which would crop up otherwise. He wished the new license fee to be $3 a year on the principle that people who were receiving the service should be paying for it, but the other Commissioners believed that the $3 fee was excessive. Bowman saw in the Board which was to be recommended by the Commission an alternative to a provin cial system of broadcasting. He believed that the private stations should be closed because one national company was 79 all Canada could afford. Bowman believed that the type of indirect advertising used by the CNR was acceptable; he opposed the sales talks which included the prices of go goods. He took the broadcasting of sales prices to be the wrong use of a national monopoly which should instead 8l be used in the public interest. He thought that broad cast attacks of one religious denomination upon another might be allowable elsewhere but certainly not through a 82 national monopoly. These then were the thoughts of one of the Commissioners as the report was being prepared. 78Ibid. 79Ibid. 80Ibid. 8lIbid. 82Ibid. 53 Bowman and Prigon finally submitted separate drafts. Donald Manson, the Commission’s Secretary, made a compila tion of both versions, which received Sir John Aird’s full approbation.^8 The Honorable Vincent Massey followed the proceed ings of the Commission from his legation desk in Washington 8*+ and was much in favor of what it intended to propose. Evidently the Commissioners intended to consult him on the final report before submitting it to the government, for in a letter of August 29 ? 1929 > Sir John Aird remarked that he had had "a conference with Vincent Massey and that it is O £ unlikely that we shall now go to Washington.'1 The printed version of the report was submitted to the government by the Commission on September 11, 1929. Analysis of the Report. The Report was a slim volume. Without its appendices it covered nine pages in all, of which the last two pages were a summary of the recommendations. After stating that the purpose of the inquiry was "to determine how radio broadcasting in Canada could be most effectively carried on in the interests of Canadian listeners and in the national interests of Canada," 83Ibid. 8t*Ibid. 8^Public Archives of Canada, op. cit.. No. 227-1*4—1. Letter from Sir John Aird to Donald Manson, August 29, 1929. and after indicating the organization of broadcasting in other countries, the Report stated that although witnesses had expressed greatly diverging opinions on Canadian broad casting, there was "unanimity on one fundamental question— 86 Canadian radio listeners want Canadian broadcasting." The Commission found that "lack of revenue [had] tended more and more to force too much advertising upon the listener" and recognized that, because of this lack of revenue, there was a pronounded tendency on the part of the commercial broadcasters to concentrate in urban areas, thus leaving vast rural sections of the country without radio services. The majority of the programs originated outside the country. On the view that "broadcasting will undoubt edly become a great force in fostering a national spirit and interpreting national citizenship," some witnesses had stated that the foreign origination of most programs was 87 not in the national interest. The Order in Council suggested three possibilities from which a solution might be sought, but the Commission concluded that no single category provided the desired 88 solution. Instead it recommended a modification of the second suggestion as being most suited to Canada, viz., OL ODRoyal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit.. PP. 5-6. ®^Ibid., p. 6. ^ Ibid. that broadcasting stations "should be owned and operated by one national company . . . vested with the full powers and authority of any private enterprise, its status and duties corresponding to those of a public utility."8^ The company would be called the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Company. The Board of the Company was to comprise twelve members, three more particularly representing the federal govem- 90 ment, and one from each of the provinces. A provincial radio broadcasting director was to be appointed in each province; he would have "full control of the programs broadcast" within that province and would be assisted by a 91 provincial advisory council on radio broadcasting. The proposed organization of the company drew the following comment from Sir John Reith, Director General of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to whom a copy of the Report was sent: Who is going to be in charge? Is it the chairman of the Board? Or do the Board appoint a chief executive? If so, how will he get on with the provincial directors who have to have full charge in their provinces? I do not see a real authority anywhere,^2 Having suggested vague lines of managerial authority, 89lbid.. pp. 6-7. 90Ibid.. p. 7. 91Ibid. 92Public Archives of Canada, op. cit.. No. 227-1^-1. Letter from Sir John Reith to Sir John Aird, n.d. 56 the Report recommended the establishment of seven (7) stations, each having an aerial input of say 50,000 watts; one station to be suitably located in each province except in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, where one station could be centraljhr located to serve these three provinces.^3 The existing commercial stations which provided maximum coverage in each area were to be expropriated and 9^ be operated by the company until new stations were built. All other stations "located or giving a duplication of ser- 95 vice in the same area should be closed down." The Report provided for compensation to station owners, although this 96 was not required by the terms of their licenses. The Report forecast that to build and equip seven stations approximately $3,000,000 would be required. Another $325,000 was earmarked for refitting the smaller supplementary stations which might be required in local areas. Operating costs were estimated to be approximately 97 $2,500,000 annually. The Report recommended three sources of revenue: (1) the license fee, which was to be increased from $1 annually to $3, would account for more than $900,000 a year; 93Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit.. pp. 7-8. ^ Ibid., p. 8. 95lbid. 9^Ibid. ^Ibid.. pp. 8-9. (2) the sale of programs employing indirect advertising would account for another $700,000 in the first year and more in later years; and (3) a subsidy from the government of $1,000,000 a year in the first five years would be renewable for another period of five years and would make 98 up the starting deficit. The Commission then reaffirmed its basic convictions We believe that broadcasting should be considered of such importance in promoting the unity of the nation that a subsidy by the Dominion Government should be regarded as an essential aid to the general advantage of Canada rather than as an expedient to meet any deficit in the cost of main tenance of the service. The Report outlined the general policies which should be followed in programming. It emphasized in particular the policies for chain broadcasting, for programs from other countries, for programs employing indirect advertis ing and for educational programs.'*'^ It recommended the elimination of statements which might cause religious con troversy and prohibited a speaker from attacking the lead ers or the doctrines of other religions.Political broadcasts were to be "carefully restricted" by an arrange ment whereby the parties would work out a shared broadcast- 102 ing time. 9^Ibid.. pp. 9-10. 100Ibid., pp. 10-11. 102Ibid. 99ibid.. p. 10. 10^Ibid., p. 11. The final section of the Report recommended that technical control remain with the radio branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and that this branch continue "to carry on the service to broadcast listeners, which includes the suppression of inductive interfer ence."103 III. REACTIONS TO THE REPORT Prime Minister Mackenzie King was pleased with the i OU work of the Commission and with the Report. He believed that it would be unwise to introduce the recommendations of the Report into the House of Commons at the next session because national elections were pending.10' * Parliament met in February, 1930; although there was discussion con cerning the appointment of an inter-party radio committee, the government took no action, and the committee was not • + ^ 1°6 appointed. On October 2, 1929 ? Donald Manson, the Commission's Secretary, reported in a memorandum these editorial 103Ibid., pp. 11-12. lO^Statement of Charles A. Bowman, loc. cit. 105Ibid. ■^^University 0f British Columbia Library; Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from J. L. Ilsley to Graham Spry, November 27, 1930. reactions of the preas: twenty-two newspapers were strongly in favor of the Report, four were against it, and 107 eleven were noncommittal. Table III, on page 60, lists the various newspapers and indicates the position which each adopted on the Report. Respite the collapse of the stock market in November of 1929 > the Commissioners continued to hope that the gov ernment would introduce the Report into the House of 108 Commons when the next session began. About this time the opponents of the Report, notably La Presse of Montreal, had begun to mount a full scale attack against its recom mendations.10^ The Montreal newspaper published a memo randum entitled "Aird Report menaces the trade and commerce of Canada" which was distributed across the country.110 Bowman decided to defend the Report by writing four edi torials which appeared under his name in the Southam news papers toward the end of December, 1929.' ^ 1 Public Archives of Canada, op. cit.. No. 227-1*+-!. Memorandum prepared by Donald Manson concerning editorial comment on Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broad casting, October 2, 1929. 1 oft Ibid. Letter from Donald Manson to Sir John Aird, December 3 0, 1929. 1Q9lbid. 110Ibid. 111Charles A. Bowman, "Radio Public Service for Canada— Some Objections Answered," Ottawa Citizen, December 27-28-30-31, 1929. 6o TABLE III SUMMARY OP EDITORIAL COMMENT (BY OCTOBER 2, 1929) ON THE REPORT OP THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON RADIO BROADCASTINGa Newspaper Location Political Affiliation Editorials "Strongly in Pavor" Daily Times Victoria, B. C. Liberal Daily Province Vancouver, B. C. Independent Daily News Nelson, B. C. Conservative Daily Herald Calgary, Alta. Ind. Conservative Tribune Winnipeg, Man. Independent Citizen Ottawa, Ont. Independent Telegram Toronto, Ont. Independent Journal Ottawa, Ont. Ind. Conservative Spectator Hamilton, Ont. Ind. Conservative Saturday Night Toronto, Ont. Independent Sun Times Owen Sound, Ont. Montreal, Que. Independent Gazette Conservative La Patrie Montreal, Que. Independent Le Devoir Montreal, Que. Independent Recorder & Times Brockville, Ont. Ind. Liberal Herald Prince Albert, Sask. Ind. Liberal Bulletin Edmonton, Alta. Independent Boarder Cities Star Windsor, Ont. Independent Tribune Winnipeg, Man. Independent Transcript Moncton, N. B. Ind. Liberal Leader Regina, Sask• Ind. Liberal Daily Intelligencer Belleville, Ont. (Conservative) 61 TABLE III (continued) Newspaper Location Political Affiliation Editorials "Against" Star La Presse Beaver Chronicle-Telegraph Montreal, Que. Montreal, Que. Toronto, Ont. Quebec, Que. Independent Independent Independent Independent Editorials "Noncommittal I f Colonist Manitoba Free Press Mail and Empire News Ontario Star-Phoenix Record Journal Canadian Observer Victoria, B. C. Winnipeg, Man. Toronto, Ont. Prince Rupert, B.C. Belleville, Ont. Saskatoon, Sask. Kitchener, Ont. Edmonton, Alta. Sarnia, Ont. Conservative Independent Conservative Ind. Liberal Liberal Independent Independent Ind. Conservative Independent aPublic Archives of Canada, Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, Vol. 1, No. 227-Ih—I. Bowman answers "La Presse/1 In the first editorial Bowman pointed out that the recommendations of the Commis sion were "in accordance with the expressed views of representative organizations and . . . many newspapers." He added that the opening paragraph of La Pressed memo randum was based on a class appeal whereas the Report had no such narrow motivation but looked to "the interests of Canadian listeners and the national interests of Canada." Not only did the Report not menace the Canadian radio industry, as La Presse charged; rather it was calculated to promote survival, of genuinely Canadian broadcasting. Dependence on American broadcasting sources was the rule under private enterprise. Contracts were being drawn up which would lead Canada into exactly the same condition of broadcasting as it had reached in the showing of American motion pictures. Bowman then considered the second statement of the memorandum, which he maintained was intended to alarm Canadian manufacturers and dealers. The memorandum argued that if the receiver license fee were raised to the demand for receivers would be lessened. Bowman replied that this was not the experience in other countries and cited statistics to support the point. He concluded by stating that the exact opposite of that which La Presse forecast would result, for, with an improved transmitting system, there would he a great increase in the demand for . . . 112 receiving sets. The second editorial considered advertising. While holding that the Commission would have preferred to elimi nate advertising altogether, he said that indirect adver tising had a place in Canadian broadcasting because it would help Canadian companies to compete with American firms. Advertising of the kinds employed by the CNR seemed to be winning favor in the country. After emphasizing the advertising in American broad casting, he stated that private commercial stations in Canada could not hope to compete with American stations, even with revenue from advertising, and that they would be unable to provide broadcasting worthy of Canada. The pro visions of the Report would eliminate competition in estab lishing and managing stations, but competition in the furnishing of entertainment would remain in the sponsorship of programs. The Commission’s proposals would assure the public and the advertisers of the best possible service with the most modem equipment In the third editorial Bowman answered several "misrepresentations in the La Presse memorandum.” The •^^Ibid., December 27, 1929. ■^■^Ibid., December 28, 1929. 6b Commission did not intend to copy any other broadcasting system, American or European; instead it sought a dis tinctly Canadian system. The proposed system would differ from the British system because programs would be sponsored by good will advertisers. The Report would not eliminate private enterprise but it would eliminate wasteful competi tion in the building and operation of stations, with the result that advertisers would be furnished with far better facilities than at present. He then cited statistics to answer misleading statements about the British Broadcasting Corporation. The editorial singled out the preoccupation of La Presse with the American system, adding that this preoccupation would lead Canada into the orbit of United States' broadcasting, just as Canada had come into that of the United States' motion picture industry. "The question to be decided by Canada is largely whether the Canadian people are to have Canadian independence in radio broad casting or to become dependent upon sources in the United States." Several large stations, he maintained, were draw ing up contracts which would align them with American broadcasting interests. The editorial concluded by stating that the only course lay in the implementation of the Com mission's recommendations, if Canada were to remain outside Ilk the orbit of American broadcasting. ll^Ibid., December 30, 1929. 65 The final editorial in the series summarized the main points which Bowman had made. It stressed again the amount of propaganda which was employed to misrepresent the issues and again drew attention to what the Commission took to be the main issue: On the surface, the issue may seem to be whether the radio service in Canada is to be under state ownership or privately owned. It is however, a far bigger question. The Canadian people have to decide whether Canada is to have an independent Canadian broadcasting system worthy of Canada or to become dependent upon United States stations for radio service, very much as this country has become dependent upon the United States for motion pictures. Bowman reviewed three points in the memorandum of La Presse: (1) the revenue for the system which was advo cated by the Report’s opponents simply did not exist in Canada; (2) it was a mistake to compare broadcasting and the press, as the opponents of the Report were doing, because broadcasting was "in effect a natural monopoly"; and (3) the building of more than one national broadcasting chain would be an extravagance which the country could ill afford, just as the building of more than one transconti nental railway was an extravagance earlier in the century. The series concluded with a reminder of the expressed wish of many Canadians: Perhaps the Canadian public would be quite well satisfied to become dependent upon the United States for radio entertainment. The largest Canadian stations have already commenced to act as the broadcasting agencies for United States 66 radio interests. The Royal Commission, under the Chairmanship of Sir John Aird, has taken the view, however, that the Canadian people really want independent Canadian broadcasting of the highest standard. At every public session held throughout the country, the Commission heard this desire for more Canadian broadcasting expressed. The desired service in the interests of Canadian listeners and in the national interest of Canada can be assured only by cooperative national effort along the lines recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission. Opposition to the Report begins to grow. Five months after the Report was published, the radio branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries had received only fifty-three letters "objecting to the provisions of the radio commission’s suggestions being placed into effect: three from Alberta, thirty-nine with fifty-nine signatures from Saskatchewan, nine from Ontario, and two from Quebec."^^ Opposition to the recommendations of the Report grew in the ensuing months. On March 28, 1930, Manson wrote: The more or less violent agitators against the Commission’s Report are La Presse. Montreal, London Free Press. London. Telegram, Toronto, Calgary AlbertanT Calgary, flhe Glo^e, Toronto, which I noticed the other day came out n ^IMd., December 31, 1929. l-^Public Archives of Canada, loc. cit. Letter from Donald Manson to Augustin Frigon, February 15, 1930. 67 definitely against the Commission’s Report in its editorial columns.11< A week later he wrote to Sir John Aird: I think that one of the strongest arguments against private ownership is that it will mean eventual control of the air hy the powerful United States companies and, as you suggest, it would he one of the most serious things that could he imagined ... to all right thinking of this country there is no douht in my mind hut that it is one of the strongest arguments that can possibly be found. ... I have just completed for the minister a report giving an answer to the general criticism of the Report which has appeared in the press. ... I noticed in the press the views expressed hy Mr. E. W. Beatty of the CPR, a copy of which you enclosed with your letter of the 1st instant. He undoubtedly means that broadcast ing should be carried on by private corpora tions. As you suggest, it would be a question of survival of the fittest and many of the present owners of broadcasting stations would, probably, find themselves out of business.1- 1 -® By the beginning of May, the radio branch of the Department of Marine had received twenty-two thousand 019 petitions which opposed the recommendations of the Report. An analysis of the petitions showed that eleven thousand were coupons which were printed in La Presse; the remaining eleven thousand were letters of protest to La Presse 117 Ibid. Letter from Donald Manson to Sir John Aird, March 2 8, 193^• " 1 * 1 Q - LJ-°Ibid. Letter from Donald Manson to Sir John Aird, April 3, 19307 -^9lt)id. Letter from Donald Manson to Sir John Aird, May 2, 1930. 68 against the "so-called nationalization" by persons compet ing in an essay contest for which La Presse offered prizes 120 totaling three hundred dollars. The recommendations of the Report concerning the suppression of private commercial stations did not appear to have dampened the enthusiasm of prospective broadcasters, for on May 17 Manson reported that "we have something over two hundred applications for broadcasting stations on file."121 The Listeners* Group. Meanwhile Bowman began to rally active support for the recommendations of the Report. In the spring of 1930 he organized a Listeners' Group in Ottawa and attempted to start a western branch in Alberta under the leadership of Norman Smith, editor of the United 122 Farmers of Alberta newspaper. The Ottawa group were mainly civil servants who operated approximately six months until the founding of the Canadian Radio League.^23 The western group did not go beyond the preliminary stages of organization in which Smith successfully enlisted the 120Ibid. l21Ibid. 122 University of British Columbia Library, op. cit Letter from Graham Spry to Norman Smith, October 13, 1930; Letter from Norman Smith to Graham Spry, October 20, 1930; Letter from Graham Spry to Norman Smith, November 7, 1930. 123 Ibid. 69 support of Leigh Spencer of the Calgary Herald; Hugh Farthing, who a few months later became a member of the Legislature; and several other prominent residents of the 12*f province of Alberta. On July 30, 1930? the Zing government was defeated in the national elections. Conservatives under the leader ship of R. B. Bennett, took office. Faced with the prob lems created by the economic depression, the new government had little interest in radio. The Report of the Aird Com mission, for the time being at least, was quietly for- 125 gotten, IV. SUMMARY The advent of radio created new problems for Canada. Interference from American and Mexican stations played havoc with Canadian receiving sets; broadcasters tended to build stations in the larger metropolitan centers, leaving vast rural sections of the country without radio; programs were mainly of American recordings; the three largest Canadian stations were in the process of affiliating with American broadcasting networks; the quality of radio adver tisements and their number were objectionable to many 12lfIbid. 'Ibid. Letter from Graham Spry to J. W. Lafoe, October 13, 1930. 70 listeners; and finally, attempts to regulate the content of broadcasting drew unfavorable criticism and the charge that freedom of speech was being infringed. As dissatisfaction with radio continued to grow, the government in 1928 announced the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into radio broadcasting in Canada. The Commissioners visited broadcasting organizations in America and in Europe, held public sessions in twenty- five Canadian cities, and after ten months of intensive investigation submitted their Report to the government on September 11, 1929. On the grounds of national policy, finance, and popular demand the Report recommended the establishment of a nationally owned and operated broadcasting company. Reaction to the Report in the government, the press, and the public was with several notable exceptions favor able. The Montreal La Presse. which owned a powerful radio station in the Canadian metropolis, launched an attack against the recommendations of the Report and published a memorandum which it distributed to newspapers across Canada. Charles A. Bowman, who was a member of the Aird Com mission, answered the charges of La Presse in four signed editorials which appeared in the Southam newspapers at the end of December, 1929. His concern with radio broadcasting in Canada pre-dated his appointment to the Royal Commission 71 by two years; he was instrumental in enlisting the support of prominent Canadians for a national broadcasting system. Seven months after the government received the Aird Report, the ranks of the opposition had grown to include five important daily newspapers. A contest that was spon sored by La Presse in Montreal elicited twenty-two thousand signatures which were opposed to the recommendations of the Report. In spite of the recommendations of the Report, the radio branch of the Department of Marine continued to receive applications for broadcasting licenses; it had more than two hundred applications on file on May 17, 1930. In the spring of 1930 Bowman attempted to rally active support for the recommendations of the Report by organizing a Listeners' Group in Ottawa and by beginning to form a similar group in Alberta, under the leadership of Norman Smith. The Conservatives defeated the King Govern ment at the polls on July 30, 1930, and the debate on radio Broadcasting, at least temporarily, was quietly put aside. CHAPTER III THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE: ORGANIZATIONAL PHASE An attitude of laissez-faire in the government continued into the fall of 1930. Then a new organization appeared and began to enlist support for the adoption of the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting (the AIRD Commission). The organization called itself the Canadian Radio League. I. POUNDING OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE The League had its beginnings in the chance acquaint anceship of two young Canadians, Graham Spry and Alan Butterworth Plaunt, who met in Ottawa in the late summer of 1930.^ Spry was thirty years old, had taken his Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Manitoba, where he was a student from 1919 to 1922, and had then proceeded as a University of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 26. "Notebook of Alan B. Plaunt," p. 8. The Notebook is not paginated. A page number was assigned by the writer to each page on which there was writing. All references to the Notebook in the dissertation will follow this system of pagination. The first page of the Notebook is dated May 2k, 1932. 72 Rhodes scholar to University College, Oxford, where he p graduated with a Master's degree in 192*+. After leaving Oxford he joined the staff of the International Labor ■ 3 Office, Geneva, and returned to Canada in 1926. He became National Secretary of the Association of Canadian Clubs, remaining with the Association until 1932. He had been interested in radio for several years and suggested it as a 5 topic of discussion for meetings of the Association. When he first met Spry Plaunt was twenty-six years old, had graduated from University College, Toronto, in 1927 with a Bachelor of Arts degree and from Christ Church, Oxford, in 1929 with an Honors degree in history. After graduation he took a world cruise and, as a member of the Canadian Institute, attended the third international con ference of the Institute of Pacific Relations at Kyoto, Japan, which lasted from October 18 through November 8, 7 1929. He returned to Ottawa in the summer of 1930, began ^"Who's Who" (London: Macmillan, i9 6 0), p. 28^6. 3Ibid. ^Ibid. £ ^Plaunt Papers, loc. cit. University of British Columbia Libraiy: Special Collections Division. A r^sum^ has been prepared by the Library which catalogues the contents of the Plaunt Papers. Vide Appendix A. ^Plaunt Papers, loc. cit.; Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to E. J. Tarr, November l5, 1930. working for Charles A. Bowman, editor of the Ottawa Citizen. and daily "became more interested in the Aird Report and in o Canadian broadcasting. Plaunt recalled, twenty months after the event, that "the League began * in vino1 at Henri's Cafe, Hull, Quebec, in early October, 1930," where Plaunt and Spry were passing Q an evening. The discussion turned to radio and Plaunt remembered the conversation as follows: ABP — Spry, what do you think of the broadcasting situation in Canada? GS — Damn bad. ABP — What, I wonder, can be done to bring about an improvement? (some discussion) GS — Let's form a League. ABP — How do you mean, a League? GS — It's very simple. You get a number of people interested, you form a League for the advancement or such and such an interest, and that's all there is to it. ABP — That certainly is worth considering. Let's talk about it again.- * - 0 They met the following Sunday evening, October 5, 1930, at Plaunt's home and decided to found a League.^1 They agreed to study radio broadcasting and then later 12 adopt a policy. Both initially and in the subsequent months Graham Spry conceived most of "the master strokes of strategy"; he and Plaunt shared responsibility for the exe cution of the plans; Plaunt took the additional ®Pla.unt Papers, Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p8 9lbid.. pp. 7~8. -^Ibid., pp. 9-10. 11Ibid.. p. 10. I2Ibid.. pp. 10-11. 75 responsibility of "securing the support of individuals, organizations, newspapers and of acting as secretary- general . "^3 Preliminary organization. In a letter dated October 6, 1930? Spry outlined the plans for the tentative 1*+ League. It would "protect Canada from a radio system 15 like that of the United States." It would accomplish this objective through "resolutions, delegations to the Cabinet, articles in the press, and a highly reputable honorary executive, with a small executive committee of l6 younger people who would do most of the work." Plaunt would devote full time to the League as Honorary Secretary 17 and would finance it temporarily. The League would need approximately one thousand dollars for expenses; Spry and Plaunt had drawn up a list of prospective donors, hoping that ten prospects would contribute one hundred dollars 18 each. The support of the press was essential and he and Plaunt expected that the Southam and the Sifton Companies would provide that support.^ Finally, the League proposed 13Ibid., pp. 6-7. 1 l x Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, October 6, 1930. 1^Ibid. l6Ibid. l7Ibid. l8Ibid. 1^Ibid. 76 to operate without publicity until it was actually in 20 existence and an accomplished fact. The letter began with the slogan: "Britannia rules the waves— shall Columbia rule the wave-lengths?" and concluded with a second 21 slogan: "The Maple Leaf Forever." Spry was explicit on the purpose of the proposed League in a cablegram of the same date to Lindsay Wellington of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).22 The League intended "to urge the nationalization of Canadian radio and the implementation of the Aird Report.He was still more explicit in a letter dated October 13, 1930, in which he advanced two reasons for the creation of the League: (1) it would support the general principle of the Aird Report on radio broadcasting; and (2) it would fore stall, if possible, the granting of licenses to private companies before the Cabinet decided what action the gov- 2h emient should take on broadcasting. As a step towards the attainment of the second of these objectives, he wrote to W. D. Herridge, a member of 2QIbid. 2- * - Ibid. 22Ibid., Cablegram from Graham Spry to Lindsay Wellington, October 6, 1930. oL. Ibid.. Letter from Graham Spry to J. W. Dafoe, October 1I7T930. 77 the Canadian delegation which had accompanied Prime Minis ter Bennett to the Imperial Conference in London, with the request "that he attempt to interest Mr. Bennett in the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation."2^ The letter announced the founding of the League by "a group representing no one but ourselves, and scrupulously avoid- ing party lines." It sketched the plans for the League and listed the newspapers and organizations which had sup- 27 ported the "general principle of the Aird Report." Spry 28 then described radio broadcasting. He stated that "the American system was a 3olely commercial scheme without the admirable educational aspects of the broadcasting system in 29 European countries." Canadian stations were becoming "more and more allied to the American system, with its 30 American ideals, advertising and cheap programmes." In broadcasting power and financial resources Canadian sta tions simply could not compete with American ones. The majority of stations in Canada were smaller than 500 watts in power and relayed American programs or provided adver tising "sugared with gramaphone records." As of September 11, 1929? there were only four stations in 2^Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to W. D. Herridge, October l57"l930. 26Ibid. 27Ibid. 28Ibid. 29Ibid. 3°Ibid. 78 Canada of at least 500 watts while American stations had good coverage throughout the dominion. Whether the examination of the situation he thorough or cursory, the inevitable and palpable conclusion is that Canada is falling increasingly under American radio influences. To stop that increase is a sufficient objective, but to create a radio broadcasting system which can draw the different parts of Canada together, which can use the air not only for indirect advertising but more essen tially for educational and public purposes, is one, I am sure, in which the Prime Minister will be instantly interested. If he is not already inter ested, would you not, considering the importance to Canadian development of preserving the Canadian air for Canadians, assist to the extent of interesting Mr. Bennett in this subject.31 Two weeks later he wrote to Dr. H. M. Tory, who was 32 a member of the Canadian delegation. As in his letter to Herridge, Spry requested Dr. Tory to interest the Prime Minister in Canadian radio broadcasting.^ He mentioned that the League was forming an influential executive com mittee and that "assurance of ample press support from the Sifton press, the Southam press and Maclean's publications 3*+ has been secured." Spry achieved the second objective of the League almost immediately, for in the week of October 27, 1930, 31Ibid. 3^Ibid.« Letter from Graham Spry to Dr. H. M. Tory, October 29, 1930. 33Ibid. 3l+Ibid. 79 Mr, Bennett cabled from London that "under no circumstances 35 were any licenses to be granted at the present time," II. FIRST PROMOTIONAL PAMPHLET OF THE LEAGUE For several weeks after the meeting of October 5, 1930, Plaunt studied radio.^ He obtained access to the files of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting and to 37 the personal files of Mr. Bowman, Then he studied news paper comments on the Report of the Commission and techni cal journals.8^ Having completed his study of these docu ments, he began work on a promotional pamphlet for the 39 League, finishing the draft version by the end of October. The pamphlet was nine pages in length; it contained seven main sections and was entitled "Canadian Radio for IfO Canadians— The Canadian Radio League." Contents of the pamphlet. The pamphlet contained a one-paragraph summary of current conditions; 3 H Ibid.« Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Professor Wrong, November *+, 1930. 38Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 12. 37Ibid. 38Ibid. 3^Ibid.. p. 13. ^ Ibid., Box 22. The Canadian Radio League. October, 1930. 80 There is grave danger that unless the public spirit and practical sense of Canadians is organized in favour of radio broadcasting as a public service Sir John Aird’s able and compre hensive plan will be shelved and a few companies with strong American affiliations will get vir tual control of radio broadcasting in Canada. If this happens a tremendous potential instrument of national culture and general business strength will slip into the hands of & small commercial group The second section contained a description of results of Canadian radio under private enterprise and six reasons why the competitive system had failed to give Canadians quality radio service! (1) Canadian owners lacked the money to erect high-powered stations and thus were unable to compete with powerful American stations; (2) dependence on advertising provided comparatively small markets, and this disadvantage was aggravated by the expen diture of capital for expensive duplication of stations; (3) the retention of the competitive system could result in the "duplication of stations on a huge scale through the competition of the two railways"; (*+) countless areas in the country "outside the radius of large centres" were deprived of Canadian radio and had to rely on American broadcasts "almost exclusively"; (5) the indirect cost of radio (estimated at $20.00 annually) to the American con sumer was too great when compared to the direct cost under lflIbid., p. 1. 81 a "state-owned system"; (6) existing stations were unable to provide an adequate coast-to-coast system "for relaying continental and British programmes." The Canadian National Railways, the principal national advertiser, was able to In the third section Plaunt maintained that Canadian stations were depending almost completely on American sta tions for relay broadcasts and that the three largest Canadian stations had affiliated with American networks. He maintained further that four-fifths of "the radio lis tened to in Canada comes from American sources" and although much of it was of high quality, "much is definitely calcu lated to undermine the confidence of the Canadian people in Canadian national ideals and institutions." J Moreover, Canadian business was "losing tremendously from this American domination of the Canadian advertising field, because Canadian owners, not being able to afford high- power stations, were not in a position to compete."^ Many Canadian stations were operating at a loss "while U. S. advertisers dump programs at low rates through their relay k5 stations in Canada." provide only one hour a day of coast-to-coast broadcasts. b2 k2 Ibid.. pp. 1-2 ^ Ibid.. pp. 2-3 kh Ibid., p. 3. 82 Plaunt then offered six reasons why "Broadcasting should he a Canadian National Institution": (1) Because a limited number of wave-lengths made duplication wasteful; (2) because private enterprise, even private monopoly, could not afford a national system "without linking up with American advertising interests"; (3) because broadcasting was a "potent instrument of national culture, entertainment and education"; ( k - ) because private enterprise was more interested in selling than in creating, and consequently, was not primarily concerned with "the development of Canadian national ideals, taste, or education"; (5) because Canadian business should have "the opportunity to broadcast without the huge expense of erecting its own stations"; and (6) because the possibility of developments in the future, "notably in television, was too vast to be left to the hazard of passing into the hands of private controllers k6 in a foreign country." As a corollary to the reasons why "Broadcasting Should Be a Canadian National Institution," Plaunt enumer ated six advantages "of a national system of radio owner ship and control": (1) it would act as an instrument of national unity by airing national broadcasts and by bring ing about an exchange of programs between provinces and 1+6Ibid., pp. 3-lf. 83 regions; (2) it would provide a new instrument “for Imperial and international cooperation"; (3) it would help the Canadian farmer, housekeeper, and fisherman hy provid ing "information of practical value"; (*+) it would provide a potent new aid to education by increasing the number of school broadcasts; (5) it would help to raise the "level of public entertainment" and make possible programs of a dis tinctly Canadian character; and (6) it would be an asset 1*7 to Canadian national advertisers. Section six of the pamphlet contained a summary of the recommendations of the Aird Report. A new national company, "vested with the powers of a private enterprise and the functions of a public utility," would own and operate all stations. A provincial director and an advis ory council would fully control all provincial programs. The company would erect enough high-powered stations, sup plemented by local stations, to "cover the whole settled area" of the country. A suggested license fee of S3.00 annually would raise approximately $900,000, indirect advertising would account for approximately $700,000, and a government subsidy would account for the remainder of the estimated annual operating budget of $2,500,000. Canadian business would have adequate time to sponsor ^Ibid.. pp. k-5. 8k programs "on a good-will basis." The Company would also set aside adequate time for educational broadcasting. The Company would provide "every facility" for chain broad casts, would prohibit attacks on the leaders or doctrines of religious denominations, and would restrict political 1+8 broadcasting "by an agreement made between the parties." Plaunt foresaw three main objections to the recom mendations of the Report and attempted to forestall them 1+9 through a brief note. The Aird recommendations, if implemented, would not interfere with provincial rights or minority rights; the fees from licenses (projected at 1,000,000) eventually would meet the entire operating costs; and the element of competition would remain in that "good-will" advertisers could sponsor programs through the 50 national system. The pamphlet contained a list of newspapers which gave editorial support to the plan "to put broadcasting on 51 public services basis." The data are in Table IV on page 85. A comparison of the data in Table IV with those in Table III, page 60, shows that only one newspaper from the "strongly in favor" category, was dropped, viz., the * + 8Ibid.. pp. 5-7. 5°Ibid. ^Ibid.. p. 7. ^Ibid., pp. 8-9 85 TABLE IV LIST OP "SOME CANADIAN NEWSPAPERS GIVING EDITORIAL SUPPORT TO PLAN TO PUT BROADCASTING ON PUBLIC SERVICE BASIS"a Alberta ^Calgary "Herald" ........................... (Ind. Con.) Edmonton "Bulletin" ........................ (Ind.) Red Deer "Advocate".......................(Ind.) Lethbridge "Herald" .... ................ (ind.) Peace River "Record" ....................... (Ind.) British Columbia Victoria "Times" ............. . (Lib.) ^Vancouver "Province" ..................... . (Ind.) Nelson "News" ..... .................... (Con.) Vancouver "Microphone" ..................... (Ind.) Manitoba Winnipeg "Tribune" .......................... (Ind.) Manitoba "Pree Press" ..................... (ind.) New Brunswick Moncton "Transcript" ....................... (Ind. Lib.) Ontario Ottawa "Citizen" ........................... (Ind.) Ottawa "Journal"..........................(Ind. Con.) ^Hamilton "Spectator" ....................... (Ind. Con.) Owen Sound "Sun Times" ..................... (Ind.) Brockville "Recorder and Times" ........... (Ind. Lib.) Windsor "Border Cities Star" ............... (Ind.) Belleville "Intelligencer" ................. (Con.) Hamilton "Herald" ......................... (Ind.) "Canadian Congress Journal" Ottawa ......... (Ind.) Toronto "Legionary" ....................... (Ind.) Toronto "Saturday Night" ................... (Ind.) Hamilton "Labour News" ..................... (Lab.) Belleville "Ontario" .. ................... (Lib.) ^Toronto "Star" ........................... • (Ind. Lib.) Toronto "Radio News of Canada" ............. (Radio) 86 TABLE IV (continued) Quebec Montreal "Gazette" ......................... (Con.) Montreal "La Patrie" ....................... (Lad.) Montreal "Le Devoir" ....................... (Ind.) Granby "Leader-Mail" ....................... (Ind.) b Quebec "Le Soleil" ......................... (Lib.) Saskatchewan Prince Albert "Herald" ..................... (Ind.) Saskatoon "Western Producer" ......... (Agric.) Regina "Leader" ........................... (Ind. Lib.) aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22. The Canadian Radio League, October, 1930, pp. 8-9. Broadcasting station owners. 87 52 Toronto Telegram, and that fifteen newspapers were added. In addition the new list showed that five newspapers were 53 owned in common with broadcasting stations. The pamphlet contained a list of fifteen organiza- 5L tions and five radio clubs which favored the Aird plan. These data are in Table V, page 88, Excepting the National Council of Education, each of the organizations had sent representatives to the public hearings of the Aird Commis- 55 sion or had submitted written views to the Commission. The pamphlet ended with a statement that all the provinces had given written testimony "indicating their willingness to cooperate"; but the note did not mention the reservations of the Provinces of New Brunswick and of Quebec.^ Most of the pamphlet was a compilation of the ideas and recommendations of the Aird Report and of the Bowman editorials, which were presented in Chapter II. It differed from these source materials in two ways: (1) whereas the Report specified seven high-powered sta tions and as many supplementary stations as might be required, the pamphlet mentioned only sufficient stations 52Ibid. 53Ibid., p. 9 ^ Ibid. 55 "Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, Report (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1929)» pp. 18-23. ^Ibid., pp. 2^-25; vide. p. 5l. 88 TABLE V "SOME OP THE CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS FAVOURING THE [AIRD] PLAN"a Royal Society of Canada Association d'Education des Canadiens-Pran^ais de St, Boniface French Canadian Association of Alherta Universities' Conference Professional Institute of the Civil Service National Council of Education Canadian Legion of the B. E. S. L. Federated Women's Institutes of Canada Girl Guides* Association Knights of Pythias (Quebec) Listener's Clubs and Associations of— Victoria, Vancouver, Port Arthur, Quebec, Halifax, etc., etc. United Farmers of Canada (Sask. Section) United Farmers of Alta. Independent Labour Party of Alta. Canadian Congress of Labour Dominion Trades and Labour Council aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22. The Canadian Radio League. October, 1930, p. 9. 89 "to cover the whole settled area of the country"; (2) the pamphlet introduced the concept of "U. S. advertisers dump ing programs at low rates in Canada through their relay stations" hut offered no explanation of the statement. III. THE LEAGUE BECOMES A REALITY By the end of October, 1930, the League had a policy statement and a promotional pamphlet which presented the arguments for a national broadcasting service along the "lines of the Aird Report." It remained for Spry and Plaunt to begin the work of founding the League. They thought that four elements were absolutely necessary to the projected League: (1) an honorary executive, whose members would represent the various elements in the Dominion, and particularly the press; (2) an "active" executive of younger people who would "raise the question into public attention" and do most of the work; (3) "a steady stream of resolutions from organizations which had favored the Aird plan and which, it was hoped, would support the platform of the League"; and (*f) the active support of the "favorable 57 press." The honorary executive would have five honorary presidents and an indeterminate number of honorary 5^Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to J. W. Dafoe, October 13, 1930; also Letter from Graham Spry to Norman Smith, October 13, 1930. 90 vice-presidents, the latter group to be drawn from the ranks of university presidents and other educational insti- 58 tutions. The "active*1 executive. Spry and Plaunt turned their attention first to the creation of the active execu tive, recruiting members from the Canadian Institute and 59 the Canadian Club movement. Within days after they decided to form a League, they had acceptances from Margaret Southam, Violet Lafleur", J. Mclssaac, Father St. Denis, and K. A. Greene in Ottawa, Brooke Claxton and George Pelletier in Montreal, Norman Smith in Calgary, and R. K. Finlay son in Winnipeg.^ Plaunt then turned his attention to the formation of the honorary executive. The honorary executive. As a preliminary to the formation of the honorary executive, Plaunt decided to con sult with an old friend in Toronto, the Honorable N. W. 61 Rowell, President of Toronto General Trusts. Towards the end of October he met with Rowell in Toronto, described 58Ibid. ^9Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to E. J. Tarr, November 15, 1930. 6oIbid. 8^Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 1*+- 91 radio broadcasting, summarized the program which the embryo League intended to promote, and gave Rowell a copy of the League’s pamphlet. Rowell thought ’ 'our basis adequate and our aims praiseworthy"; he consented to draw up a mas ter list of prospective members for the National Council.^ He suggested among other names those of Sir Robert Borden, Louis St. Laurent, W. M. Birks, Hector Mclnnis, Sir Joseph 6h Flavelle and General Victor Odium. Plaunt returned to Ottawa and immediately began to send out invitations to join the National Council of the 6 5 League. Each letter included a statement on radio broad casting, a statement on the reasons for founding the League, a policy statement on the League’s objectives, and a list, which was continually brought up-to-date, of prominent 66 Canadians who had "already consented to act." The letter contained a stipulation that acceptance of the invitation 62Ibid. 63Ibid. k^lbid., pp. l5-l6. ^ Ibid. t ^ Ibid.. Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Fred Southam, November 3, 1930, forwarded by Wilson Southern; Letter from Alan Plaunt to Fred R. MacKelcan, November *f, 1930, forwarded by N. W. Rowell; Letter from Alan Plaunt to Louis St. Laurent, November 13, 1930, forwarded by N. W. Rowell; Letter from Alan Plaunt to C, S. Maclnnis, November 20, 1930, written at the suggestion of Harry Baldwin; Letter from Alan Plaunt to Mrs. J. A. Stewart, December 1, 1930, written at the suggestion of Lady Kingsmill; Letter from Alan Plaunt to Walter Black, December 2, 1930, written at the suggestion of Judge McLean. "would not involve any activities beyond consultation and pects who might favor the recommendations of the Aird plan in order that they in turn might be invited to join the 68 Council. At the outset Plaunt adopted the technique of having the sponsor forward the letter from the League; as the National Council began to grow, he simplified the procedure and sent the letter of invitation directly from the League at "the suggestion of Mr. X. who had already accepted a 69 position on the National Council," With each letter he included a copy of the Aird Report and the promotional 70 pamphlet of the League. By November 27, 1930, the League 71 recruited sixteen prominent Canadians for the Council. Initial French Canadian support. Spry and Plaunt realized at the outset that the proposed League would have 72 to gain the support of French Canada to be effective. Accordingly they arranged a meeting in Montreal in the second week of October with Augustin Frigon, a former 6 7 advice." Finally he requested suggestions on new pros- 69Ibid ?°Ibid. ^ Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Frank Bird, November 2*?, 1930. ^IbjLd., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 12. 93 member of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting and Director-General of Technical Education for the Province of Quebec, Victor Dor£, President-General of the Montreal School Board, and George Pelletier, Administrator of Le Devoir.73 The three Montrealers listened to the plans for the projected League and assured Spry and Plaunt of 7L . "their interest and support." After completing the pre liminary organizational work, Spry and Plaunt returned to Montreal a second time on November 18, 1930, and met with Canon Emile Chartier, Vice-Rector of the University of Montreal, and Dr. Edouard Montpetit, Secretary-General of 75 the University. After describing the objectives of the League and its operational plans, they proffered invita- 76 tions to join the National Council; both men accepted. Spry and Plaunt thus established an important beach head for future operations in the French Canadian Province. They turned their attention next to the formation of 77 regional groups in other provinces. 73Ibid. ?lfIbid. 75 Ibid., Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, November l1 * - , 1930. 76 Ibid. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Prank Bird, November 27, 1930. 77 ''Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Norman Smith, November 7, 1930; Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to D. E. Grauer, November 13, 1930; also Letter from Alan Plaunt to Don Matthews, November 1*+, 1930. 9k Regional groups. A decision to form regional groups ''which would enlist prospective members for the National Council and act as clearing houses for the League's propa ganda" was taken at a meeting of the Ottawa executive on 78 November 7, 1930* Spry requested Norman Smith to start a group in Calgary; Plaunt invited Paul Nanton in Winnipeg 79 and Lon Matthews in Toronto to do the same. Within a week Plaunt decided to expand still further, inviting Lai Grauer in Vancouver and Terry Mitchell in Halifax, both former Rhodes scholars, to start regional groups in their 8° respective areas. An opportunity to form another regional group came in late November when E. A. Corbett, Lirector of the Exten sion Lepartment of the University of Alberta, wrote to Spry. He requested Spry to consider seriously the "possi bility of the Association of Canadian Clubs undertaking an intensive campaign to enlighten the people of the Lominion Q - i on the seriousness of the radio situation." Corbett informed Spry that the University of Alberta had pioneered in educational broadcasting for the past five years and could report excellent support from listeners. He enclosed a copy of the station's program notes; he concluded by 78Ibid. 79Ibid. 80Ibid. 8^Ibid.. Box 11. Letter from E. A. Corbett to Graham Spry, November 26, 1930. saying that he had been campaigning for more than a year on 8? behalf of the Aird Commission Report* In reply Spry informed Corbett of the League's existence and policies; he 0 - 5 invited him to become a member of the Executive Committee. J The League was fortunate in having Corbett as a member, for in addition to establishing a group in Edmonton, he cam paigned for the League's platform throughout the Province of Alberta. Later he recalled that within a year he secured from "farm organizations, women’s institutes, boards of trade, church societies, etc.," in Alberta more than fifty formal resolutions which he forwarded to the 81+ office of the League in Ottawa. Revised policy statement of the League. During November three prospective members of the League requested further clarification before they would allow their names to stand for the National Council.^ J. W. Dafoe, editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, described the position of the 82Ibid. go ILid.» Letter from Graham Spry to E. A. Corbett, December 3t 1930. ^E. A. Corbett, We Have with Us Tonight (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1957), p. ^7. o c ^Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from J. W. Dafoe to Graham Spry, November 3> 1930; Letter from J. M. MacDonnell to Graham Spry, November 12, 1930; Letter from Pred R. MacKelcan to Graham Spry, November 17, 1930. 96 newspaper "as generally favorable" but expressed fears that a government monopoly might lead to suppression of 86 opinion. He also feared that in a government-controlled system the Roman Catholic Church might, directly or indirectly, attempt to prevent religious discussion through o n the radio. Before the Free Press could support the Aird plan wholeheartedly, there would have to be safeguards Q Q against these contingencies. Spry agreed that a national broadcasting system might pose a threat to freedom of expression, adding that the choice seems to lie between a Canadian company, created by the government, with a directorate which may or may not be all that could be desired, or a private company, influenced by many other considera tions that [sic I public service and closely linked to American interests. He used the occasion to inform Dafoe that the League had reservations concerning two recommendations of the Aird 90 Report to which the Free Press earlier voiced objections. The League was seeking a compromise of the amount of the capital expenditure that was envisaged in the Report; also it believed that "the erection of the high-power stations should be a long range objective rather than an immediate 86Ibid. 87Ibid. 88Ibid. 89lbid.. Rough draft of a letter from Graham Spry to J. W. Dafoe, n.d., in reply to a letter from J. W. Dafoe, November 13, 1930. 9°Ibid. 97 policy. J. M. MacDonnell of the National Trust Company, Toronto, requested information on three points before he would consider giving his support to the League: (1) the attitude towards the Aird Report of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific, Imperial Oil and other pioneers in broadcast advertising; (2) the attitude of the National Broadcasting Company in the United States; and (3) the possible effect on employment for musicians if the 92 Aird plan were adopted. In reply Spry stated that the Canadian Pacific Rail way was on record as being opposed to the Aird Report and that he had yet to ascertain the attitudes of the other companies.9^ He added that he could not understand "the suggestion of detrimental effect upon musicians if the gl+ national company were created." The opposite was the effect in Britain where the British Broadcasting Corpora tion recently created a symphony orchestra. Similarly, a Canadian national symphony orchestra "would be a real 91Ibid. 9^Ibid., Letter from J. M. MacDonnell to Graham Spiy, November 12, 1930. 93lbid., Letter from Graham Spry to J. M. MacDonnell, November l8, 1930. 9lfIbid. possibility" if the government were to establish a national company. P. R. MacKelcan, also of the National Trust Company, declined a place on the Council, asserting that he had serious reservations concerning some aspects of the Aird plan. It appeared to him that the League was being formed qZ "solely" to ensure the adoption of that plan. He expressed misgivings on the "almost unlimited power" which provincial directors would exercise under the plan and on the "no advertising rule" which might force "marvellous American orchestral programmes" from the air; he wondered about the attitude of present Canadian pioneers in broad cast advertising and thought that the loss of local broad casts, for which the Report did not provide, was a mistake; finally, he believed that the Aird Report should have included recommendations for "some positive developments 97 in Canadian musical, literary, and dramatic activities."^ MacKelcan thought that the purely honorary function that was envisaged for members of the League’s National Council was a mistake; he questioned the advisability of issuing statements from the League which asserted that the 95Ibid. 9^Ibid., Letter from Fred R. MacKelcan to Graham Spry, November 17, 1930. 9^Ibid. 99 q O "present private enterprise system" had failed.' In the margins of the letter Spry commented on each point that MacKelcan raised, planning to develop the points more fully in a meeting with MacKelcan, which he scheduled for the weekend of November 21, 1930? in Toronto." The League, he maintained, was supporting the "principle of the Aird Report," not the Report itself; it remained for the League to "hammer out an adequate solution" to the large problems. Provincial directors would not enjoy "almost unlimited power" for the Federal Government would make the appointments after consultation with the Provinces, thus ensuring "some measure of control." Under a national sys tem the American "orchestral programmes" would continue but the sponsors would have to pay the new Company to broadcast the programs; the proposed Company would continue local broadcasts; the creation of a national company should result almost immediately in the establishment of a national thea tre and a national orchestra.In reply to MacKelcan’s comments concerning the League, Spry said that the League would supply all officers with pertinent information on the 98Ibid. "ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to J. M. MacDonnell, November 18,1930. lOOlbid., Letter from Fred R. MacKelcan to Graham. Spry, November 17? 1930. Marginal notation by Spry. 100 progress of events and on the League's proposals; further, he believed that the League should continue to stress the failure of the private enterprise system "by exposing the facts" and at the same time present an alternative and better plan of Canadian broadcasting.^0^ In answering the three letters, Spry and Plaunt were forced to reccnsLder their position on broadcasting and on the objectives of the League. As of November 18, 1930? instead of merely supporting the "principle of the Aird Report," the League began to advocate "the establishment of a national broadcasting company, broadcasting on the basis of public service, something along the lines of the recom- 102 mendation of the Aird Commission." Plaunt began work on a new pamphlet, one which would "not lay so much emphasis on the Report of the Aird Commission since we do not want the impression to be gathered that our organization exists 203 simply and solely for the purpose of backing the Report."^ The League now made the stipulation that it reserved the right to make substantial amendments to the recommendations of the Report concerning the appointment of personnel and 101Ibid. " I Qp ^Ibid., Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to C. S. Maclnnes, November 20, 1930. ^°^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Graham Spry, November 2b, 1930; also Letter from Alan Plaunt to Rev. D. N. Mclachlan, November 28, 1930. 101 10lf the financing of the new company. It would also make 105 recommendations on local "broadcasting. The League began to give a more precise statement of its purpose, which it described as an attempt to "organize Canadian opinion in favor of a national broadcasting com- * i pany." To establish a national company would necessi tate the expenditure of large sums of money; the League was convinced that a demonstration of strong national support was imperative before the government would be willing to proceed with the plan.^^ Newspaper support. Prom the beginning Spry and Plaunt relied upon the support of the Southam Publishing Company which owned six daily newspapers in Canada— the Hamilton Spectator, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Herald, the Edmonton Journal, the Winnipeg Tribune, and the 1 oft Vancouver Province. Five of the six newspapers, the Edmonton Joumal being the exception, supported editorially 10UT Ibid.; also Letter from Alan Plaunt to Walter Black, December 2, 1930. •^^Ibid. Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to C. S. Maclnnes, November 20, 1930. 107ibid. - j r\Q Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, October 6, 1930. 102 the proposals of the Aird Report concern 0f the Southam family for Canadian broadcasting predated the appointment of the Royal Commission by seven months Spry and Plaunt approached Wilson Southam in early October and were assured of his active interest on behalf of the projected League. He forwarded a letter of invitation from the League to his brother, Fred Southam, the President of the Company, on November 3, 1930, and 112 Fred Southam accepted a place on the National Council. Margaret Southam, the daughter of Wilson and a member of the "active" executive, wrote to the managing editor of the Calgary Herald, a Southam publication inviting him to join 113 the Council. He accepted the invitation but drew atten tion to the $700,000 which the Report anticipated annually from "indirect advertising revenue." He suggested that the League should clarify this point so that newspaper publish ers would know that they were not placing their "names and 1Q9Vide Table III, p. 6 0. ■^^Letter from Fred Southam to Harry Southam, May 11, 1928 (Bowman MSS in the Special Collections Section, Univer sity of British Columbia Library, Vancouver). Plaunt Papers, Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Fred Southam, November 3 , 1930. 112Ibid. 113 JIbid., Box 12. Letter from Margaret Southam to Colonel J. H. Woods, November 5, 1930. 103 influence behind a movement which would become an active 11^ competitor of the press in the advertising business.” The Southam family were of "enormous help to the Radio League and were assisting the League financially,” reported Spry in early December, "even though as a Corpora tion they wished to establish stations of their own and had 115 put in applications." The League next approached the Sifton press through John W. Dafoe and the Maclean Publishing Company through John Bayne Maclean, receiving assurances that they too would support the League and its objectives, although the ll6 Maclean Company originally was opposed to the Report. By December 2, 1930, "a number of other newspapers had also promised support while conspicuous opposition was coming from only two papers--La_Presse in Montreal and the 117 Telegram in Toronto.” Support from organizations. Just as research had revealed the names of newspapers which favored the Aird Hlf Ibid., Letter from Colonel J. H. Woods to Margaret Southam, November 12, 1930. - ‘ - - ‘ - • ' Ibid.« Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to E. A. Corbett, December 3» 1930. •*-^Ibid.. Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Walter Black, December 2, 1930. 1- * - ^ 7Ibid. 10V Report, so too it disclosed that at least fifteen national organizations were in favor of the Report’s recommenda- !LlS tions. Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labour Congress, pledged the support of the Congress to the move ment almost as soon as it was founded, as did J. MeIsaac of 119 the Canadian Legion. Mrs. J. A. Wilson, President of the National Council of Women, accepted a place on the 120 Council early in November. Plaunt began to send letters to organizations which had favored the Aird Report in which he asked for an expression of current opinion on radio. If an organization still favored the recommendations of the Report, it was asked to pass a resolution to that effect 121 and to forward a copy to the League for later use. The letter also contained an invitation for the president of 122 the organization to join the national Council. ll8Vide Table V, p. 88. ■^^Plaunt Papers, Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 11, 16. ^2^Ibid., Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, November 1*+, 1930. i pi Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Rev. D. N. McLachlan, November 28, 1930; also Letter from Alan Plaunt to Mrs. Anne Stewart, December 6, 1930; also Letter from Canadian Nurses' Association to Alan Plaunt, December 10, 1930. 122ibld. 105 IV. THE LEAGUE FORMALLY CONSTITUTED The work of organization was proceeding so smoothly that the time had arrived for the League to plan its cam paign. Spry and Plaunt foresaw three distinct stages: (1) The League would continue to organize the National Council and to strengthen regional groups while Plaunt would prepare a memorandum which would he given to the press immediately before or after Christmas of 1930; (2) the League would announce its existence early in January of 1931 and would attempt to receive maximum pub licity in all newspapers; and (3) two weeks before the opening of Parliament the League would launch an intensive campaign by radio, newspapers, and every other available means "to show that public opinion was overwhelmingly 12k behind the principle of the Aird Report." First formal meeting. The plan was revised at the beginning of December; the League held its first formal meeting on December 8, 1930, at the Chateau Laurier Hotel, Ottawa, so that "the organization of the League could be announced to the press just as the Prime Minister was 123 Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Graham Spry, November 2*+, 1930. 12lfIbid. 106 125 landing" in Canada from the Imperial Conference. Present at the meeting were Mrs. A. J. Freiman (President, Hadassah of Canada), Senator Cairine Wilson, Father St, Denis (Ottawa University), Mrs. J. A. Wilson (President, National Council of Women), Margaret Southam, K. A. Greene, Plaunt, x 2 6 and Spry. A formal resolution constituting the League was read and discussed. Then Mrs. J. A. Wilson moved and Mr. K. A. Greene seconded a motion in favor of the resolu- 127 tion; it was passed unanimously. The resolution read as follows: WHEREAS the present advertising "basis of Canadian broadcasting does not permit the fullest develop ment of radio, AND WHEREAS Canadian stations are greatly inferior in power and in financial resources to the numer ous high-powered American stations covering Canada, AND WHEREAS whole sections of the Canadian people cannot hear Canadian programmes, AND WHEREAS Canadian business interests and Canadian listeners suffer from too much direct advertising, AND WHEREAS the radio tends to become a monopoly and is too vast an instrument for the control of public opinion to be administered irresponsibly or used mainly for advertising: • * ~ 2^Ibid.. Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Honourable H. A. Stewart, December 9? 1930; Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, December 13, 1930. x 2 6 Ibid., Box 22. Statement issued to the press by the Canadian Radio League, December 8, 1930, p. 6. l27Ibid. 107 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this meet ing do hereby constitute the Canadian Radio League to advocate: 1. The operation of radio broadcasting in Canada as a national public ser vice; 2. The establishment of a Canadian radio broadcasting company with the powers of a private enterprise and the func tions of a public utility; 3. The appointment of an independent national directorate to administer the company, free from political and other interference; * + . The use of broadcasting to develop Canadian orchestras and choirs, Canadian dramatic and other entertain ment for school broadcasts and adult education, for national hook-ups, the interchange of provincial broadcasts and for other national purposes; 5. The use of a national system for Canadian advertisers on a competitive basis for sponsored programmes only; 6. The relaying of selected programmes from British, American, European and other systems by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting C o m p a n y . 1 ^ First press release. Plaunt released a six-page 129 statement to the press immediately after the meeting. In it he stated' that the League began "almost spontaneously, without any artificial effort, with the expenditure of less than $100, and [that] support came rapidly from every sec- 130 tion of Canada." The members of the National Council represented all the geographical sections of the nation— "French and English Canadians, finance and business, 128Ibid. ^Ibid. 180Ibid.. p.L 108 farmers and labour, universities, professions, national 131 associations, churches and races." In addition the League had received assurances from broadcasting station owners and advertisers that "many of them supported the 132 principle of a national radio system." The release contained a list of twenty-four organi zations and forty-two newspapers which favored a national 133 broadcasting system. These data are in Table VI, on page 109» and in Table VII, on page 110. A comparison of the data in Table VI with those in Table V on page 88 shows that one organization, the Knights of Pythias (Quebec), was omitted from the new list and that five organizations were added— Hadassah of Canada, Vancouver Board of Trade, Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (IODE), Victoria l^k Board of Trade and Ottawa Board of Trade. J Similarly a comparison of the data in Table VII on page 110 with those in Table IV on page 85 indicates that one newspaper, Le Soleil. was omitted from the new list and that eight newspapers were added: Alberta Labor News. United Farmers of Alberta. Halifax Star. Halifax Chronicle. Ottawa Le Droit. Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph. Chicoutimi Progrea du Saguenay. and the Maclean Publishing Company p u b lic a tio n s.^35 1 Ibid. 13^Ibid. 109 TABLE VI ORGANIZATIONS FAVORING A NATIONAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM December 8, 1930a Royal Society of Canada Association d*Education des Canadiens-FranQais de St. Boniface French Canadian Association of Alberta Universities’ Conference Canadian Trades & Labor Congress Professional Institute of the Civil Service National Council of Education Hadassah of Canada Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L. Federated Women's Institutes of Canada Girl Guides' Association Listener’s Clubs and Associations of Victoria, Vancouver, Port Arthur, Quebec, Halifax, etc. Vancouver Board of Trade United Farmers of Canada (Sask. section) United Farmers of Alberta Independent Labour Party of Alberta Canadian Congress of Labour I.O.D.E. Victoria Board of Trade Ottawa Board of Trade aUniversity of British Columbia Library; Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22. "Statement issued to the press by the Canadian Radio League, December 8, 1930," p. 1. 110 TABLE VII NEWSPAPERS FAVORING A NATIONAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM DECEMBER 8, 1930a Alberta Calgary Herald Red Deer "Advocate" Edmonton Bulletin Lethbridge "Herald" Alberta Labor News Calgary "U.F.A." Peace River Record B. C. Victoria Times Vancouver "Province" Manitoba Winnipeg "Tribune" New Brunswick Moncton "Transcript" Nova Scotia Halifax "Star" Ontario Ottawa "Citizen" Ottawa "Journal" Hamilton "Spectator" Owen Sound "Sun Times" Brockville "Recorder & Hme^1 Windsor "Border Cities Star" Belleville "Intelligencer" Le Droit, Ottawa The Maclean Publishing Company Publications Nelson "News" Vancouver "Microphone" Manitoba "Free Press" Halifax "Chronicle" Hamilton "Herald" Ottawa "Canadian Congress Journal" Toronto "Legionaiy" Toronto "Saturday Night" Hamilton "Labor News" Belleville "Ontario" Toronto "Star" "Radio News of Canada," Toronto 1X1 TABLE VII (continued) Quebec Montreal "Gazette" Montreal "Le Devoir*' Montreal "La Patrie" Granby "Leader-Mail" Quebec "Chronicle-Telegraph" Chicoutimi "Progres du Saguenay" Saskatchewan Prince Albert "Herald" Saskatoon "Western Producer" Regina "Leader" aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22. "Statement issued to the press by the Canadian Radio League," December 8, 1930, p. 2. 112 According to the statement the formation of the Canadian Radio League resulted from the widespread belief that Canadian broadcasting was unsatisfactory because 1 36 broadcasting was conducted first as a business. The League proposed instead that radio should be used "primar ily as an instrument for the cultivation of public opinion, of education, and entertainment."^-37 Because radio depended upon advertising revenue, inevitably numerous sta tions of small power served the larger cities while few high-powered stations served the rural areas. Moreover all stations in Canada combined had approximately 33>000 watts power while American stations broadcasting into 139 Canada had "at least 700,000 watts power." Because of their limited financial resources, the statement continued, Canadian stations broadcast few qual ity programs; larger stations tended to affiliate with American broadcasting chains; studio equipment was inferior and obsolete; educational authorities were unable to secure adequate time for broadcasting; and the formation of "Canadian public opinion, insofar as it might be influenced by the radio, is in the hands of irresponsible authorities, however public spirited, and is at the mercy of American chains. 136Ibid., p. 2. 137Ibid. 138Ibid. l39lbid., p. 3. llfQIbid.. pp. 3-»f. The press release maintained that Canadians could decide to continue the present system of broadcasting which depended completely on advertising revenue or they could form a national broadcasting company which would have "the powers of a private enterprise and the functions of a pub- ll+l lie utility." If the government were to establish a national company, every Canadian would be able to hear Canadian programs; indirect advertising would help to pay for programs and replace direct advertising dollars which at present paid for both programs and equipment; many excellent American programs would be brought into Canada without interference from small local stations; national orchestras, choirs, and dramatic groups could become a reality, as they had in other countries which adopted a national broadcasting system; a national system would have money for research and experimentation; educational pro grams under the auspices of provincial directors would be assured; an exchange of programs between provinces, between regions, and between Canada and other countries would begin; and finally, rural Canada would receive the service to l1 +2 which it was entitled. The release described the objectives of the Canadian Radio League as "similar in principle to the recommendations •^^•Ibid., p. if ll+2Ibid., pp. if-5. 11V ]_l+3 of the Aird Report. However the proposals of the League differed from the Report in three ways: (1) The League reserved the right "to make substantial amendments to the financial proposals of the Report"; (2) it would make specific proposals concerning the "method of constituting both the national and provincial directorates of the pro posed company"; (3) the League advocated that "ample con sideration should be given to the use of radio for local sport, municipal elections, and orchestras." With the statement Plaunt also released a copy of the motion which was passed at the meeting in the Chateau Laurier and a list of the members of the National Council as of December 8, 1930.^^ This list is in Table VIII on page 115. Finally he issued three maps, the first showing the coverage of existing Canadian stations, the second showing the Canadian coverage of American stations, and the third showing the coverage of the proposed national broad- li+6 casting system. These maps are reproduced in Figures 1 and 2 on pages 117 and 118. lLf3ibid., p. 5. llfIfIbid. llf^Ibid., p. 1. As issued to the press, this list was not discovered in the Plaunt Papers. It was compiled for the study through an investigation of League corres pondence between October 7 and December 8, 1930. It was then compared with the list of the National Council which was included in the promotional booklet of January, 1931. llf6Ibid. 11? TABLE VIII MEMBERS OP THE NATIONAL COUNCIL AND OP THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE AS OP DECEMBER 8, 1930* National Council Hector Mclnnes, K. C., Halifax. W. M. Birks, Montreal, Past President, Canadian Chambers of Commerce, Past President, Montreal Board of Trade. Louis St. Laurent, President, Canadian Bar Association. Col. Hugh Osier, Winnipeg, President, Osier, Hammond & Nantcn Hon. N. W. Rowell, K. C., Toronto, President, Toronto General Trusts. Tom Moore, President Trades & Labour Congress of Canada, Director, Canadian National Railways. Senator Cairine Wilson, Ottawa. Pred N. Southam, Montreal, President, Southam Publishing Co. Mrs. J. A. Wilson, President, National Council of Women. General Sir Arthur Currie, Montreal, Principal McGill Uni versity; Director, Bank of Montreal. Canon Emile Chartier, Vice-Rector, University of Montreal. Dr. R. C. Wallace, President, University of Alberta; President, Association of Canadian Clubs. Lady Kingsmill, Ottawa. Col. J. H. Woods, Calgary, Past President, Canadian Chambers of Commerce. Mrs. John A. Stewart, Perth, Past President, Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire. Dr. Edouard Montpetit, Secretary-General, University of Montreal, Monseigneur Camille Roy, Rector, Laval University; Past President, Royal Society. Dr. A. H. Moore, President, University of King’s College, Nova Scotia. Col. 0. M. Biggar, K. C., Ottawa. Dr. Stanley Mackenzie, President, Dalhousie University. Mrs. A. J. Preiman, Ottawa, President, Hadassah of Canada. Russel Smart, K. C., Ottawa. Dr. A. H. McGreer, Principal, Bishop's College, Lennoxville. Rev. E. H. Oliver, D. D., Moderator of the United Church of Canada. Dr. George M. Wrong, Toronto. Rev. Father Marchand, Rector, Ottawa University. Dr. G. J. Trueman, President, Mount Allison University, Sackville, N. B. 116 TABLE VIII (continued) Executive Committee Graham Spry, Chairman, Executive Committee, Ottawa. Alan Plaunt, Honorary Secretary, Ottawa. A. Gemmill, Manager, Bank of Nova Scotia, Ottawa; Honorary Treasurer. A. E. [sic] Corbett, Edmonton, Director of University Extension. Brooke Claxton, Montreal. R. K. Pinlayson, Winnipeg. A. E. Grauer, Vancouver. K. A. Greene, Ottawa. Miss Violette Lafleur, Ottawa. Donald Matthews, Toronto . J. A. MeIsaac, Secretary, Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L. George Pelletier, Montreal. Norman Smith, Editor, U. P. A., Calgary. Paul Nanton, Winnipeg. George Smith, Toronto. Miss Margaret Southam, Ottawa. Pather Henri St. Denis, Ottawa University. aUniversity of British Columbia Libraiy: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22. "Statement issued to the press by the Canadian Radio League, December 8, 1 9 3 0 As issued to the press, this list was not discovered in the Plaunt Papers but was compiled for the study through an investiga tion of the Plaunt and Spiy correspondence between October 7 and December 8, 1930; it was compared for accu racy with the list of the National Council which the League included in the second promotional pamphlet which was pub lished in January, 1931. 117 MAP I. 8 \ katchewAn P R E S E N T BROADCASTING P O W E R AND COVERAGE / ,<r ° r ,c tu a l B>u r t ' P(>w<r ciliM ' Jn(l coverage tee Appendix) I M ap I. Shows the range of existing Canadian broadcasting stations. The circles represent the assured normal daylight range, It will he noticed how t'b larger stations are near the centres of population, where the best advertis ing m arket Is found, and how whole areas of Canada are outside the range of Canadian stations. The list of stations and their power Is further evidence of these conditions. It Is also true th at where there are the most Canadian stations there are the most licensed listeners FIGURE 1 COVERAGE OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING STATIONS, 1930 (University of British Columbia library! Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22, The Canadian Radio league [Ottawa: Office of the Honorary Secretary, January, 1931J» P* 17.) MAP 11. 118 A R E A S O F CANADA C O V ER ED BY U.S. STATIONS (F o r • c ‘.u»" figures of power of U.S. etatlone cohering C anada, eee Appendix) 30,000 watts. MAP III CO V ERA GE OF A N A TIO N A L SYSTEM Map III. Shows the general location and assured daylight range of the Canadian broadcasting system proposed hy tho Alrd report. The wholo settled nrea of Canada would be reached by such a system. Such a system would bind the whole country together. It would not exclude American programmes, but would otfcr every Canndlnn the opportunity of hearing Cnnadlnn programmes If ho prcferrod. This map shows tho full development of the Alrd proposal. The Canadian ltndlo League realizes however that Immediate erection of the complete system may net, at the present time, bo feasible. FIGURE 2 CANARIAN RARIO COVERAGE OF AMERICAN BROARCASTING STATIONS, 1930, ANR PROPOSER COVERAGE OF A CANARIAN NATIONAL BROARCASTING SYSTEM (University of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Pap ers, Box 22. The Canadian Radio League [Ottawa: Office of the Honorary Secretary, January, 1931Jj P• 18.) 119 Publicity from the release. Eighteen months after the event Plaunt recalled that the League made the headlines in every leading Canadian paper. Locally our statement was published verbatim: the Canadian Press took most of it; the Southerns featured it and the public got the impression of a vast national organization supported by at least 20,000,000 people.I4' ' Actually the national coverage was not good. The Canadian Press carried a "very short story announcing the formation of the League" because the Montreal La Presse and the Toronto Telegram were members of the Canadian Press and might object if the activities of the League were given 1^8 greater publicity. Plaunt asked Fred Southam whether he might not be willing to mention to the Canadian Press that forty-two newspapers favored a national radio system so that in the future "our announcements might be given fair 1*+Q consideration." 7 First communication with the government. On December 9> 1930, Plaunt sent letters to members of the Cabinet in which he announced the formation of the League, outlined radio conditions in Canada, stated the policy and llf^Ibid.. Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 22. lliO Ibid., Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Fred Southam, December 13> 1930. li+9IMd. 120 objectives of the league, and provided a list of prominent Canadians who had accepted a place on the National Coun- 150 cil. He stated that the League intended to promote a discussion of radio in the market place; later it would send a delegation to the Prime Minister with specific pro posals on broadcasting. He added that the League was an independent and disinterested body, repre senting Canadian opinion on the subject of broadcasting and wished in no way to embarass the government but rather to assist the govern ment in the consideration of this vital public question.1'1 With each letter he enclosed a copy of the press 152 release and copies of the three maps. Within two months the Canadian Radio League had become prominent on the Canadian scene; Spry and Plaunt believed that "no government would be able to ignore the opinion behind the League.Spry was able to state in a letter that "several ministers in the government are supporting the Aird proposals and the radio question is 15k- scheduled to come before the Cabinet at an early date." 1^°Ibid. Letters from Alan Plaunt to the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of National Defense, the Postmaster General and the Secretary of State, December 9, 1930. 1^1Ibid. i^Ibid. ^■^Xbid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, December 13, 1930. 1^Ibid. 121 He added that two prominent national advertisers, the Canadian National Railways and Imperial Oil, were support ing the Aird proposals and were helping the League with l5< information. The League was ready to move to the second stage of its operations and would do so from a position of strength. V. SUMMARY In the fall of 1930 the Canadian Radio League was organized to enlist support for the adoption of recommenda tions in the Aird Commission Report. The co-founders of the League, Graham Spry and Alan Plaunt, formed the League because they were concerned with Canadian broadcasting. The primary objective was to ’ ’ urge the nationaliza tion of Canadian radio and the implementation of the Aird Report." In addition the League would attempt to forestall the granting of radio licenses to private companies before the government adopted a radio policy. The second of these objectives was achieved unexpectedly when Prime Minister Bennett cabled from London in the week of October 27, 1930, that "under no circum stances were any licenses to be granted at the present time." 155 Ibid. 122 The League proposed to attain its objective through ’ ’ resolutions, delegations to the Cabinet, articles in the press, and a highly reputable honorary executive, with a small executive committee of younger people." Plaunt became honorary secretary and agreed to finance the League temporarily. He studied the files of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, the personal files of C. A. Bowman, newspaper comments on the Aird Report, and technical jour nals. He then wrote a promotional pamphlet which presented the major arguments for nationalized broadcasting. The pamphlet differed from the Report and the Bowman editorials in two ways: (1) it did not specify the number of high- powered stations that should be erected; (2) it introduced the notion of "the dumping of American programs in Canada" but offered no explanation of the statement. Spry and Plaunt formed the nucleus of the "active" executive almost immediately. Then they began recruiting the honorary executive. The Honourable N. W. Rowell, a personal friend of Plaunt in Toronto, was very helpful in establishing communication with prominent Canadians who were invited to join the National Council. By November 27, 1930, sixteen invitations were accepted. The organizers of the League took great care from the outset to include Prench Canada. By mid-November Spry and Plaunt had assurances "of interest and support" from 123 five prominent French Canadians. They then began to expand the League by establishing regional groups in Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, and Edmonton. Three prospective members requested further clari fication of several points before they would allow their names to stand for the National Council. Spry undertook to supply the required information and thus elaborated a fuller policy statement for the League. Henceforth the League stipulated that it reserved the right to make sub stantial amendments to the recommendations of the Aird Report concerning the appointment of personnel and the financing of the proposed company. It also stipulated that it would make recommendations on local broadcasting. Newspaper support soon rallied behind the League. The Southam press, the Sifton press, and the MacLean Pub lishing Company offered assurances of interest and support. Research showed that at least forty-two newspapers were in favor of a national broadcasting system "along the lines of the Aird Report." Plaunt wrote to these newspapers; he also wrote to national organizations which earlier favored the Report. He requested information from each organiza tion concerning its current position on broadcasting. In late November Spry and Plaunt foresaw three stages of the campaign: (1) The League would continue to organize the National Council and the regional groups; 12k (2) it would announce its existence early in January and would attempt to receive maximum publicity in the news papers; and (3) two weeks before the opening of Parliament it would launch an intensive campaign in the newspapers, on the radio, and through every other available means to prove that "public opinion was overwhelmingly behind the principle of the Aird Report." Within a week they advanced the date of the first public meeting to December 8, 1930» so that "the organiza tion of the League could be announced to the press just as the Prime Minister was landing" in Canada from the Imperial Conference. A motion formally constituting the League was passed at the meeting. The press received a copy of the motion along with a six-page news release which Plaunt pre pared. The release was a summary of the arguments in the promotional pamphlet; it included the three reservations of the League concerning the recommendations of the Aird Report. Plaunt also supplied the press with a list of the League's membership and copies of three maps which showed the coverage of Canadian broadcasting stations, American stations broadcasting into Canada, and the coverage envisaged in the Aird Report. The statement received prom inent publicity in many newspapers, but Plaunt was dis satisfied with the Canadian Press story. The League established official communication with 125 the government on December 9> 1930. Plaunt sent letters to members of the Cabinet in which he announced the existence of the League, outlined broadcasting conditions in Canada, stated the policy and the objectives of the League, and named the members of the National Council. He stated that the League intended to send a delegation to the Prime Minister with specific proposals on radio. With each letter he enclosed a copy of the press release and copies of the three radio coverage maps. As the initial organizational work drew to an end, Spry believed that "no government would be able to ignore the opinion behind the League." The League was prepared to move to the next stage of its operational plan and would do so, he thought, from a position of strength. CHAPTER IV THE LEAGUE BEGINS OPERATIONS On December 9* 1930> the League opened an office at 110 Wellington Street, Ottawa, "on the third stoiy of an ancient and crickety building where now stands the U. S. Legation."'*' December was a period of "feverish activity"; Plaunt approached university presidents, pro vincial directors of education, presidents of various p banks, and the leaders of national organizations. As 1930 drew to an end, the National Council numbered more than sixty members.^ I. ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITY During this period Plaunt worked tirelessly to L . establish the regional committees on a strong footing. He ^•University of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 26. "Notebook of Alan B. Plaunt," p. 23. Vide footnote 1, Chap. Ill, p. 72. 2Ibid., pp. 23-2^. 3lbid., Box 22. The Canadian Radio League. January, 1931> PP. ^Vide pp. 9l* - -95. 126 127 and Spry wished to mount the League’s major offensive two weeks before the opening of Parliament; it was imperative therefore to have the regional groups well organized before 5 the end of January, 1931. While the work of organization was proceeding, the League began to operate openly in Ottawa. Spry ’ ’ conceived publicity stunts galore; [Plaunt] carried them out. We sent out a news story a day; we lobbied the parliamentar- ians, we lobbied socially." Regional developments. In Alberta E. A. Corbett secured the support of Premier Brownlee and the 7 Hon. R. G. Reid, Provincial Treasurer. Both men were strongly in favor of a national broadcasting company and were willing to place their names on the National Council g of the League. Corbett reported that he arranged a joint meeting of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, the Service Clubs, the Canadian Club, and the Women's Organizations for January 30, 1931.^ Dr. R. C. Wallace, President of the ^Vide p. 105. ^University of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 26. "Notebook of Alan B. Plaunt," p. 2*+. ^Ibid.. Box 11. Letter from E. A. Corbett to Graham Spry, December l1 *, 1930. ®Ibid. ^Ibid. 128 University of Alberta, would speak on "Canada's Radio Problem.He added that he was making similar plans for Edmonton.11 In January he had speaking engagements in Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, where he would discuss 12 Canadian broadcasting. Plaunt wrote to the committees in Vancouver and Nova Scotia at the end of December and suggested that they 13 model their regional activities after the Corbett plan. He advised them to secure the support of government lead ers, if possible, and to enlist further support from "leading representatives of farmers, provincial parties, labour, business, manufacturing (emphasis on the last two) ll+ and Federal members." He stated that resolutions of pro vincial organizations would be useful for publicity pur poses; he urged them to prepare a manifesto which would 15 present the views of their local groups. He promised to send literature on the League, maps, suggestions for speak ers, and press stories for local use.1^ By the end of December, 1930, only two Provinces, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, were without 10Ibid. 1:LIbid. 12Ibid. 1^Ibid., Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to A, E. Grauer, December 2 8, 1930; also Letter from Alan Plaunt to Walter Black, December 30, 1930. llflbid. 1^Ibid. 16 Ibid. 129 regional committees The League was much strengthened in Toronto by the addition of Hume Blake to the Executive Committee on 1 Q January 6, 1931. He sent Spry the names of ten prospec tive members, volunteered to make a contribution for the League's activities, and offered to write to other pros- 19 pects for subscriptions. II. "A CASE FOR NATIONALIZED BROADCASTING" In November Spry volunteered to write an article on 20 broadcasting for the Queen's Quarterly. The offer was 21 accepted; he completed the article by December 20, 1930. 22 It was published in the Winter Issue of the Quarterly. Spry devoted the article to establishing "A Case for 23 Nationalized Broadcasting." J 17 'Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Pete McQueen, December 26, 1930* 18 Ibid., Letter from E. H. Blake to Graham Spry, January 6, 1930. 19Ibid. 20 Ibid., Letter from Professor Duncan McArthur to Graham Spry, November 18, 1930. 21Ibid. pp Graham Spry, "A Case for Nationalized Broadcast ing," Queen's Quarterly. 38:l5l”l69, Winter, 1931. 23Ibid. He began with the statement that almost every country of the world was attempting to decide how broad- 2 1* casting should be controlled. The tendency was to estab lish "some form of monopoly under various degrees of state 25 control." In the Irish Free State the Department of Posts and Telegraphs operated broadcasting; in Czecho slovakia the State was associated with a private monopoly; in Great Britain the State established a national company. Canada faced the same problem. "The Report of the [Aird] Commission has not been implemented and the situa- 27 tion . . . today is almost one of stalemate." In the absence of any government policy on radio, neither public 28 nor private development could proceed. The stalemate 29 could not be permitted to continue. ' The government could choose a course of action from among several possibilities.^ It could grant licenses for broadcasting stations to selected applicants or it could establish some measure of control through a department of state, through a state commission, through a monopoly in which several private companies are associated, or through the establishment of a company to own, operate and control all broadcasting in the Dominion.31 2lfIbid., p. 151. 2^Ibid. 2 6Ibid. 2^Ibid., p. 152. 2^Ibid. 2^Ibid. 3^Ibid. 31ibid0 131 Before discussing his proposals Spry entered two objections. He denied that broadcasting was primarily a business; he saw many similarities between radio and a 32 public school system. He argued that one was no more a business than the other.33 in his opinion broadcasting was primarily an instrument of education in its widest significance, ranging from play to learning, from recreation to the cultivation of public opinion, and it concerns and influences not any single ele- ment in the community, but the community as a whole.^ He denied likewise that radio could be compared legitimately to a publication. It was correct to state that radio and the press had many common features, but the press was "by nature, free" while radio was "by nature, a partial or complete monopoly."35 if -^e validity of his argument were granted, then it was irrelevant to argue for or against public ownership from a doctrinaire v i e w p o i n t .^6 He maintained that concentration in broadcasting was inevitable; the question then became "in whose hands shall 37 this concentration of power be placed?"-3 Spry questioned the results of Canadian broadcasting which was operating for advertising purposes; he outlined in detail its defects, as enumerated in the Report of the Royal Commis sion on Radio Broadcasting and in the pamphlet of the 32Ibid., p. 153. 33Ibid. 3*+Ibid. 3^Ibid. 3^Ibid. 3^Ibid., p. 15^. 132 Canadian Radio League; he summarized broadcasting condi tions by stating that the existing competition has failed to provide a great variety of programmes, has filled the air with advertising matter, has stultified the educa tional uses of broadcasting, and has not yet pro vided a regular service for the whole Canadian people .3° He believed that improvement was not to be sought in licensing hundreds of new stations.39 if ft occurred this action would worsen the position of the urban broadcaster and would only "partially improve the situation of the more l+o scattered population of the Dominion." Moreover if it were possible this remedy would offer no "guarantee of l+l improved programmes of Canadian origin." It was foolhardy to compare broadcasting conditions in Canada with those in the United States because the American group has resources, a concentration of control and an advertising market utterly over shadowing anything available in this country. The interest of Canada will not be served by dividing our broadcasting strength among relatively poorly financed and competing systems but by concentra tion. Division would lead, as private development has led already, to Canadian station owners finding it more profitable to associate themselves with the American chains and to broadcast American rather than Canadian programmes. Spry then took up the possibilities. He maintained that development of Canadian broadcasting came chiefly from 38Ibid. 39Ibid.. p. 155. ^Ibid., p. 156. IflIbid. If2Ibid.. p. 157. 133 "agencies under some form of governmental or public con- national broadcast in 1927; the radio branch of the Canadian National Railways broadcast nationally "Canadian symphony concerts, grand opera and radio drama"; it employed more Canadian "talent than any other system and in national broadcasting was almost a year in advance of any other"; it avoided direct advertising, being content "with little more than an announcement of the name of the railways"; it served "sparsely settled areas with national programmes when no other system did so"; and it avoided relaying ) . h American chain programs. The greatest contribution to educational broadcast ing came from the University of Alberta where funds were provided by the provincial government; Queen's University, Acadia, and other universities also contributed to educa- tional broadcasting but on a smaller scale. y By contrast it was the local private stations that "cluttered the air with direct advertising; with invita- tions to chew this gum or buy that silk stocking." Because the Government could not grant licenses to several hundred applicants for the use of six wave-lengths, I i . 0 trol." J The Federal government organized the first **3Ibid., p. 159. ^Ibid., pp. 159-160. ^Ibid*) P- 160 13^ L 7 Spry examined the remaining possibilities. A private monopoly could be established which would "own and operate all stations . . . and, under government censorship, con- L.Q trol all broadcasting." u This suggestion met with difficulty because one national broadcaster opposed the plan and supported instead "the establishment of a national company"; of the three remaining national advertisers, two preferred a national company to a private monopoly In Spry's opinion a private monopoly would encounter the same difficulties which the commercial stations were 50 meeting. Advertising revenue would dictate the location of stations and their power; the quality of programs would depend upon advertising; advertising would determine the times available for educational programs; almost inevitably the "monopoly would associate itself with American adver tisers who with their large resources would be able to pur chase the best hours, and Canadian business would suffer as it does now"; and finally, the programs of a private monopoly would not be able to compete effectively with 51 those of the American chains. k7Ibid., P. 161. ^8Ibid. ^ Ibid. ^QIbid. ^Ibid., pp. 161-162. 135 If a private monopoly were established, some form of 52 government supervision would be required. This control could be exercised by an official of the government or 53 through a Commission, as in the United States. Both methods would be dangerous and would not guarantee "that public opinion will be free from the manipulation of parti- 9+ san or of commercial interests." Then Spry considered the last possibility— "the creation by the State of an independent company with the powers of a private corporation and the functions of a pub- 55 lie utility." After listing the features of the proposed company which were outlined in the Aird Report, he said that the Report did not specify whether the federal government or the provinces should appoint the directorate, nor did it specify whether the directorate would be paid or honorary. It stated that "the provincial authorities should be in a position to exercise full control over programmes," but modified this by stating, "As to what extent the provinces should participate in effecting this control, of course, is a matter which could be decided between themselves and the Dominion government." The Aird Report may be left at this point, its principal recommendation accepted, but the details ampli fied/55 Spry then offered a proposed organization of the new 52Ibid., p. 1 6 2. ^ Ibid. ^ Ibid., p. 163. ^Ibid.. p. 16b. Ibid. company. After the Board of Directors was constituted, succeeding Directors would he appointed for a three-year period; five members would retire after each three-year period; new members would be recommended by the existing Broadcasting Council and appointed by Order in Council; Board Members would receive the regular government allow ance for travelling expenses but no remuneration for their 57 services. On the recommendation of the Board the Minister of Marine would appoint a paid staff "for the technical ser vices, programmes, research, publicity, and other branches £ T Q of the broadcasting company." The general manager would be a man of widest experience in broadcasting; he "would be responsible directly to the Council of the Company, and would have the same security of office as a deputy minis- 59 60 ter." He would not be a civil servant. The Company should be responsible "to a sub committee of the Privy Council consisting of the Minister of Marine, as chairman, and two other ministers, say rail- Z. I ways and agriculture, as members." This kind of command yielded satisfactory results in the National Research • ^Ibid.. p. 165. ^8Ibid, 59lbid. 60 Ibid, 61Ibid. 137 Council which operated "without a hint of political inter ference ." 62 Provincial governments would exercise full control of educational broadcastsEducational programs "should 6 b be under the provincial department of education." A pro vincial advisory council of volunteers should exercise con trol over all other provincial broadcasts and be responsi- 65 ble to the provincial department of education. ' By arrangement with the national company, specified times could be allotted to the provincial council for broadcasts 66 on the national stations within the province. Because of changed conditions it might be necessaiy to begin with fewer stations than were recommended in the Report. The government subsidy probably should be elimi nated; increased revenue to the amount of $2,000,000 annually could be expected from license fees and from indirect advertising; this sum would be sufficient to main tain an excellent broadcasting system which would serve the entire country.^ At least three sources would provide programs: the ^2Ibid., p. 1 6 6. ^8Ibid. 6IfIbid. 6^Ibid. 66Ibid. 67Ibid.. p. 167. 68Ibid. 138 provinces, the sponsors of indirect advertising programs, 6g and local low-power stations. The new company would increase competition in programs instead of eliminating it.70 Spry then presented a summary of the many advantages which he foresaw would result from the establishment of a national company: direct advertising would be eliminated; the nation would be able to hear Canadian programs of great variety; indirect advertisers would have opportunities to sponsor programs; the best American programs would be broadcast without interference from small private stations; relays of European and American programs could be exchanged for Canadian programs; national symphony orchestras, choirs, and dramatic groups would be founded; "above all, this most potent instrument for the forming of public opinion would 71 not pass out of Canadian control." He concluded the article by stating that a National radio system, intelligently directed, would give Canada many of the stimuli her national life requires. It would stimulate musical composi tion, dramatic composition and the talent to inter pret both. It would enable different sections of Canada to speak their hopes and problems unto the others. It would give this country the basis of an informed public opinion such as the educational sys tem, the press, the theatre, the motion picture, 69 Ibid. 70Ibid. 7^Ibid., pp. 168-169. 139 our literature have not yet given. Here is a majestic instrument of national unity and national culture. Its potentialities are too great, its influence and significance are too vast, to he left to the petty purposes of selling cakes of soap.'2 III. THE LEAGUE CLARIFIES ITS POLICY 73 Spry completed the article by December 20, 1930. In subsequent correspondence the League began to indicate more fully its positions on finances, local broadcasting, appointments to the Board of Directors, control of pro grams, and methods which it would advocate to keep the new 71+ company independent of political interference. Early in the new year Spry received a second letter 7^ from Fred MacKelcan. MacKelcan doubted that a Canadian Broadcasting Company could achieve results comparable to those of the BBC; he maintained that the League did not advocate "the vital feature of the British system, which is that of a strong central control with practically ^2Ibid., p. 169. ^Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from Professor Duncan McArthur to Graham Spry, November 18, 1930. ^ Ibid., Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Paul Nanton, December 21, 1930; Letter from Alan Plaunt to Professor G. C, Sedgewick, December 23, 1930; Letter from Alan Plaunt to A. E. Grauer, December 28, 1930. ^Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Pred MacKelcan to Graham Spry, January 2, 1931. Vide pp. 97-100. ll+o despotic powers."7^ He maintained further that if a national broadcasting company should be established, the natural concentration of broadcasting in Toronto would dis appear; then the small sum which was available for programs "would largely be dissipated by spreading the expenditures over a large number of broadcasting cities."77 In conclu sion, he expressed the view that "one superb [musical] performance is of infinitely greater value than one hundred mediocre ones, even if the latter do not do a great deal of harm, as I am inclined to think is the fact"; he implied that a national company might be able to broadcast only 78 inadequate performances of great musical compositions. In reply Spiy devoted three pages to an explanation of the apparent contradiction in the Aird Report concerning 79 the powers of the federal government and the provinces. 7 * He agreed that the Report was vague on the method of appointment to the Board of Directors and on the control of programs; he maintained that the vagueness was deliberate and that "the definition was to be provided by the draft Bill."80 Spry said that the vagueness reflected the state of 76Ibid. 77Ibid. 78Ibid. 7^Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to Fred MacKelcan, January 9* 1931* 8QIbid. 1*+1 public opinion when the Report was drafted; it also reflected the disagreement between Frigon, who favored provincial control, and Bowman, who favored a strong con stitutional fact that education was under the jurisdiction ness was essential to a unanimous report; this accounted for the apparent supremacy of the provinces in statements Spry then declared that he had definite authoritative knowledge that the draft bill give the dominion the predominant control and that it was the full intention of the framers of the report to give the Dominion control in all but specifically educational and provincial broad casts.^ To support his statement Spry drew attention to three sections of the Aird Report which qualified the apparent supremacy of the provinces; (1) the meaning of "full control" was to be determined by consultation between the dominion and the provincial governments; (2) the method of appointing provincial directors was "to be decided upon by agreement between the Dominion and the provincial authorities"; and (3) the structure of the company itself On tral body. A third cause of the vagueness was the con- of the provinces 82 Consequently some compromise or vague on pages seven and twelve of the Report.83 81Ibid. Vide p. 55. 83lbid. 1^2 was a further limitation on provincial control.®^ The com pany was to be established by Federal Act. The federal government would provide the capital expenditure, would collect the principal source of income, would promulgate and enforce radio regulations, would appoint the direc torate as provided in the draft. Bill, would appoint the professional staff, would own and maintain all stations, and would collect and use all revenue from indirect adver- . . . 86 tising. The new company would differ from the BBC in two ways: (1) indirect advertising would be retained for revenue; and (2) the provinces would be represented on the Board of Directors through appointments which would be made by the Dominion; additionally they would have full control over "specifically provincial subjects, e.g., education on and provincial elections." Then he presented a summary of the possibilities which he discussed in his article for the Queen’s Quarterly, eliminating in turn the unrestricted granting of licenses, the inability of the government to choose between appli cants, and the arguments for a private monopoly in broad- 88 casting. 85 Ibid. 8?Ibid 86 88 Ibid, Ibid, 1^3 He itemized all of the arguments in favor of a pub lic monopoly and ended the letter with the following state ment : A public company offers the surest method of guaranteeing that the control of this vast instrument for influencing public opinion remains in Canadian hands. I would as well hand over the control of our high school system to the Radio Corporation of America and associated companies such as the General Electric, R. K. 0. theatres, etc., as to let these same interests control the broadcasts into Canadian homes. A private system must come under the control of that American radio colossus. Private systems in Canada today have done so. A public system might be good or bad. If it were bad, could it be worse than Gooderham and Worts or La Presse? If these typical private stations are bad, what can we do about it, we, the public? If the programmes of a public company are bad, the remedy is at hand in our institutions. There is no effective remedy today in the case of relayed American advertising programmes. A Canadian public system would remain Canadian. If it were good, it could be improved. If it were bad, it could be reformed. The private system offers neither opportunity In a postscript Spry reiterated that the background information on the Aird Report was "definitely established fact" and warned that "it would be most unfortunate for the objects of the report and the Radio League" if the provin cial governments, especially of Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick, learned of it because of their determination to establish provincial control in broadcasting.9^ 89Ibid 9QIbid. Vide p. 5l. lMf The same difficulty of federal versus provincial control of programs prompted a letter several weeks later from George Pelletier, who was a strong supporter of the 91 League in Quebec.' In his reply Spry maintained that provincial control of programs was being used as the major objection by those in Ontario and Quebec who opposed a government broadcasting company.^2 In Ontario the Toronto Telegram was hinting at French domination; in Quebec, English-speaking Canadians were saying that French Canadians would completely control broadcasting in that province, while La Presse maintained that the proposals of the Canadian League would mean English domination of French Canada.9^ Spry informed Pelletier that recently he answered the identical question for a "very important group in Toronto," and stated his response.^ He added that the difficulty did not occur to him when the League began. He saw it in this form: If the Radio League says "full provincial control" and minimizes the federal element, the Toronto Telegram will have a great weapon against us. If the Radio League does not stand for "full provincial control," then La Presse will have an equally strong weapon in French Canada.95 Ibid.. Letter from Graham Spry to George Pelletier, January 21, 1931* 92Ibid. 93Ibid. 9^Ibid. 9^Ibid. lk 5 Spry thought that the best plan was to sidestep the 96 issue simply by citing the Aird Report. He learned recently from Dr. Frigon that two methods of appointing the Board of Directors were proposed: "appointment by the Dominion from a panel submitted by the Province or appoint ment by the Province from a panel submitted by the Domin ion. Spry held that the League was not required to state the method it favored, for to do so would be to put a powerful weapon in the hands of the opponents. He explained that he favored "increased Dominion control in most ques tions, recognizing to the utmost, however, the special 98 position of Quebec." Dominion control was essential in broadcasting both for efficiency and for the effective use of radio for 99 national purposes. Spry therefore interpreted the Report to mean that the Dominion would appoint the provincial directors but that the provinces would have full control of distinctly provincial programs. He concluded the first section of the letter by stating: My personal interpretation of the Aird Report, however, need not be the interpretation of the Ibid. 97lbid. ^Ibid 9^Ibid. lOOlbid. l*+6 Canadian Radio League and we can restrict our stand on this point to the quoting of the Aird Report. Personally, you may interpret it one way, I another. You may stress the absolute con trol of provincial programmes, I minimize it; but so long as we recognize what the tendency of each is and what the dangers of too specific recommendations are, we may be able to steer a safe course. I think, however, that so far as you are concerned, it would be well to stress your own interpretation publicly. So far as I am concerned, I will not press my own interpre- tion. So far as the Radio League is concerned, we can quote the Aird Report. If there is a par liamentary committee, then we must consult before any action is taken.101 Spry then wrote of another danger which threatened the objects of the League, the formation of a private 102 broadcasting monopoly. He believed that such a monopoly was being proposed and that it had supporters in the gov- 10^ emment. In his opinion this proposal would give the railways too much influence over public opinion; it would double the financial outlay; it would continue to subordi nate educational purposes to commercial interests; and it would be “less national and more central Canadian than a IqL j - public company." He believed that the west will certainly object to such a broad casting monopoly as being too eastern and too St. James street; the Maritimes will have a simi lar feeling. These forces, with French-Canada, should be able to weaken the move being made in the direction of such a monopoly.10' 101Ibid. 102Ibid. 1Q3Ibid. 1Ql+Ibid. 1Q5lbid. The League’s new booklet. PI aim t had the new book let ready for the printer by the middle of December, 1930.^^ His line of thought was quite different from the one he adopted in the earlier pamphlet. He began with citations from three Canadians: the Rt. Hon. Arthur Maighen expressed the view that Canadian broadcasting could never hope to achieve the best educational results "while the selection of material for broadcasting remains in commer cial hands1 ' ; Colonel J. H. Woods, a former president of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, stated that Canada urgently needed a "National Broadcasting System"; Dr. E. H. MacMillan, Principal of the Toronto Conservatory of Music, stated that there was "abundant material of a first-class quality in Canada to provide as fine radio performances as could be wished for."^7 The opinions of two Americans were then cited. Dr. Lee De Forest stated that: the present all too marked tendency of the broad cast chains to lower their bars to the greed of direct advertising will rapidly work to sap the life-blood and destroy the greatest usefulness of this magnificent new means of contact which we engineers haye-sSO laboriously toiled to upbuild and perfect. ~^8Ibid.. Box 22. The Canadian Radio League« January, 1931, pp. 32. Vide p. 100. 107Ibid., p. 2. 108Ibid., p. 3. lbS The second statement was that of Judge Ira E Robinson, Chairman of the Federal Radio Commission, who in referring to the monopoly of U. S. radio then being formed, said: This group by its power and influence is so subtle and effective as to portend the greatest danger to the fundamentals of American republican government. No greater issue presents itself to the citizenry. A monopoly of mere property may be had, but a monopoly of the voice and expression of the people is quite a different thing. These data are in Table IX on page l*+9» A comparison of the data in Table IX with those in Table VIII on page 115 shows that thirty-two new members joined the National Coun cil and seven members joined the Executive Committee during Plaunt wrote that the League was founded "in response to a widespread demand throughout Canada for the sented a general outline of what the League advocated. It accepted the "general principle of the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting— namely broadcasting as a public service"; its recommendations differed from those of The booklet contained a list of the current members of the National Council and of the Executive Committee the last three weeks of December, 1930 improvement of the present radio situation." 112 He pre- 110Ibid., pp. 5, 31 112Ibid., p. 6 . 1^-9 TABLE IX NATIONAL COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE AS OP JANUARY, 1931a National Counoil Sir Robert A. Falconer, President, University of Toronto. Hector Mclnnes, K, C., Halifax. E. J. Tarr, K. C., Winnipeg. Mrs. H. P. McLeod, Fredericton, Provincial President, I. 0. D. E. W. M. Birks, Montreal, Past President, Canadian Chambers of Commerce; Past President, Montreal Board of Trade. Louis St. Laurent, President, Canadian Bar Association. Col. Hugh Osier, Winnipeg, President, Osier, Hammond & Nanton. Hon. N. W. Rowell, K. C., Toronto, President, Toronto General Trusts. Dr. W. Harvey Smith, Winnipeg, President, British Medical Association. Tom Moore, President Trades & Labour Congress of Canada; Director, Canadian National Railways. Senator Cairine Wilson, Ottawa. Pred N. Southam, Montreal, President, Southam Publishing Company. H. W. Wood, Calgary, President, United Farmers of Alberta; Director, Canadian Wheat Pool. Mrs. J. A. Wilson, President, National Council of Women. General Sir Arthur Currie, Montreal, Principal McGill University; Director, Bank of Montreal. Canon Emile Chartier, Vice-Rector, University of Montreal. Dr. R. C. Wallace, President, University of Alberta; President, Association of Canadian Clubs. Lady Kingsmill, Ottawa. Col. J. H. Woods, Calgary, Past President, Canadian Cham bers of Commerce. Mrs. John A. Stewart, Perth, Past President, Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire. Dr. Edouard Montpetit, Secretary-General, University of Montreal. Monseigneur Camille Roy, Rector, Laval University; Past President, Royal Society. Dr. A. H. Moore, President, University of King's College, Nova Scotia. Col. 0. M. Biggar, K. C., Ottawa. Dr. Stanley Mackenzie, President, Dalhousie University. TABLE IX (continued) 150 National Council Mrs. A. J. Freiman, Ottawa, President, Hadassah of Canada. The Right Rev. Archbishop Matheson, former Primate of all Canada. Russel Smart, K. C., Ottawa. Dr. Walter C. Murray, President, University of Saskatchewan. Brig. Gen. J. A. Clark, Vancouver. Dr. A. H. McGreer, Principal, Bishop's College, Lennoxville. Rev. E. H. Oliver, D. P., Moderator of the United Church of Canada. Dr. George M. Wrong, Toronto. General Victor Odium, Vancouver. Carleton W. Stanley, Montreal, McGill University. Col. Victor Spencer, Vancouver. Rev. Father Marchand, Rector, Ottawa University. L. J. Ladner, K. C., Vancouver. Blake Wilson, Vancouver, Director, C. P. R. W. C. Woodward, Vancouver. Victor Dord, President-General, Montreal School Board. G. Fred McNally, M. A., Chief Supervisor of Schools for Alberta. Colonel G. A. Wells, Winnipeg. Dr. S. J. Willis, Superintendent of Education, Victoria. G. Fred Pearson, Halifax, Director Maritime Telephone and Telegraph Co. Dr. Henry Munro, Halifax, Superintendent of Education for Nova Scotia. Dr. W. S. Carter, Fredericton, Superintendent of Education for New Brunswick. Dr. H. H. Shaw, Superintendent of Education for P. E. I. Miss Muriel Brock, Toronto, President, Y. W. C. A. Walter A. Black, Halifax, Pickford and Black. H. Edmond Dupre, Quebec, Vice-President, Compagnie Chinic. Brig. General T. L. Tremblay, General Manager, Port of Quebec. Dr. G. J. Trueman, Sackville, N. B., President, Mount Allison University. Mgr. A. V. J. Piette, Rector, University of Montreal. Sir George Gameau, Quebec, President Battlefields Commis sion; member National Research Council. Hon. Frank Carrel, Quebec. Rev. Archdeacon Scott, C. M. G., D. S. 0., Quebec. Dr. H. P. Whidden, Chancellor McMaster University, Hamilton. Colonel R. D. Williams, Chairman, Vancouver Board of Trade. C. L, Burton, Toronto; President, Robert Simpson Co., member National Research Council. 151 TABLE IX (continued) Executive Committee Graham Spry, Chairman, Executive Committee, Ottawa. Alan Plaunt, Honorary Secretary, Ottawa. A. Gemmill, Manager Bank of Nova Scotia, Ottawa; Honorary Treasurer. Professor Prank Scott, Montreal. A. E. [sic] Corbett, Edmonton, Director of University Extension. Brooke Claxton, Montreal. R. K. Pinlayson, Winnipeg. A. E. Grauer, Vancouver. K. A. Greene, Ottawa. Miss Violet Lafleur, Ottawa. Donald Matthews, Toronto. J. A. Me Isaac, Secretary, Canadian Legion of the B. E. S. L. Rev. D. N. McLachlan, D. D., Social Service Board, United Church. George Pelletier, Montreal. Norman Smith, Editor, U. P. A., Calgary. Paul Nanton, Winnipeg. George Smith, Toronto. Miss Margaret Southam, Ottawa. Pather Henri St. Denis, Ottawa University. Miss Charlotte Whitton, Child Welfare Council. W. T. Straith, Victoria. R. McQueen, Saskatoon. Eugene L’Heureux, Chicoutimi. E. H. Blake, Toronto. aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22. Canadian Radio League. January. 1931, PP. 5, 31. 152 the Report on financing, the establishment of the national directorate, the selection of the provincial advisory 113 bodies, and the provision for local broadcasts. It also wished to encourage "the organization and development of lll+ Canadian talent for radio programmes." The first major section, "Results of Canadian Radio on an Advertising Basis" was reproduced almost exactly from the earlier pamphlet. The material was expanded with the following statements: (1) Chicago alone had five times as much broadcasting power as there was in the whole of Canadg (2) private broadcasters were "obliged to make profitable arrangements with American advertising chains whereby as much as 60 per cent of the programmes given by them are in reality relays from the U. S."; (3) Canadians in the larger centres were under a moral obligation to see that rural Canada had radio service; (*+) one of the most objectionable features of Canadian radio was "the overloading of pro grammes with direct advertising matter"; (5) private sta tions had failed to provide adequate studio and research staffs; (6) a grave danger existed that radio, like the motion picture and the theater, would be controlled by American corporations; (7) many of the best broadcasting hours were "being handed over to American exploiters of the . pp. 6-7. llLfIbid.. p. 7 153 Canadian advertising field"; and (8) American advertisers literally dump advertising programmes through their relay stations in Canada* By this is meant the American advertisers, having covered their own territory, and having thus paid for the musicians and others retained by them can cover the Canadian territory through their relay stations in Canada at no additional programme cost.1- 1 -5 The next important section of the earlier pamphlet " 1 1 A was entitled "Features of the Aird Plan." It now read 117 "The Royal Commission's Plan." In the revised version Plaunt made four fundamental changes. "Programmes of pro vincial utility," he wrote, "[were] to be supervised by a 118 provincial director and advisory council." The earlier statement read: "Provincial programmes [were] to be fully controlled by the provincial authority through a provincial 119 director and advisory council." 7 The Aird Report and the first League pamphlet pro jected a figure of $900,000 from license fees; the booklet 120 suggested instead a sum of $1,500,000. Revenue from indirect advertising was estimated at $700,000 to ^-^Ibid.. pp. 8-11. Vide p. 80. ^•^Vide p. 83. ■'■■^Plaunt Papers, Box 22. The Canadian Radio League, January, 1931, P. 1*+. ll8Ibid, 119vide pp. 83, 136-137, 1^0-1^6. ^^Plaunt Papers, op. cit.. p. 15. i5k $1,000,000 in place of the original $700,000 121 The book let added a stipulation that an annual subsidy from the federal government would be requested only if it were found statements in the Report and in the pamphlet to the effect that the government subsidy was an integral feature of the 123 recommendations. At this point Plaunt added two more comments to the three he had listed in the earlier pamphlet: the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, Imperial Oil, and other national advertisers would be able to rent broadcasting time "without the cost of maintaining expen sive equipment"; and political broadcasting would be limited by an arrangement between the political parties in place of the present arrangement whereby available funds 12*+ determined the amount of time each party might receive. A new section was added in which the League offered sing the recommendations of the Aird Report on finances, the League stated that $1,500,000 could be expected from to be necessary 122 This represented a departure from the 125 a detailed explanation of its proposals. After discus- 123cf. pp. 57, 83. ipl+ Plaunt Papers, loc. cit 125ih-i^ 155 license fees annually and at least $1,000,000 from indirect 126 advertising. However, "in view of the Government's reduced revenue this year," a less ambitious plan for sta tions than the one which was recommended by the Royal Com- 127 mission could be adopted. The recommendations of the Commission could serve as a long-range objective of the new 128 company. The League advocated that personnel of the new com pany should be chosen "with regard to consideration of ability alone," that local needs should be met by "snail, short-range radio broadcasting stations," and that Canada "should secure a minimum of 20 wave-lengths of the 96 avail able for broadcasting on this continent as her fair propor- 129 tion on the basis of her geographical extent." Two sections of the earlier pamphlet, "Why a National System Is Desirable" and "Possibilities [instead of the earlier "Advantages"! of a National System of Radio 130 Ownership and Control," were retained in the booklet. A list was then provided of "Some Canadian publica- 131 tions favouring broadcasting as a public service." 126Ibid., p. 22. 127Ibid., p. 23. 128Ibid. 129Ibid. 13°Ibid.. pp. 12-13, 19-21. Cf. pp. 82-83. 181Ibid., PP. 26-27. 156 Three publications in the earlier list were omitted, viz., Alberta Labor News, Belleville Intelligencer, and Belleville Ontario; nine publications appeared as new sup porters— Alberta Farmer. Vancouver Sun, Free Press Prairie Farmer, Ottawa Farm Joumal, Toronto Mail and Empire. Toronto Star Weekly, Quebec Le Soleil. Quebec L'Evenement. 132 and Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. The data are in Table X on page 157. The list of organizations which favored a national broadcasting system was reproduced from the League's press 133 release of December 8, 1930. These data are in Table VI on page 1 0 9. The booklet contained copies of the three coverage maps which were described in the preceding chapter; it 13*+ explained each map in detail. George Pelletier, Administrator of Le Devoir, trans lated the booklet into French. He reported on January 10, 135 1931? that the French version was ready for the printer. I32Ibid. Gf. p. 110. 133Cf. p. 109. 13V . p. 11*+. These maps were reproduced in Figures 1 and 2 on pages 117-118. ^3^Plaunt Papers, Box 2. Letter from George Pelletier to Alan Plaunt, January 10, 1931. 157 TABLE X SOME CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS FAVORING BROADCASTING AS A PUBLIC SERVICE, JANUARY, 1931a Alberta ^Calgary "Herald" ........................... (Ind. Con.) Edmonton "Bulletin"........... , .........(Con.) Red Deer "Advocate".....................(Ind.) Lethbridge "Herald" ....................... (Ind.) Peace River "Record".................. (Ind.) "Alberta Parmer" ........................... (Ind. Con.) "U. P. A."................................ (Agric.) British Columbia , Victoria "Times"...........................(Lib.) Vancouver "Province" ....................... (Ind.) Nelson "News" .... ....... ....... (Con.) Vancouver "Microphone".... ................. (Ind.) Vancouver "Sun" ........................... (Ind. Lib.) Manitoba Winnipeg "Tribune".........................(Ind.) Manitoba "Free Press"..... ................. (Ind.) "Free Press Prairie Farmer" ............... (Ind.) New Brunswick Moncton "Transcript" ....................... (Ind. Lib.) Ontario Ottawa "Citizen".......... ................(Ind.) Ottawa "Journal" ........................... (Ind. Con.) “Hamilton "Spectator" ....................... (Ind. Con.) Owen Sound "Sun Times".... ................. (Ind.) Brockville "Recorder and Times" ....... (Ind. Lib.) Windsor "Border Cities Star" .............. (Ind.) Hamilton "Herald" ......................... (Ind.) "Canadian Congress Journal" Ottawa ......... (Ind.) Toronto "Legionary" ....................... (Ind.) Toronto "Saturday Night" ... (Ind.) .Hamilton "Labour News" ................. (Lab.) “Toronto "Star" ............................ (Ind. Lib.) Toronto "Radio News of Canada" ............. (Radio) 158 TABLE X (Continued) Ontario (continued) Toronto, MacLean Pub. Co., Publications . . . (Ind.) Ottawa "Le Droit" ......................... (Ind.) Ottawa "Farm Journal" ..................... (Can.) Toronto "Mail and Empire" ................. (Con.) Nova Scotia Halifax "Chronicle" ....................... (Lib.) Halifax "Daily Star" ..................... (Ind.) Quebec Montreal "Gazette" ....................... (Con.) Montreal "La Patrie" ..................... (Ind.) Montreal "Le Devoir" ..................... (Ind.) , Granby "Leader-Mail" ...................(Ind.) Quebec "Le Soleil" ....................... (Lib.) Chicoutimi "Progres du Saguenay" ......... (Ind.) Quebec "L’Evenement" ..................... (Ind.) Quebec "Chronicle-Telegraph" ............. (Ind.) Saskatchewan Prince Albert "Herald" ................... (Ind.) Saskatoon "Western Producer" ............. (Agric.) Regina "Leader-Post" ..................... (Ind. Lib.) Saskatoon "Star-Phoenix" ................. (Ind.) aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22. The Canadian Radio League. January, 1931, PP. 26-27. ^Broadcasting station owners. IV. OPPOSITION TO THE LEAGUE 159 Within two weeks of its first public meeting, the League began to face formidable opposition. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Montreal La Presse opposed govern ment ownership and operation of broadcasting stations; they 1 O A began to act against the League. In a letter dated December 2^, 1930, Brooke Claxton wrote Spry that La Presse would "probably interview every one that you have listed as supporting you, in an endeavour to change their minds."13^ He reported also the rumor that "both Beatty [President, Canadian Pacific Railway] and Thornton [President, Canadian National Railways] are 1 ^8 strongly opposed to your scheme." Spry replied that Mr. Beatty is, of course, against the plan of a national radio but I can assure you definitely that the C. N. R. is not. Unfortunately, that assurance cannot be used publicly. I have the document (not to keep) but before my eyes and the C. N, R. supports the Aird system. There is a director of the C. N. R. on our council, as you know. While we cannot sya [.sic] that the ^ 6 Ibid.j Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Dr. G. W. Wrong, December 27, 1930. Vide p. *4-9. 137Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Graham Spry, December 2*+, 1930. 138Ibid 160 C. N. R. will support the system, we can say in 09 conversation that "the C. N. R. is not opposed," J Spry believed that the main opposition was coming from "La Presse, the C. P. R., the Canadian Manufacturers* Association, the General Electric, some station owners and the general 'keep the government out of anything' state of mind." llf0 The Canadian Manufacturers' Association requested a list of the League's officers and a statement of its posi- 1*+1 tion. Spry forwarded the information, using the occa- 1^-2 sion to state his views on the radio stalemate. He pointed out also that "Canadian radio equipment manufac turers are represented on our National Council by Russell Smart, K. C., their counsel, and by Colonel 0. M. Biggar, 1^3 K. C." 1 3 Opposition from a new source appeared in the first week of January, 1931. CKGW, the Gooderham and Worts sta tion in Bowmanville, Ontario, began broadcasting "mislead ing statements regarding the objectives of the Canadian 139 Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, Leeember 26, 1930. •^^Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to Pete McQueen, Lecember 26, 1930. lhl Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to Alex Marshall, December 29* 1930. llf2Ibid. llf3lbid. l6l Radio League." Mr. A. M. Edwards, the local Member of Parliament, received "a lot of phone calls and quite a num ber of letters"; he requested fifty booklets from the League so that he could send one to each complainant.He informed Plaunt that apparently every effort is being made by this broadcasting station to prevent the adoption of the recommendations of the Aird Report, and an effort is being made to work on Members of Parlia ment in an endeavour to get them to commit them selves against the recommendations of the Aird Report.1^® Spry answered the letter. He stated that the League had been aware of "private whispering campaigns" but that l*+7 this was the first public attack. He requested detailed information, stating that the criticism could be answered v l* + 8 through the press. One week later, Plaunt wrote J. A. Atkinson, owner of the Toronto Star.3 - ^ He informed Atkinson that the Toronto Telegram and CKG-W were deliberately misrepresenting Ibid.. Box 2. Letter from A. M. Edwards to Alan Plaunt, January 8, 1931. - ^Ibid. llf6Ibid. 1If7Ibid., Box 1 1. Letter from Graham Spry to A. M. Edwards, January 9, 1931. llf8Ibid. llf9lbid.. Box 2. Letter from Alan Plaunt to J. A. Atkinson, January 1*+, 1931. 162 i5o the League. The Telegram gave strong editorial approval to a national broadcasting company on December 9, 1929; it reversed its position and was now publishing "editorials on its radio and editorial pages calling on radio listeners to protest against the Radio League to their Member of Parlia- 151 ment." CKGW meanwhile was stating on the air that the League advocated a $30.00 license fee, that it wished to eliminate "all American programmes," and that a government 152 system would cost $15,000,000 a year. The Toronto Telegram began publishing two two-column editorials daily against the Radio League and against nationalized broadcasting; La Presse in Montreal was making "generous contributions of time for educational work in the Province [of Quebec] and it will probably attack the Asso ciation [of Canadian Clubs] for letting its Secretary 153 [Spry] be so active in the League." The League allowed the statements in the Telegram to go -unchallenged; they were "so absurd that it is wise to let as much active protest as there may exist express itself 150Ibid. • ^ Ibid.; "I note especially articles on pages 5 and 6 of Tuesday, January 13." •^•^Ibid. 153 JIbid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, January 17, 1931; also Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, January 2 0, 1931. 15^ on the basis of exaggeration." Within a week or ten days the League would counter-attack. 163 1 a week or ten 155 Meanwhile Beatty had been asking various members of the National Council to withdraw from the League. W. M. Birks, who had joined the Council in November, wrote 157 that he dined with Beatty on January 23. Beatty and a number of prominent Montrealers were "distinctly opposed to the League [and] . . • are even talking of forming a League 1 p J Q in opposition to yours." Although Birks thought that he should adopt a "somewhat neutral attitude," he did not 159 withdraw from the Council. A different kind of opposition appeared towards the end of January, 1931. Premier Taschereau announced in the Quebec House that "he was going to fight for provincial radio in the court s. Brooke Claxton, a Montreal lawyer and a member of the League's Executive Committee, made this 1 Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, January 2 1, 1931. J - ^Ibid. ^^Ibid., Box 2. Letter from W. M. Birks to Alan Plaunt, January 2*+, 1931. 1?7Ibld. 158Ibid. 159In the third booklet of the League which was pub lished in March 1931, W. M. Birks is listed on page *f. 160 Ibid.« Box 11. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Graham Spry, January 23, 1931. I6if comment upon Taschereau*s statement: Whether or not this will hurt or benefit your cause depends on [Prime Minister] Bennett's atti tude, If he fights Taschereau, it is probable that you will have won, but if he confers with Taschereau and by agreement works.out some com promise, you will probably lose.1®1 V. THE LEAGUE AND THE GOVERNMENT The League was unable to ascertain the attitude of the Prime Minister on broadcasting, although it knew that 162 several Cabinet Ministers favored the Aird Report. The Minister of Marine stated that "if all the license appli- catns [sic] were allowed to erect stations the situation " 1 6 ^ would be impossible." Early in the new year the League sent a letter to 1 6 1 4 - all English-speaking Members of Parliament. The letter stated that public opinion strongly favored a national broadcasting company; it listed the individuals, organiza tions, and newspapers that supported the Radio League; it maintained that Canadian broadcasting was clearly l6lIbid. •^^Ibld Letter from Graham Spry to Pete McQueen, December 2 6, 1930. l63lbid. Ibid., Box 12. Form letter from the Canadian Radio League to all English-speaking Members of Parliament, January 2, 1931. 165 "unsatisfactory and menacing"; it summarized the defects of broadcasting by private enterprise; it concluded by stating that the League advocated a national broadcasting company, the elimination of direct advertising, and the "appointment of an honorary unpaid directorate." ' With each letter 166 the League enclosed a copy of its new booklet. Delegation to the Minister of Marine. On January 7, 1931 > Spry and Plaunt decided that the time had arrived to speak with the govemmen't; accordingly they organized a T 67 delegation to the Minister of Marine for January The delegation had two purposes: (1) to obtain pub licity for the League and its objectives; and (2) to con vince the government of widespread popular support for broadcasting legislation in the next session of Parlia- 168 ment. Plaunt believed that the first object was "abun dantly achieved— headlines, front-page stories, and edi torials in almost every paper in Canada and [the delega tion] was commented on favourably by many editorial 169 writers." The second object, "though not achieved immediately, was in a sense achieved for a few weeks later l6^Ibid. l66Ibid. •^^Ibid.. Box 26. "Notebook of Alan Plaunt," p. 26. l68Ibid., pp. 25-26. l69Ibid. 166 the Prime Minister announced to the Trades and Labour Dele- 170 gation his intention of bringing down radio legislation. The members of the delegation were chosen so as to 171 represent all segments of the population. Rev. Father Marchand, Rector of Ottawa University, spoke for French Canada; Mrs. J. A. Wilson and Lady Kingsmill spoke for Canadian Women’s organizations; K. A. Greene and Russell Smart spoke for business; Plaunt spoke for educational institutions; Tom Moore spoke for labor; J. A. Mclsaac spoke for national organizations; and Spry spoke for the 172 League. Spry introduced each member of the delegation; he "summed up the situation and the opinion in a very 173 forceful speech and memorandum." Commander Edwards of the radio branch of the Department of Marine later com mented that "it was the best organized, best run, and most 171* effective [delegation] I have seen." Four days after the delegation to the Minister of Marine, Spry and Plaunt sent a form letter to the eighteen 175 members of the Cabinet. In it they stated that 170Ibid. l7^Ibid., p. 27. For accuracy this list was compared with the list in the Progress Report of January 29» 1931 » Box 22. 172Ibid. 173Ibid.. p. 2 8. 17**Ibid. 17^Ibid., Box 12. Letter from the Canadian Radio League to ftt. Hon. R. B. Bennett, January 13, 1931. "This letter to every member of the Cabinet (18)." the establishment of a Canadian Radio Broadcasting Company by the Government is already supported by: 1 . Fifty leading daily and other papers with a total circulation of 2, 0 2 8, 6 6 8. 2. Leaders of women’s organizations with a total membership of 6 0 1, 0 0 0. 3. National Associations, labour and farm organiza tions with a membership of 3 2 7, 0 0 0. Twelve university presidents, six provincial superintendents of education, and other educa tional leaders. 5. The heads of the Anglican, Catholic and United Churches. 6 . Such outstanding business leaders as C. L. Burton, President, Robert Simpson Company; W. M. Birks, Ex-President, Canadian Chambers of Commerce, Montreal Board of Trade; Walter Black, Halifax; Edmond Dupr^, Quebec; Colonel Hugh Osier, 175 Winnipeg, and Colonel Victor Spencer, Vancouver. A copy of the League's booklet was enclosed with each letter; the letter drew attention to the maps which showed "the comparative range of Canadian and American sta- 177 tions in Canada." The League waited until January 2 k - to send a form 1 7 f t letter to all English-speaking Senators. This was a copy of the letter which was sent at the beginning of 179 January to all English-speaking Members of Parliament. 1 7 6Ibid. 1 7 7Ibid. l7®Ibid. Form letter from the Canadian Radio League to all English-speaking Senators, January 2*+, 1931. 17*Ibid. 168 As January drew to a close, Spry expressed the opin ion that "government control, the elimination of direct advertising and private enterprise" were likely to be the basis of the government's policy.1®^ He believed that items in the newspaper were "balloons to see more than l8l announcements." VI. THE ASHCROFT-SPRY DEBATE On January 10, 1931? the editors of Saturday Night invited Spry to write an article in which he would present the arguments for the nationalization of broadcasting.^®^ R. W. Ashcroft, General Manager of the Trans-Canada Broadcasting Company, agreed to write one which favored private ownership in radio.Spry accepted the offer and the articles were featured in the January 2b issue 18U of the weekly magazine. Neither contributor saw the manuscript of the other; Saturday Night featured them •^^Ibid.. Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, January 26, 1931. ^®^Ibid. ^®^Ibid.. Letter from H. W. McManus to Graham Spry, January 10, 1931. l83Ibid. l8lfGraham Spry and R. W. Ashcroft, "Should Radio Be Nationalized in Canada?" Saturday Night. ^6:2-3? January 2b t 1931. 185 somewhat in the form of a debate. 169 The Ashcroft article. Ashcroft believed that the objective of broadcasting should be Mto please most of the 186 people, most of the time." This objective was impossible with a monopoly, whether it be public or private. In Britain broadcasting was a lamentable failure; the motto of the British Broadcasting Corporation might well be "The public be dammed I In his opinion "most of the protagonists of Govern ment ownership and operation of Canadian radio are theo- 188 rists, and, some of them, possibly, idealists." Although few of them had any experience in broadcasting, the agita tion they were fostering might be responsible for some beneficial changes. Ashcroft believed that the alternatives were a gov ernment-owned and operated broadcasting system following the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting or the present system in which "broadcasting in Canada [would] continue to be operated and developed 190 . . . subject to active and efficient government control.." l8^Plaunt Papers, Box 11. letter from H. W. McManus to Graham Spry, January 10, 1931. - * - 88Graham Spry and R. W. Ashcroft, op. cit.. p. 2. l87Ibid., pp. 2-3. l88Ibid.. p. 3. l89ibid. 19°Ibid. 170 He believed that the first alternative was neither 191 desirable nor feasible. The capital expenditure which would be required to implement the recommendations of the Aird Report would approximate $10,000,000 instead of the $**,000,000 which the Report envisaged. According to Ashcroft the supporters of national broadcasting advocated that the annual cost of operation of the Government chain of stations would "require a minimum of $2,500,000." They do not say whether, in their opinion, the maximum would be $5,000,000 per year, or $25*000,000 per year. They say nothing about it. They figure that the minimum of $2,500,000 per year operating expense could be raised, as follows: $900,000 from license fees from radio-set owners. $700,000 for mentioning the names of sponsors of programs, and the balance of $900,000 by Govern ment subsidy. As a matter of fact, if the Royal Commission’s plan is put into operation, the Government subsidy will have to be over $15,000,000 per year. 92 If this $15,000,000 annual subsidy were deemed inadvisable, then the Government would be forced to increase the license fee from one dollar annually "to approximately thirty dollars a year, or to put an excise tax on radio receiving-set tubes of ten or more dollars a tube."'*'9^ Further he believed that "not a nickel would be forthcoming* of the estimated revenue from indirect advertising because 191Ibid. 192Ibid, 193Ibid. 171 19k advertisers were not philanthropists. On the supposition that the Government nationalized radio at a cost of $10,000,000, Ashcroft asked what the country would then do with this "Government radio plant."-*-95 Some might say, he replied, that we would have "$15,000,000 a year of public money to spend on Canadian radio programs to be staged mainly by Canadian musicians 196 and artistes and actors." He denied that this talent was available; he argued that "Canada would have to import the bulk of our talent from the U. S. and abroad, and spend most of our $15,000,000 a year on alien or temporarily re-patriated artistes and musicians and actors."'*'^'7 Canadians enjoyed "the music and,the voices of world-renowned orchestras and artistes" without cost; why should "tens of millions of the public moneys" be spent in duplicating what Canadians were 198 already receiving for nothing? The strongest argument against nationalized broad casting, in the opinion of Ashcroft, was that it "would open the way for the broadcast of political propaganda in 199 the interests of the party in power." He believed that the ministers of the government would declare that they had - ^ ibid. -^^Ibid. Ibid. 197 x bid. 1 i b i d . ^^Ibid. 172 no intention of using their control over broadcasting to gain their own ends; however he thought that "it would be just as well not to tempt them too sorely with the possible possession of too much power. "2<“ ^ In the concluding section of the article, Ashcroft stated that there were twice as many stations in Canada as 201 there should be. He suggested that the country should endeavour to duplicate in broadcasting the system that we at present enjoy in Canada in transporta tion, telegraphs, hotels and express traffic, viz: One Government-operated organization, under the wing of the Canadian National Railways. Another privately-owned organization, utilizing the radio broadcasting transmission lAftfis of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.202 This would provide healthy competition, which "in 203 any line of effort, spells progress." He ended the article with a question: Why, then, when radio in Canada is just coming into its own, should it be turned over to a group of Civil Service employees,--untrained and inexperi enced as impressarios and showmen-rand operated at the expense of the public purse?20^ The Spry article. Spry began with the statement that "radio in Canada is broadcasting of the advertisers for the 205 advertisers by the advertisers." Some programs were good and many bad; "but good or bad they are for the most 2Q0Ibid. 201Ibid. 202Ibid. 2Q3lbid. 20lfIbid. 20^Ibid.. p. 2. 206 part advertisements first and programmes second." The Canadian Radio League advocated the elimination of direct advertising and the establishment by the govern ment of a national broadcasting company which would own and 207 operate all stations. He described the composition of the League’s National Council. The League supported the 208 "general principle of the Aird Report." The League's position differed from the Report in several ways: it recommended fewer stations than did the Report; it advo cated low-power stations for local broadcasts and a Board of Directors composed of "twelve leading representatives of 209 business, educational and entertainment interests." At a cost of one cent a day per person Canadians could establish a well-ordered national broadcasting sys tem, could eliminate direct advertising, could retain con trol of broadcasting in Canadian hands, and could provide two of each five Canadians "with their first regular 210 Canadian programmes." Despite the charges of the Toronto Telegram, the company "would not be run by the 211 civil service." The League advocated an independent Board of Directors which would operate in much the same way 212 as the National Research Council. 206Ibid. 2Q7Ibid.. p. 3. 208Ibid. 209Ibid. 210Ibid. 211Ibid. 212Ibid. 17** He denied the "pathetically exaggerated statements" of the opponents who maintained that the League advocated a $30 license fee and that it wished to eliminate American 213 programs. Spry then contrasted one week of programming in America with one week in Britain; he maintained that British broadcasting without advertising was far superior 2ll+ for "programme variety, balance, and choice." He believed that some outstanding programs were provided in the United States and a few in Canada but asked from which 215 companies further progress might be expected. Radio in the private enterprise system simply could not provide good Canadian programs consistently because the revenue was not available; a national broadcasting system which was financed by license fees could provide variety in programs 2l6 as it had in Britain. In the last section of the Article Spry refuted some of the statements which were being made against the British Broadcasting Corporation. He cited statistics from the latest annual report of the BBC which showed a great increase in the number of licenses and in circulation of 217 the Listener and the Radio Times. These data were a 213Ibid. 2ll*Ibid., pp. 3, 11. 21 Ibid.. p. 11 2l6Ibid. 217Ibid.. p. 12. 175 strong argument for the popularity of the BBC. In addition more than two million reprints of broadcasts were sold dur- p-i o ing the year. Spry concluded that a dissatisfied public wanting radio and wanting it good or bad) might increase its licenses, but a dissatisfied public would never subscribe to reprints of broadcasts by the million nor buy operas and lectures by the hundred thousand. Dis satisfied people do not usually buy the causes of their discontent. The B. B. C. may not be without faults, but it has achieved in its. four brief years of existence, a majestic success.21' With the two articles Saturday Night printed the Canadian Radio League map which showed the coverage of 220 American and Canadian broadcasting stations in Canada. VII. THE LEAGUE PLANS A SECOND MEETING After the Prime Minister announced on January 22, 1931 > that the Government would introduce a radio Bill at the next session of Parliament, Spry and Plaunt decided to 221 call a second meeting of the League. They scheduled the pop meeting for February 5, 1931* I*1 anticipation of the meeting Plaunt prepared a three-page progress report which 221 he sent to all members of the National Council. J 2l8Ibid. 219Ibid. 220Ibid.. pp. 2-3. 221 Plaunt Papers, Box 22. Canadian Radio League Progress Report (mimeographed), Januaiy 29, 1931> P. 2. 222Ibid., p. 1. 223lbid.. pp. 1-3. 176 In it he indicated the various parts of the popula tion from which the League drew support: Strong banking, financial and business names; the presidents of almost every university in Canada; the school superintendents of all the provinces; and the representatives of many organizations of nation-wide importance are listed [in the booklet]. In addition to this the heads of the main religious bodies have signified their approval of the League’s aims. As for newspaper support, the League has now the backing of over fifty newspapers with a total circulation of some two millions. . . . The National organizations which have so far indicated support of a National Broadcasting Company are listed on page 32 of the booklet.22^- Next he presented a summary of the League's campaign to date: (1) Cabinet Ministers were "interviewed and circu larized with information regarding the projects of the League"; (2) from time to time statements were issued to the press; (3) the League sent a delegation to the Minister of Marine on January 9» 1931? and the Minister stated soon after the meeting that "Canada must be protected from alien influences and that action would be taken"; (*0 the delega tion "received front-page publicity in almost every paper in Canada and was commented on favorably by many editorial writers"; (5) since January 9> 1931> discussion of radio was widespread and "most of the important papers have taken 225 a live interest in the subject." The Report stated that campaigns were under way in 22lfIbid., pp. 1-2 22^Ibid., p. 2. 177 most of the Provinces; League members were speaking at meetings of Service Clubs, Boards of Trade, and other simi- 226 lar organizations. Provincial groups were passing reso lutions which were forwarded to League headquarters. Attempts were being made to interest local administrations in the League's projects; active publicity campaigns were 227 in progress in many regions. After local campaigns were initiated, "canvasses [were] being made of the views of the listeners. "2^8 The effect of the League's work has certainly been felt by the Government. Although the League's pol icy, as stated to the Minister of Marine, has not in any way been that of forcing the government's hand, but rather of acting with the government, the League can reasonably claim to have made the ques tion of a broadcasting policy of such importance that immediate action became inevitable; to have excluded the continuance of the present system from consideration and to have made tolerably certain that many of the League's essential contentions be accepted. Whatever Bill is brought down at the coming session of Parliament, it is likely to include provision for the elimination of direct advertising; for a greater measure of public con trol; for improved facilities for Canadian pro grammes. It may also be stated with confidence based on information from the most authoritative sources that the League's representations for a National Company are being seriously considered by the government ,22° He concluded the Report by stating that the opposi- 2qo tion was powerful and active. It was imperative that 226Ibid. 227Ibid. 228Ibid. 229Ibid.. p. 3. 23°Ibid. 178 the League launch its major campaign to prove to the Mem bers of Parliament that a national broadcasting system had 231 the support of Canadians from coast to coast. VIII. SUMMARY The League opened an office on December 9» 1930. The months of December and January were periods of "fever ish activity" as new members were recruited for the National Council and regional committees began operations. Spry and Plaunt were eager to have the organization of the League completed by the end of January so that the League could launch its major offensive two weeks before the open ing of Parliament. Spry wrote an article for the Queen’s Quarterly in which he presented "A Case for Nationalized Broadcasting." The article appeared in the Winter Number of the Quarterly. He maintained that the development of Canadian broadcasting was stalemated because the government had not adopted a radio policy. He discussed the various courses of action which the government might adopt. It could grant licenses to selected applicants and maintain some type of control through the creation of a broadcasting commission; it could establish a private monopoly; or it could own, operate, and 231Ibid. 179 control all broadcasting stations. After considering each possibility, he stated that only the third could provide Canada with the kind of broad casting which her national life required. The Canadian Radio League advocated this course of action. It wished to see the government establish a national company "along the lines of the Aird Report." Its proposals differed from the recommendations of the Report in finances, the establish ment of the national directorate, the control of programs, and the retention of local low-power stations. Spry explained in detail the differing proposals of the League. Spry's article provided the League with a clear statement of policy. In correspondence it no longer main tained that it had reservations concerning the recommenda tions of the Aird Report but stated positively what it advocated. The policy of the League was clarified still further in January as the result of two letters, one from Fred MacKelcan in Toronto and the other from George Pelletier in Montreal. Both letters expressed fears of Federal versus Provincial control in the proposed national company. Spry stated in reply that the difficulty did not occur to him when the League began. Now it presented a dilemma. If the League opted for Federal control, then the opponents of national broadcasting in Quebec would have a 180 powerful weapon to use against the League. Similarly if the League chose to support provincial control, then the opponents in Ontario would be considerably strengthened. The decision was to sidestep the issue by citing the Aird Report which was deliberately vague on the question of con trol. He then presented an ''inner history" of the Report in which he showed that Frigon had favored provincial con trol while Bowman had desired a strong central body. In order to obtain a unanimous Report the Commissioners resorted to vagueness which accounted for the apparent supremacy of the provinces. The draft Bill "gave the dominion the predominant control ... in all but specifi cally educational and provincial broadcasts." Further the Report itself qualified the apparent supremacy of the provinces. Spry advised Pelletier that a private broadcasting monopoly had supporters in the government. It was his belief that the Western Provinces, the Maritimes, and French Canada would be able "to weaken the move being made in the direction of such a monopoly." In Januaiy the League issued a new booklet which Plaunt had written. The ideas in the earlier pamphlet were expanded upon and several new ideas were added. The most important addition was a comprehensive statement by the League of its own proposals; it explained how the proposals 181 of the League differed from the recommendations of the Aird Report. Another new part provided the names of the sixty members of the National Council and of the twenty-four mem bers of the Executive Committee. The list of newspapers which favored "broadcasting as a public service" showed an increase of thirteen over the list in the earlier pamphlet. Three radio coverage maps were provided, one showing the coverage of Canadian stations in Canada, the second showing the coverage of American stations in Canada, and the third showing the coverage envisaged in the Aird Report. A French version of the Report was prepared by George Pelletier. It was printed in mid-January. Opposition to the League appeared within two weeks of its first meeting on December 8, 1930. By the end of December Spry expressed the opinion that the major oppo nents were "La Presse [Montreal], the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, General Electric, some station owners and the general 'keep the government out of anything' state of mind." Two powerful forces joined the opposition in early January, station CKGW in Bowmanville, Ontario, and the Toronto Telegram. Both launched strong campaigns against the recommendations of the Aird Report and against the Canadian Radio League. The League allowed the "misrepre sentations" to go unchallenged for the time being. 182 The President of the Canadian Pacific Railway inter vened personally with members of the National Council, attempting to have them withdraw from the League. Finally the Premier of Quebec announced on January 22 that he would "fight for Provincial radio in the courts." After sending letters to all members of the Cabinet on December 9> 1930> the League had no further direct com munication with the government until January 2 when it sent a form letter to all English-speaking members of Parliament. With each letter it enclosed a copy of the new booklet. On January 9* 1931» the Minister of Marine received a delegation from the League. Commander Edwards of the radio branch of the Department of Marine stated that "it was the best organized, best run and most effective [dele gation] I have seen." Four days later the League sent a form letter to the eighteen members of the Cabinet. The purpose of the letter was to demonstrate the strength of national support for the establishment of a Canadian Radio Broadcasting Company. The letter stated the number of newspapers which favored a national company and their combined circulation, the number of organizations and their combined membership, and the number of prominent Canadians who supported the League’s platform. Each member of the Cabinet also received a copy of the League’s booklet. 183 Eleven days later the League sent a form letter to all English-speaking senators. It was the same letter which was sent earlier to members of Parliament. As January drew to a close Spry believed that "gov ernment control, the elimination of direct advertising and private enterprise” were likely to be the basis of the gov ernment's policy. Toronto Saturday Night featured a "debate” on broad casting in its issue of January 2b, 1931* W. Ashcroft, the spokesman for operation of radio by private enterprise, argued that a broadcasting monopoly could never please "most of the people, most of the time." He stated that the nationalization of broadcasting was neither desirable nor feasible. It would mean an initial outlay of $10,000,000 instead of the I1 *,000,000 which the Aird Report envisaged, and an additional subsidy of $15,000,000 annually. If the subsidy were deemed inadvisable, then the government would be forced to increase the license fee from one dollar annually "to approximately thirty dollars a year, or to put an excise tax on radio receiving-set tubes of ten or more dollars a tube." No revenue could be expected from indirect advertising because national advertisers were not philan thropists. If broadcasting were nationalized, then most of the $15,000,000 would have to be spent on importing foreign 18b talent. The strongest argument against nationalization was that it "would open the way for the broadcast of politi cal propaganda in the interests of the party in power." He suggested that two national broadcasting systems be established, one government-operated "under the wing of the Canadian National Railways," the other privately owned and operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway. This would provide healthy competition which "in any line of effort, spells success." The second article was written by Graham Spry who favored the nationalization of broadcasting. Spry stated that "radio in Canada is broadcasting of the advertiser for the advertiser by the advertiser." At a cost of one cent a day per person Canadians could establish a well-ordered national broadcasting system, could eliminate direct adver tising, could retain control of broadcasting in Canadian hands, and could provide two of each five Canadians "with their first regular Canadian programmes." He stated the proposals of the Canadian Radio League. Contrary to the charges of the Toronto Telegram, the League did not advo cate that the new Company should be run by the Civil Ser vice. The League advocated neither a $30 license fee nor that American programs be eliminated. Radio in the private enterprise system could not provide good Canadian programs consistently because the 18? revenue was not available. A national broadcasting system which would be financed by license fees could provide variety in programs, as in Britain. The British Broadcasting Corporation in its four years of existence enjoyed "a majestic success." Spry deduced this from statistics which showed a great increase in the number of licenses, in the circulation of the Listener and the Radio Times, and in the sale of reprints of broadcast programs, "Dissatisfied people," he main tained, "do not usually buy the causes of their discontent." With the two articles Saturday Night printed the Canadian Radio League map which showed the coverage of American and Canadian broadcasting stations in Canada. After the Prime Minister announced on January 22, 1931? that the Government would introduce a radio Bill at the next session of Parliament, Spry and Plaunt decided to call a second meeting of the League, which they scheduled for February ?, 1 9 3 1* I 3 1 anticipation of the meeting Plaunt prepared a three-page report for the members of the National Council. The report presented a summary of the League's activities since its first meeting of December 8, 1930. Plaunt saw it as imperative that the League launch its major campaign to prove to the members of Parliament that a national broadcasting system had the support of countless Canadians from coast to coast. CHAPTER V THE LEAGUE MARKS TIME WHILE RADIO JURIS DICTION IS REFERRED TO THE COURTS: FEBRUARY 1931-JANUARY 1932 Spry and Flaunt expected to launch the League's major campaign in February, 1931; accordingly they held the second public meeting at the Chateau Laurier, Ottawa, on February 5, 1931*^ Present at the meeting were Senator Cairine V/ilson, K. A. Greene, Tom Moore, Fathers G. Marchand and H. St. Deni3, R. M. Gemmel, L. J. Ladner, Alan Plaunt, 2 and Graham Spry. I. SECOND MEETING OF THE LEAGUE Ladner reported on the campaign in British Columbia: The Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun were giving the League good publicity and editorial support; General Odium, a Liberal, was regional chairman and Robbie Reid, a Conservative, was vice-chairman; Dr. Henry Ashton, Head of ^•University of British Columbia Library: Alan Flaunt Papers, Box 16. Draft Agenda for Second Meeting of the Canadian Radio League, February 5, 1931. “ “Ibid. 186 187 the Department of Modem Languages at the University of British Columbia, who prepared a report on broadcasting for the Canadian Universities' Conference several years earlier, had charge of the speakers' bureau for men’s organizations; Mrs. A. U. dePencier held the same position for women's organizations; Ralph Campney was coordinator of all pub licity; and Robbie Reid was preparing a regional manifestop A report on League activities throughout Canada was read by Plaunt. He informed the meeting that the support of fanner, labor, and university groups was secured in Alberta, that several resolutions from these groups had been received, and that the League was receiving a good i f press in that province. In Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Maritimes, the League had supporters but no effective action; in Quebec leading educationists and the Catholic 5 Church supported the League wholeheartedly. Ontario pre sented a challenge; the misleading propaganda of the Toronto Telegram and Station CKGW was refuted by Spry on the weekend of January 31, 1931, through the radio ■ ^ Ibid.; Box 2. Letter from A. E. Grauer to Alan Plaunt, January 27, 1931* L l Ibid.; also letter from Alan Plaunt to A. E. Grauer, January 27, 1931* 5lbid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to J. A. Atkinson, January 27, 1931. 188 facilities of the Toronto Star and the Hamilton Spectator; 6 a strong press campaign was under way in Toronto. Ladner suggested that the League attempt to have the government appoint a parliamentary committee on broadcast ing; Tom Moore offered the opinion that this was unneces sary because of the Prime Minister’s statement that the government would introduce a radio Bill at the next session 7 of Parliament. The next item on the agenda was the proposed budget of the League. Canadian Radio League budget and finances. Although Plaunt financed the League since its inception, several members on the National Council also volunteered subscrip- g tions to the League’s work. Plaunt now proposed that the 9 League's sources of income be increased. He estimated that expenses in the period of December through May, 1931? would be approximately $2200.^ These data are in ^Ibid., Box 2. Letter from Alan Plaunt to A. E. Grauer, January 27, 1931. 7 Ibid.. Box 16. Draft Agenda for Second Meeting. ®Cf, p. 75; Plaunt Papers, Box 1. Letter from Alan Plaunt to P. N. Southam, December 22, 1930» Box 11. Letter from E. H. Blake to Graham Spry, January 6, 1931. ^Ibid., Box 16. Draft Agenda for Second Meeting. ^Ibid., Proposed Budget for Six Months, December- May, 1931. 189 Table XI on page 190. The budget was approved and Plaunt was authorized to 11 seek donations from the league's supporters. His efforts in fund raising were successful; by January 29, 1932, the League received $2,26V.00 in contributions of which 12 $2,192.91 was used to meet expenses. These data are in Table XII on page 191. League statement to the Minister of Marine. In a letter dated February 6, 1931, Plaunt informed the Minister of Marine of the meeting."^ He reported that the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, the National Council of Women, the Native Sons of Canada, the United Farmers of Alberta, and nine more newspapers recently endorsed the lV program of the League. With the letter he enclosed the list of supporters which was sent to the Minister of Marine 15 on January 13, 1931. ^Ibid., Draft Agenda for Second Meeting. • ^Ibid.. Statement of Receipts and Disbursements of the Canadian Radio League to January 29, 1932. ^•3ibid., Box 2. Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Alfred Duranleau, February 6, 1931. llfIbid. ~ ^Ibid.; vide p. 167. 190 TABLE XI PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE DECEMBER-MAY, 1931a Items Estimate Six Months Spent Dec.-Jan. OFFICE EXPENSES Stationery 2000 letterheads *4-000 envelopes 12000 mimeograph $ 30.00 32.00 3 0 .0 0 $ *+1.75 Stamps Telegrams and telephones Telephone (rental) Typewriter rental and office furniture Miscellaneous Office rental 80.00 100.00 30.00 120.00 100.00 106.00 55.02 3*+.3l 23 M *4-0.00 l*f .80 TOTAL $ 628.00 $2 0 9 .3 2 STAFF Stenographer, December 1 through June 1 Stenographer, part time TOTAL 6 0 0 .0 0 200.00 $ 800.00 2 2 9 .5 0 75.00 $30*4-. 50 PUBLICATIONS 6 pamphlets (small) 500 each 1 preliminary pamphlet 1 booklet with maps 360.00 75.00 1*4-0.00 TOTAL $ 575.00 $*4-08.56 TRAVELLING 200.00 — — TOTAt % 200.00 GRAND TOTAL $2203.00 $922.38 aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 16. Proposed Operating Budget of the Canadian Radio League for six months, December-May, 1931. 191 TABLE XII STATEMENT OP RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE TO JANUARY 29, 1932a RECEIPTS Contributions to the work of the Canadian Radio League $2,261 f.00 DISBURSEMENTS Printing $786.53 General Office Expense 625.38 Salaries 716.00 Travelling 65.00 Total Disbursements $2,192.91 Balance in Bank 71.09 $2.26*f.OO aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Plaunt Papers, Box 16. Statement of Receipts and Disbursements of the Canadian Radio League to January 29, 1932. 192 II. THE OPPOSITION COUNTERATTACKS In early February R. W. Ashcroft, General Manager of the Trans-Canada Broadcasting Company, sent letters to mem- he enclosed a copy of a pamphlet which, for the most part, indication was given of his interest in broadcasting, the return address being a suite in the King Edward Hotel, You are being cited as favoring the demolition of the present Canadian broadcasting structure, and its replacement by a new system to be owned and operated by the Dominion Government, and to be financed by additional taxation. I would appreciate it if you would let me know if you are actually in favor of such a move, as pubj^c opinion seems overwhelmingly opposed to Several members of the National Council forwarded to 20 League headquarters a copy of their reply to Ashcroft. General Odium stated that he was "disgusted with the broad casting we are receiving at the present time" and affirmed l A Ibid., Box 12. Letter from Ralph W. Ashcroft to Mrs. J. A7 Wlson, February 7, 1931; Letter from Ralph W. Ashcroft to Brig. Gen. V. W. Odium, February 9» 1931; Box 2. Letter from A. H. McGreer to Alan Plaunt, February 12, 1931; Letter from A. H. Moore to Alan Plaunt, February 26, 1931• 16 With each letter bers of the League*s National Council 17 was a reprint of his article in Saturday Night. No 1 8 Toronto. One such letter read as follows: 17Ibid. Cf. pp. 168-170. -^Ibid. Cf. p. l59« l8Ibid 193 that he favored the "British rather than the American sys- 21 tem of radio broadcast control." In his reply Dr. A. H. McGreer, Principal of Bishop's University, Lennoxville, wrote that "the condition of broadcasting on this continent is deplorable"; farther he strongly objected to the statement of Ashcroft that the 22 British system was a "lamentable failure." The reply from Dr. A. H. Moore, President of the University of King's College, Halifax, read in part: The methods adopted by those who like yourself are opposing the programme of the Radio League of Canada lead me to believe that it is to yourself and your associates that I am indebted for the gross misrepresentation before the Canadian public of what those of us who favour the policy of the Radio League are advocating. I am amazed at the deliberate misrepresentations to which you are lending your name, and if there is anyone in Canada to whom I certainly would not entrust any communi cation to be given to the public it is to you. Nothing that I have encountered in the way of mis givings, due mainly to lack of information as to what the Radio League stands for, is so "over whelming" as the contempt in the minds of informed people towards the methods to which you are stoop ing in opposing a sane program for radio broadcast ing in Canada. 3 21 Ibid., Letter from Brig. Gen. V. W. Odium to R. W. Ashcroft, February 13, 1931. ^Ibid., Box 2. Letter from A. H. McGreer to Alan Plaunt, February 12, 1931. ^Ibid., Letter from A. H. Moore to Alan Plaunt, February 26, 1931. With his letter Moore sent a copy of his reply to Ashcroft. 19b If the purpose of the Ashcroft letters was an attempt to persuade members to withdraw from the League, it was singularly unsuccessful. An analysis of the League's membership in February, 1932, one year after the event, showed that many new members joined the National Council during that period; one member whose name appeared as a 2b supporter in January, 1931, was not listed subsequently. For a short period several members became indecisive concerning their membership in the League. C. L. Burton, President, Robert Simpson Company, Toronto, wrote that he was "not prepared to join with the League until one or two 2 5 points of its activities are a little clearer in my mind." F. A. Rolph, President, Imperial Bank of Canada, was "by no means sure of his sympathy with the objects of the League," The Hon. N. W. Rowell intervened on behalf of 27 the League and both men remained in the National Council. pi. The name of Dr. W. S. Carter, Superintendent of Education for New Brunswick, did not appear as a League supporter after January, 1931* The following documents were examined: The Booklets of the League which were issued in January, March, and June, 1931; also Box 23. Analysis of Public Support for the Canadian Radio League, March, 1932. OK 'Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from E. H. Blake to Graham Spry, February 17, 1931. Blake forwarded a copy of Burton's letter. 2' 7Ibid., Box 2. Letter from E. H. Blake to Alan Plaunt, February 23, 1931. 195 In addition Burton contributed $25 to the League's 28 expenses. In early March Spry maintained that the opposition to a Canadian Radio Broadcasting Company is now coming from three sources, one, R. W. Ashcroft and the private station owners, publicly; two, from the American radio group by quiet methods and by visitors appearing in Toronto and Montreal to praise the American sys“ tern and damn the British; three, from the Canadian Pacific Railway through newspapers, and radio papers circulating in Canada, under its influence, through the Canadian Broadcasters Association, through quiet methods known to them but becoming obvious to us; and through the per sonal intervention of E. W. Beatty by conversa tion with our people and by correspondence. These three forces are, as you may imagine, quite for midable and perhaps the most immediately dangerous is the C. P. R.29 The forces of the opposition did not confine their attacks to the Radio League but attempted to implicate Spry. He stated in March that some of those who disagreed on this question [of government ownership and control] have attempted to have me fired, and in the eastern papers I have enjoyed the experience of being charged with all sorts of most absurd motives. I, and one or two others, started the Radio League, and organized its groups from coast to coast. It has cost me several hundred dollars, it has taken days from my holidays, and between October 6th and Christmas I was working every Saturday and Sunday. It has been great fun, but the only thing it's going to 28Ibid. ^ Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to George Ferguson, March 2, 1931. do for me is get me into trouble. But I can enjoy that also.30 On February 20, 1931» the government announced in Ottawa that "questions regarding Radio have been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for interpretation and decision."^ Some dispatches implied that no decision 32 could be expected before 1932. Shortly thereafter Justice L. P. Duff of the Supreme Court announced "that the government considered the subject of urgent public importance and were anxious to ’press it on.'" He set 33 April 9 for the filing of Arguments before the Court. Spry believed that the decision would be appealed to the Privy Council in London; he hoped however that a final 3 1+ decision would be handed down during the summer. III. LEAGUE ACTIVITIES: SPRING, 1931 In view of the action before the Supreme Court the League was uncertain of what course it should ^^Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to Cecil Lamont, March k, 1931. •^Cf. p. 16*+. Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to P. D. L. Smith, February 20, 1931; Box 2. Letter from D. N. McLachlan to Alan Plaunt, February 20, I9 6 3. Spiy stated that the announcement was made on February 20; McLachlan that it was made the day previous. 3 2Ibid. 33lbid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Gladstone Murray, March k, 1931. 197 o < take. It had "good authority for feeling that the Gov ernment is anxious to proceed with the proposed legislation if at all possible, and will do everything in its power to facilitate an early legal decision." In a letter to Cecil Lamont Spry summarized the results of the first four months of League activity: I know that those who feel like yourself on the question of private ownership of the radio are furious at the Radio League. But the simple fact is that this question would not have been brought before the public at the present time if the Radio League had not done its work. Indeed, I may tell you confidentially, that four months ago Mr. Bennett informed a friend of ours, that radio was not of sufficient importance to occupy time at the next session. The Radio League has demon strated the necessity of action, and has given expression to a public opinion of extraordinary strength which least of all the Radio League believed existed three or four months ago. We are sticking to our guns in favor of a single national system under a government created com pany, but the only proposals, before the govern ment now, embody the main objects which we advo cate. We are going to gain either 75 or 100$ of all we advocate. The Executive Committee decided to continue the pub licity campaign until the juridical question was settled; short newspaper stories concerning broadcasting conditions 3%bid., Box 2. Letter from Alan Plaunt to D. N. McLachlan, February 23, 1931. 36Ibid. 3^Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Cecil Lamont, March *+, 1931. 198 generally were issued every other day to some sixty news- 38 papers. Meanwhile Plaunt revised the League’s booklet a second time; it was issued in March, 1931. Except for several slight additions, it was identical with the January edition. The expanded version included a chart which showed "the ramifications of the Radio Corporation of America," a statement that the Royal Commission advocated placing broadcasting stations "at a suitable distance from centres of population to obviate blanketing of reception from outside points," a statement that the existence of a national broadcasting system would put "Canada in a strong position to secure by agreement her fair proportion of wave lengths," and a statement that the League had no desire "to blanket United States programmes." Membership in the National Council increased from sixty in January to eighty-five in March, one member, M-l Dr. W. S. Carter, no longer being listed. The names of the new members are in Table XIII on page 199. Pour 3^Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to Hume Blake, March l6,“T§5l. 39Cf. pp. 79-89, 1^7-158. ^Plaunt Papers, Box 22. The Canadian Radio League. March, 1931, PP- 13, 15, 25. ^llbid., pp. i f, 5, 32. Cf. Table IX on page 1^9. 199 TABLE XIII NEW MEMBERS OP THE RADIO LEAGUE: JANUARY-MARCH, 1931a C. E. Neil, Montreal, Vice-President Royal Bank of Canada. M. W. Wilson, Montreal, Gen. Man. Royal Bank of Canada. Prank A. Rolph, Toronto, President Imperial Bank of Canada, President Toronto Board of Trade— 1930. Maj. Gen. The Hon. S. C. Mewbum, Hamilton, Vice-President Bank of Montreal. Mrs. M. J. Lyons, Ottawa, President Catholic Women's League of Canada. Geo. P. Rogers, Chief Director of Education, Province of Ontario. Dr. J. A. McLean, Winnipeg, Pres. University of Manitoba. W. P. Percival, Director of Protestant Education, Province of Quebec. Rt. Rev. J. C. Earthing, D. D., Bishop of Montreal. Lady Drummond, Montreal. Dr. J. L. MacDougall, Vancouver, Pres. Native Sons of Canada W. G. Watson, Gen. Man., Toronto General Trusts Corp. Miss Joan Amoldi, Past President, I.O.D.E. L. M. Wood, Wood, Fleming Co., Toronto, President Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Lt. Col. K. R. Marshall, C.M.G., D.S.O., A.D.C., Toronto. R. A, Laidlaw, Toronto. A. W. Anglin, K. C., Blake, Lash, Anglin & Cassels, Toronto. C. S. Maclnnes, K. C., Toronto. Strachan Johnston, K. C., Tilley, Johnston, Thompson & Parmenter, Toronto. Glyn Osier, Toronto. Dr. William Goldie, Toronto. W. C. Laidlaw, R. Laidlaw Co., Toronto. Arthur H. Campbell, Toronto, President, Campbell, McLaurin Lumber Co. Mrs. Annie Stuart, President, Federation Women's Institutes of Canada, Grand Pr^. A. E. Phipps, General Manager, Imperial Bank of Canada. A. P. White, Vice-President, Canadian Bank of Commerce; President Dominion Securities Corporation. aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 22. Canadian Radio League, March, 1931» p. 32. For membership until January, 1931» cf. p. 1^9. The name of Dr. W. S. Carter, which appeared in the earlier list, was omitted in the listing of the March edition of the booklet. 200 members of the earlier Executive Committee, Miss Violet Lafleur, Donald Matthews, George Smith, and Miss Margaret Southam, were no longer listed; one member, W. Martin King, *+2 was added. Names of forty-seven publications "which favored broadcasting as a public service" were in the booklet. The Kingston Whig-Standard, the Ft. William Times-Telegraph. and the Montreal Star appeared for the first time; the Brockville Recorder and Times. Toronto Saturday Night, the Montreal Gazette, and the Regina Leader-Post were omitted LL. in the revised addition. The Native Sons of Canada and the National Council of Women were added to the list of nineteen organizations and five Listeners’ Clubs which i f 5 appeared previously. Two projects occupied the League during the spring: (1) an effort was made to interest a number of Provinces in the Supreme Court hearing and to have them file declara tions "in support of the Dominion Government’s jurisdiction over radio"; and (2) an attempt was made to have a number l+2Ibid., p. 3 1. ^ Ibid., pp. 26-27. ^Cf. Table X on page 157. 'Plaunt Papers, op. clt., p. 33. Cf. Table VI on page 109. A correction was made in the new listing so that National Council of Education read instead National Confer ence of Education. 201 of stations which were friendly to the League withdraw from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters before the Asso ciation issued a pamphlet which Spry learned was being prepared.^ The Association appointed a committee to prepare the pamphlet. J. 0. Apps, General Executive Assistant of the C. P. R. and "Mr. Beatty's principal lobbyist and handyman," was chairman of the committee; R. W, Ashcroft of CKGW, "the station used under the call letters CPRY as the C. P. R. key station," and J. A. Dupont of La Presae were the remain- •f UT ] b7 ing members. Murray Gibbon was said to be a consultant to the committee. The pamphlet entitled "Radio Broadcasting under Pri vate Enterprise" was issued towards the end of April, Uo 1931- In it the Association attacked the British Broad casting Corporation, the Canadian Radio League, and the 50 concept of public ownership of radio generally. °Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to J. A. Atkinson, March 17, 1931; Letter from Graham Spry to Hume Blake, March 19, 1931; Box 3. Letter from Alan Plaunt to A. E. Grauer, March 20, 1931. ^Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to R. K. Finlayson, April 11, 1931; also Letter from Graham Spry to Gladstone Murray, May 1*+, 1931. lf8Ibid. ^Ibid. ^Ibid.; also Letter from Graham Spry to Hume Blake, March 16, 193l. "The Canadian Broadcasters Association is 202 The stations of the G. N. R., the Manitoba Govern ment, and several others withdrew from the Association 51 before the pamphlet was issued. IV. THE "SPRY-GIBBON TOURNEY" John Murray Gibbon, General Publicity Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, wrote an article on broadcasting 52 for the March issue of the Canadian Forum. Gibbon's article in the Canadian Forum. He began by stating that although the Aird Report "was supposed to be dead and buried," apparently it left a lusty enfant behind 53 in the Canadian Radio League. The ideal of the Canadian Radio League inherited from the Aird Report is the "B.B.C.," or British Broadcasting Corporation, established by the British Government as a means of keeping in its own hands during times of peace a machine for propaganda which would be invaluable in times of war. As no propaganda is necessary at present, it uses this machine for the enlightenment and entertainment of such of the people as care to listen in.'* about to issue a blast in favour of private ownership on the basis of very weak arguments shot through with the assumption that Canadians must depend on the United States." 51 Ibid. 5? John Murray Gibbon, "Radio as a Pine Art," Canadian Porum, 11:212-211 +, March, 1931 • ^Ibid., p. 212. ^Ibid. 203 Gibbon denied that the B.B.C. had a monopoly of attention in Britain, as the Radio League appeared to believe. He stated that although the Corporation did not countenance advertising over the airwaves it did so in its 56 official organ, the Radio Times. It is from the profits of this advertising sheet, printed on cheap paper with indifferent typogra phy, that the B. B. C. secures a fair portion of its revenues. One is reminded of the old simile of robbing Peter to pay Paul.5' He cited a prominent English singer as having stated that "you can get an engagement with the B.B.C. if you are a cousin of the janitor and will take a janitor's pay." Although the statement might be exaggerated that same singer could obtain in the United States or Canada eight times the fee which the B.B.C. offered.^9 Emigration offered the only escape from the Corporation. He argued that "the advisability or otherwise of Government monopoly" hinged on the question of talent. People invested in radio sets because they expected to be 62 entertained. He estimated that the cost of broadcast entertainment in Canada was approximately $2,000,000 annually; the cost of American broadcast entertainment, 55ibid. ^6Ibid.. p. 2 1 3. 57Ibid. ^8Ibid. ^9Ibid. 6oIbid. 6lIbid. 62Ibid. 20*+ which was "readily accessible to Canadian listeners, might be estimated at $20,000,000, or one-third of the total cost 6 3 of entertainment in the United States." From these data Gibbon concluded that a much larger subsidy for talent than was originally anticipated would be required if the new National Broadcasting Company hoped "to monopolize the attention of Canadian listeners"; otherwise the new system "would become worse than a nuisance if it were to drown out with inferior talent some of the excellent programmes origi- 6b- nating in the United States which we at present enjoy." He maintained that competition resulted in a variety 65 of programming which was unknown in Europe. Advertising 66 had a vital role to play in this competition. In North America most of the newspapers and maga zines are purchased for the advertisements as much as for the editorial contents. . . . When, therefore, anyone on this side of the Atlantic sets out to eliminate advertising from the air, he would deprive more than half the population of what they want, so as to provide intellectual solace for few. ' In his opinion political patronage would be almost inevitable if a government monopoly in broadcasting were established—"many of the legitimate artists would be pushed out by relatives, willing to accept any kind 63 ibid. 6IfIbid. 65Ibid. 66Ibid. 67Ibid. 205 of fee."68 Gibbon stated that some direct advertising was offensive; however a listener could always turn the dial 69 to another station. Many companies were beginning to realize that this blatant type of advertising was harmful 70 to their own interests. Next he took up the complaints of the Western Provinces and the Maritimes concerning the lack of good 71 Canadian programs. He stated that the complaints were understandable; however the number of transcontinental broadcasts was increasing, with the result that more and better programming was becoming available in all sectors of 72 the country. What was badly needed for further improve ment was a "re-alignement of wave lengths and stations."73 The Ashcroft proposal for two national networks was the "most practical" suggestion to date according to 7 * + Gibbon. A privately owned network would carry sponsored programs; a government network would carry the "educational and 'uplift* programmes for which the Canadian Radio League 75 is crying." Gibbon estimated that the government network 68Ibid.. pp. 213“211 +. 69Ibid.« p. 21*+. 70Ibid. 71Ibid. 72Ibid. 73Ibid. ?lfIbid. Cf. p. 172. 7^Ibid. 206 would have an audience one-tenth the size of the commercial network; consequently it would require a subsidy from the 76 government. "But it would satisfy those who like to be uplifted, and who are determined to secure this spiritual 77 entertainment at the expense of the taxpayers." The editors of the Canadian Forum invited Spry to reply to the Gibbon article in the April issue of the journal; he received the page proofs of the article before 78 the March issue was printed and distributed.' The C. P. R. becomes involved. Citing Cromwell's statement at Naseby that "The Lord has delivered the enemy into our hands," Spry immediately set in motion plans to 79 derive maximum advantage from Gibbon's article. It brings the C. P. R. into the open, on the basis of utterly absurd statements, as the attached com mentary shows. We are going to make full use of this weak entry by publishing the statement to the four winds, by circulating a reprint of Gibbon's article in the name of the Radio League, and by arranging for editorials pointing out the inaccuracy of Gibbon's statements. We also want to create the impression through the press that the C. P. R. is attempting to force the hand of the government, cause embarassment [sic! while the question of jurisdiction is before the Courts, get a system for 76Ibid. 77Ibid. 78 'Plaunt Papers, Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 31. Vide footnote 1, Chapter III, p. 72. 79 ^Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to George Ferguson, March 2, 1931* 207 itself to the exclusion of other broadcasting interests, e.g., newspapers, grain-exchange, wheat pool, universities, for profit-making purposes with direct advertising, while the government is left with a system which in the opinion of Mr. Gibbon would not pay and which would require financial assistance. If the press can create such an impression, it will help to arouse Mr. Bennett, will add to a dis agreement he and Beatty are said to have already had on another subject, and will show up the self-interest of our immediate strongest oppo nent, will reveal the inaccurate advice Mr. Beatty is getting from his radio department, and may bring the C._N. R. quietly but more actively to our aid.®0 Spry prepared lengthy memoranda in which he coun tered that the attack on the B. B. C. was unwarranted and untrue, that the Radio League was "neither highbrow or impractical," and that competition in stations would result in duplicating costs without providing the desired ser- Q- ] vice. These memoranda were then sent confidentially to friendly newspapers across the country shortly before the 82 March issue of the Canadian Forum was distributed. No sooner did the Gibbon article appear than it was "ridiculed [and] killed in editorial columns from Halifax to On Vancouver." 8 0Ibid. 8^Ibid.. Box 2 6. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 32. 8^Ibid.; Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to George Ferguson, March 2, 1931* Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 32-3*+. 208 The Radio League arranged for the B. B. C. to obtain 81+ a copy of the Gibbon article almost immediately. An official spokesman for the Corporation described the article as "a unique combination of inaccuracy and malevolence"; he demanded an explanation of the European 85 General Manager of the C. P. R. When no explanation was forthcoming, the B. B. C. stated that it might be necessary to refer the matter to the attention of the British House 86 of Commons. "The trans-Atlantic telephone wires buzzed; an explanation was arranged; Mr. Gibbon wrote the article in his capacity of past President of the Canadian Authors* Association" and not as the General Publicity Manager of the C. P. R.87 Pleant recalled later that "Mr. Gibbon almost lost his job [with the C. P. R.].'88 The British reaction was cabled to Canada and the 89 Radio League made full use of it. 7 The Canadian Press refused to carry the story over its wires "on the ground of propaganda"; the League forwarded it by mail to friendly 90 newspapers for their use. Spry expressed the view that 8LfIbid., p. 3*f. 8^Ibid.. pp. 33-3^. 88Ibid., p. 35. 87Ibid.. pp. 35-36. 88Ibid.. p. 36. 8^Ibid.. Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Gladstone Murray, March , 1931* 9°Ibid. 209 these two stories arrived [from Britain] at the critical moment when the attack on the B. B. C. was, perhaps, more vociferous than at any other time, and gave our friends material for rebutting the absurdities of private ownership people.-*1 Spry*s article in the Canadian Borum. Spry entitled 92 his article "The Canadian Broadcasting Issue." After citing several statements in the Gibbon article, he declared that the present article was not concerned with g-3 "Mr. Gibbon*s absurdities." The purpose of the article was, instead, to state the broadcasting issue as it concerns the Canadian people, to outline the proposal of the Canadian Radio League for a national system, and to analyze the only other proposal before the public— a dual railway system— one privately owned under the Canadian Pacific, and the other a public system under the Canadian National. The analysis of this proposal, first advanced by R. W. Ashcroft of CKGW— the key station of the C. P. R. network— and blessed by Mr. Gibbon, becomes particularly interesting because of Mr. Gibbon’s conviction that the private system should carry advertising and would make money, while the public system "would receive only about ten per cent, of the listeners" and "would certainly need a subsidy .. . at the expense of the taxpayer," an ingenuous comment, the meaning of which is that the C. P. R. system, shutting out all other private systems, would make the profits, while the taxpayer held the bag for the public system.9^- 91Ibid. 92 Graham Spry, "The Canadian Broadcasting Issue," Canadian Forum. 11s2^6-2^9> April, 1931. 93Ibid., p. 21*6. 9^Ibid. 210 As Spry saw it the issue was whether radio should he subordinated to advertising purposes or whether it should 9 5 "be developed to serve the broadest Canadian purposes." He maintained that in a country like Canada radio was "the greatest Canadianizing instrument in our hands, and its cultural influence, so sarcastically dismissed by the erst while patron of Canadian folk-nrusic, Mr. Gibbon, is equally 96 important." The proximity of the United States posed many dangers to Canada's nationhood, for all Canadians could hear American programs while only three of each five 97 Canadians could hear Canadian programs. He maintained that "the control of public opinion, it should not be necessary to remark, must remain in Canadian hands. The alternatives are, indeed; the State or the United 98 States?" Next Spry examined the two proposals before the Canadian people--that advanced by Gibbon and Ashcroft, and 99 that of the Canadian Radio League. He explained the platform of the Radio League and presented a summary of the ideas which he developed in his article for the Queen's n * 100 Quarterly. 9?Ibid. 96Ibid. 97Ibid. 98Ibid.. p. 2^7. "ibid. 100Ibid.. pp. 2k7-2bQ. Vide pp. 129-139. 211 He then spoke to the other proposal. He stated that the overhead would be much less for one national system than for two systems; because advertising revenue was limited, the same amount of revenue would be required to carry a double overhead, leaving much less money for pro- 101 gram purposes. After dissecting the Gibbon proposal, he stated: When I first read Mr. Gibbon’s article these state ments seemed unbelievable. Think of what they mean. There is to be a private and public system. The public system will have to carry on the educational work. It will lose money. It will require aid from the taxpayer. It will secure either none or very little of the indirect advertising revenue. And while it is doing this, a private system, under the Canadian Pacific, with all other private stations shut down or absorbed, will be left to skim such cream as there is from the Canadian radio advertising business. Under C. P. R. control the present advertising basis will be perpetuated, with this difference, that the profits will go to the C* P. R. while the public carries the bag for a private system. Can Mr. Gibbon be serious in endorsing a proposal which will double the Canadian broadcasting overhead; which will give the C. P. R. a private monopoly; which will create deficits for the public system; and which will leave the public holding the bag?-1 - 0^ Spry believed that the Canadian people and the 10^ C. N. R. would never endorse such a proposal. ’ ’ Perhaps after all [Mr. Gibbon] is just pulling our leg."^^ Spry concluded the article: 1Q1Ibid.. p. 2^8. 1Q2Ibid. 1Q3lbid. 10l+Ibid. 212 So weak are the arguments of both Mr. Gibbon and Mr. Ashcroft that there will shortly appear a pamphlet reprinting Mr. Gibbon's article and excerpts from Mr. Ashcroft's. It will be issued "with the,.compliments of the Canadian Radio League."10? Gibbon demands an apology. When the April issue of the Canadian Forum was distributed, Gibbon promptly wrote to Spry and demanded an apology for Spry'3 reference to him as the "erstwhile patron of Canadian folk-music"; he main tained that Spry misquoted him and attempted to implicate Spry's employers, the Association of Canadian Clubs. 107 Spry's answer was courteously firm. He expressed regret that Gibbon interpreted the article "in a personal sense"; he refused to apologize for the use of the word "erstwhile," maintaining that "a scrupulous reading of your article on radio . . . provides me with no ground for accepting your request"; he emphasized that he and Gibbon wrote for the Forum in their personal capacities and as a consequence "no grounds whatever exist, therefore, for your attempt to implicate my employers"; if any misquotation occurred, it was the responsibility of Gibbon or the editors of the Canadian Forum for he used the proofs of the article 105Ibid., p. 2*+9. - 1 aZ Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to J. Murray Gibbon, April 1*+, 1931* 107Ibid. 213 which the editors sent him. In closing he stated: Naturally I regret the various personal attacks which have been made publicly against me, and still more the private endeavours to restrict my interest in the radio discussion. Such attacks and such endeavours may be in the nature of things, but surely so far as the discussion between you and I [sic] is concerned, however strongly we may disagree., ordinary courtesy and fairness should prevail. V. THE LEAGUE AND THE NEWSPAPERS The initial support of the press for the League’s program was described in preceding chapters.The League soon discovered that although discussion of the League’s objectives in the press was satisfactory, it was not "nearly so aggressive as we expected, from either point of view."^1^ In January Spry wrote that the Canadian Press will hardly carry any statement we issue and some of the papers ignore us. For tunately , in every city there is one newspaper strongly favoring us, with the exception perhaps of Montreal, and we are hearing many echoes of the discussion started.112 In ensuing weeks newspaper support continued to 11 o grow but Spry and Plaunt were far from satisfied. J They lo8Ibid. 1Q9lbid. 110Vide pp. 101-103, 110-111, 157-158, 167. Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Arthur Partridge, January 7, 1931* 112Ibid. H^Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 36- 38. 21k believed that the Southam, the Sifton, and the MacLean Pub lishing Companies supported the league’s program with mixed motives— "their original reactions were primarily those of public spirited citizens willing to approve a good cause"; at the same time the publishers were aware that a govern ment-owned company, with indirect advertising, would be far lib more advantageous to the press than the present system. Plaunt expressed the view that the rank and file, for some months after the founding of the League, were skeptical of its motives, rather mystified about it generally. "There it was," of course, "it looked alright [sic], felt alright, had the right people in it--but who was behind it?"-*-!5 He and Spry determined to solicit the support of the press more aggressively. At Plaunt’s urging Spry attended the convention of the Daily Newspaper Association in Toronto, which was held in the last week of April, 1931.^^ Spry met "practically every editor and business manager there"; Bowman delivered an address on radio; Spry then distributed a pamphlet on radio advertising which the llQ League had prepared. He had misgivings about the llLfIbid.. p. 37. ll5Ibil.. p. 3 8. ~^8Ibid.. Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Gladstone Murray, May 1^, 1931* ■^^Ibid,; Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 39* ll8Ibid. 215 pamphlet because it was a direct appeal to cupidity, and may be used against us. But we certainly made a dint on some [of] the more hardboiled managers, and several station owners, newspaper station owners, are altering their opinion. The seven-page pamphlet was entitled "Radio Advertising— A Menace to the Newspaper and a Burden to 120 the Public." It cited statistics to show that newspaper advertising in the United States decreased 11.7 per cent in 1929 while radio advertising increased 7^.1 per cent; in the first quarter of 1931 newspaper advertising decreased 5.5 per cent from the same period in 1930, while radio 121 advertising increased 8*f.3 per cent. The pamphlet then described the two proposals for the operation of radio which were before the Canadian pub- lie. After stating that radio lineage in newspapers was decreasing, it listed "some comparative figures of Radio and Newspaper Advertising for 1929~1930."^2^ It then declared: Radio advertising has passed beyond the experimental stage and the growth of expenditures illustrates the serious competition that the newspaper business must face. Radio advertising is not decreasing but increasing. Newspaper advertising is not increasing 119Ibid. ■^^Ibid., Box 22. "Radio Advertising— A Menace to the Newspapers and a Burden to the Public," pp. 7. 121Ibid., p. 1. 122Ibid.. p. 2. 123lbid.. pp. 3~»+. 216 but decreasing. A successful and popular programme, such as Pepsodent*s Amos 'n Andy, shows how increased proportions of advertising appropria tions may be applied to radio advertising with prof itable results.12^ " The pamphlet described how Canadian radio advertis- 125 ing was having a similar effect upon Canadian newspapers. National advertisers such as the C. N. R., the C, P. R., Imperial Oil, and General Motors were increasing their 1 ?6 radio advertising. A statement in the pamphlet of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters was singled out for comment: The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, in a recent pamphlet, lists such national advertisers as Imperial Tobacco, Neilson's, Bulova Watch, etc., as opposed to a national system of radio from which direct advertising would be eliminated. At least ten advertisers listed are Canadian sub sidiaries of American companies, and of these ten, seven show a decrease of American newspaper adver tising in 1930 or the first quarter of 1931. The interests supporting the present system of broadcasting, and opposing a national system on a license basis, are profiting from radio adver tising and are competing with the newspapers.12' The League stated that it was circulating this information "because it frankly seeks the support of the press in advocating, in the interests of the public, a fun damental alteration of Canadian broadcasting from an adver- 1 28 tising to a public service basis." 12lfIbid., p. i f . 125Ibid. 126Ibid.. pp. if-5. 127Ibid., p. 5. 128Ibid. 217 The final section of the pamphlet declared that the League was "an entirely independent, non-commercial and non-partisan organization"; it listed the Supporters of the League; and it concluded with a summary of the League's proposals.12^ Spry and Plaunt believed that from the League's point of view the convention was a success; they maintained that there was "a definite quickening of interests in the 130 subject and in [League] dispatches." Several objections were voiced concerning this appeal to newspapers. Brooke Claxton stated that the League should solicit support from the newspapers "for League reasons and not because the newspapers are being affected adversely by radio advertising." Philip Fisher of the Southam Company expressed the opinion that "too close a connection between the Radio League and the newspapers of Canada . . . might be undesirable both from the point of view of the newspapers and from the point of view of the League itself."1^1 He emphasized that the newspapers were interested parties while the League was a commercially 132 disinterested organization. ■^^Ibid., pp. 6-7. 130ibid.. Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 39. 131rbid., Box 3. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, June 23, 1931» also Letter from Philip Fisher to Alan Plaunt, June 23, 1931. 218 VI. THE COURTS AND RADIO JURISDICTION As the date of the hearing on radio jurisdiction before the Supreme Court drew nearer, Spry and Plaunt dis cussed the possibility of having the League represented in 100 some way. Fearing that the League might alienate French Canadian supporters if it intervened directly against the Province of Quebec, they requested Corbett to interview Premier Brownlee of Alberta and to ascertain whether the Provincial Government "would care to be represented without cost before this hearing, in support of the Dominion. When Alberta showed no interest the League applied to the Supreme Court "to be allowed to be represented by legal counsel and to file a factum."135 League claimed to -*-33ibid., Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to E. A. Corbett, March 23, 1931. 13*+Ibid. 13^Ibid.. Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt. pp. l +3” Mf; Box 22” Igenda for Third Meeting of the Canadian Radio League, April 23, 1931. Fr. H. St. Denis, Spry, and Plaunt were present. It was moved by Fr. St. Denis and seconded by Alan Plaunt that the Radio League instruct counsel to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to appear in the hearings on radio jurisdiction. The motion was carried unanimously. Claxton objected to Spry, as he had on several occasions previously, that he had received insufficient notice of the Executive Meeting. "You will certainly be hung some day in repayment of the way in which you have got away with murder in connection with the League." (Box 11. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Graham Spry, April 22, 1931.) From an examination of the Plaunt Papers it would appear that Claxton was the only League member who was vocal that the formalities should be observed— to the extent of sending telegrams, if necessary. represent "the public"; it claimed moreover that it "could present arguments outside the scope of the ordinary legal purview."1-^ The request was granted and, in the opinion of Plaunt, the Canadian Radio League thus became, instead of a group of agitators with doubtful motives and half-baked theories, a highly patriotic, nationalistic organization duly qual ified to represent "the public."137 Spry and Claxton together prepared the factum.-^® In it the League stated that it was "an association with the chief aim of securing the operation of Canadian broad casting as a national public service"; the League supported "the arguments made in the factum of the Attorney-General of Canada. The League then developed several arguments of its own. It stated that "broadcasting, by reason of its very nature, is inevitably inter-provincial and not intra- provincial."'1 ' 1 4 ' ^ Moreover broadcasting was international, •* - 3 ^ Ibid.. p. M+. •^^Ibid.. p. k5. l^Bxbid.j Box 11. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Graham Spry, April 22, 1931; Letter from Brooke Claxton to Graham Spry, April 30, 1931. 139ibid.. Box 17. Pactum on Behalf of the Canadian Radio League in the Supreme Court of Canada. ll+0Ibid. 220 1^1 thereby requiring international agreement. In the second statement, the League maintained that broadcasting is the most powerful instrument ever devised for the development of public opinion and public taste. The possibility of dumping adver tising matter and releasing propaganda requires that there be safeguards against it as adequate as the tariff or the defense force. Broadcasting can become "a menace to the national life of Canada" not only justifying but requiring action for the whole country by the Dominion.14-2 The third major statement described broadcasting as "a work and undertaking of the same class as lines of steam and other ships, railways, canals and telegraphs . .. a sound wave [being] as appreciable, real and physical as a telegraph wire."1^ Claxton requested Spry to supply "telling points" in support of these statements, maintaining that he [Spry] was "better able to state them than anyone else and I consider that the successful outcome of the Reference with respect to broadcasting depends largely on the acceptance by the lMf Court of our view." The Supreme Court heard the arguments of the Radio IIl < League on May 6, 1931. The presentation of Brooke Claxton was described as "most impressive and useful" by 11+1 Ibid. llf2lbid. llf3Ibid. lifIfIbld.« Box 11. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Graham Spry, April 30, 1931. l L > - ^Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to B. A. Corbett, May 6, 1931. 221 W. M. Tilley, K.C., who represented the Dominion Govern- ll+6 ment, and as "very impressive" by a member of the Bench. Immediately Spry began planning the appeal to the Privy Council which he believed would follow the decision of the Supreme Court.The League lacked funds; some 1 k - 8 members called the project extravagant. Believing that much more than Dominion jurisdiction in broadcasting would be involved in an appeal to the Privy Council, Spry explained his strategy in a letter to J. W. Dafoe: The plan briefly is to send Brooke Claxton to the Privy Council on the radio Jurisdiction reference, to present to the Board the most thoroughgoing case for federal rights, in an attempt, which may be more heroic than helpful, to get the Privy Council to take a broader view of the general provisions of the B. N. A. Act. This plan, though carried out in the name of the Canadian Radio League, and intimately related to its purposes, is primarily part of the interest of a group of us— disciples, we might say, of your gospel on federal powers— to weaken the aggression of the provinces.14^ He estimated that approximately $750 would be required for the project; the problem was "how and where to ■^^Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to J. W. Dafoe, May 18, 19317" ll+7Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. ^9- 50. Ibid.; Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, August 12, 1931* l ^ ibjd., Letter from Graham Spry to J. W. Dafoe, May 18, 19317" 222 150 raise the money." The Supreme Court judgment was rendered in the first l5l week of June, 1931» it favored the Dominion Government. Quebec appealed the decision; the Privy Council in the first week of August granted leave to appeal; it was expected that the appeal would be heard in October or 152 November. Undaunted by the lack of funds, Spry arranged for 153 "a solicitor to act as an agent in London without fee." In the latter part of August he and Claxton began work on 151+ the factum. He then began to solicit funds, being pre- 155 pared to contribute at least $50 himself. The Canadian League had $80 in its bank account in Ottawa. Spry wrote to the officers of the League in Winnipeg; he asked if they would be willing to contribute this amount for Claxton1s trip.^56 His reason for asking 150 Ibid. ^^Ibid., Box 22. Review of Events Leading up to the Broadcasting Act, 1932, p. 2. ^^Ibid., Box 11. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Graham Spry, August b, 1931* 153 Ibid.. Letter from Graham Spry to Gladstone Murray, May 2 8, 1931; also Letter from Graham Spry to R. K. Finlayson, August 2*+, 1931. 15^Ibid .; also Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, October 8, 1931. l5^Ibid. 1 Ibid. 223 was the long-term interest of the Canadian League in the matter of Pederal powers: In my own mind the interest in seeing Brooke [Claxton] go to Privy Council is primarily to see him present the strongest possible case for Pederal powers. He has made a great study of this subject as you know, and has a book in manu script— an examination of the influence of Privy Council decisions upon Pederal powers. This interest arose in his case and in mine, out of the work done by the Canadian League group in Winnipeg starting I think about 192*+.* Next Spry sought expressions of opinion on the matter from Louis St. Laurent and George Pelletier who were 158 prominent members of the Canadian Radio League in Quebec. Both men favored the intervention of the Radio League although it would be in opposition to the Quebec Govern ment.159 The Radio League opened a separate legal account with the Canadian Bank of Commerce in Ottawa on November 6, 1931.1^^ Spry donated $500 with the understanding that the money was a loan "to facilitate the financing of this trip, and if other contributions are received, I will expect to l57Ibid. ^ ^ Ibid.; also Letter from Graham Spry to Brooke Claxton, September 8, 1931. Ibid. 1 Ibid., Box 26. Canadian Radio League Legal Account Bank Book. 22k l&l be reimbursed." The Canadian League contribution of was "authorized by Group 9, Ottawa, and by letter from groups in Edmonton (R. C. Wallace), Winnipeg (J. W. Dafoe and R. K. Finlayson), and Montreal (Francis Hankin) ,"-^2 Donations were received also from A. 0. Gibbons ($50), Fred Bronson ($*f0), M. E. Nichols ($25), J. W. Dafoe ($15), and the remainder from Plaunt. In the second week of November Claxton received $700 from 161+ this fund to pay for his trip. It was understood that if Claxton proceeded to London his wife was to accompany him; in November Spry suggested that instead he might accompany Claxton to London 165 for the hearing. Claxton offered several strong objec- l66 tions and the original plan was followed. •l^Ibid., Box 3. Letter from Graham Spry to Alan Plaunt, November 7, 1931. l62Ibid. •^^Ibid.. Box 26. Canadian Radio League Legal Account Bank Book; also Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. *+9“50; also List of Contributions to Canadian Radio League with dates of those contributions. Ibid., Box 3• Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, November 10, 1931» Box 26. Legal Account Bank Book. A third withdrawal to the amount of $79 was made in late November. Although no record was found in the Plaunt Papers of the recipient, it may be presumed that Claxton received this sum in addition to the $700. Cf. p. 221. ^^^Ibid,, Box 11. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Graham Spry, November 10, 1931* l66Ibid 225 The Privy Council heard the appeal in December, 1 Ln 1931. Against the Attorney-General of Quebec were aligned the Attorneys-General of Canada, Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, as 168 well as Counsel for the Canadian Radio league. Claxton expanded the arguments he presented earlier 169 before the Supreme Court. He argued that control of radio communication fell under Section 91 of the B. N. A. Act because "by reason of its very nature and the use to which it is put, radio communication is not a provincial matter. He maintained further that even if radio communication falls under a specific head of section 9 2, it falls within the power of Parliament under specific heads of Section 91 * including particularly (2), The Regulation of Trade and Commerce, and (29), the excepted sub jects mentioned in Section 92 head 10a, because it is covered by the word "telegraph" and it is moreover "a work and undertaking connecting the provinces"-or extending beyond the limits of a province. ' In his final argument he stated l67lbid., Letter from Graham Spry to E. A. Corbett, December 1?, 1931. Ibid., Box 17. Case of the Canadian Radio League in the Privy Council on Appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, pp. 9. l69Vide pp. 22*+-25. 1 ^Plaunt Papers, Box 17, op. cit.. pp. 1-2. ^■^Ibid., p. 2. 226 that the power conferred on Parliament under sec tion 132 to implement a treaty is paramount, and it is also exclusive, because by its nature radio communication can only be effectively controlled and the obligations of Canada with respect ther^^ fulfilled by a single exclusive author- Spry and Plaunt were well satisfied with the League’ s presentation before the Privy Council; Plaunt stated that they had "excellent authority for believing that Brooke’s 173 appearance turned the scales." J VII. INTERMITTENT ACTIVITY OP THE LEAGUE In April, 1931? E. A. Corbett of the University of Alberta received an invitation to attend the second annual Institute for Education by Radio at Columbus, Ohio, and to ■ I rfi, read a paper on Canadian broadcasting. Unable to attend 175 himself, he suggested that the Institute invite Spry. Spry subsequently accepted the invitation and on June 18, 1931, delivered an address which he entitled "The Canadian Radio Situation. 1^2ibid. 1?3ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 50- 51. 1^ibid., Box 11. Letter from E. A. Corbett to Graham Spry, April 17, 1931. •^^Ibid. 1^Graham Spry, "The Canadian Radio Situation," Education by Radio. l:83-85, July 2, 1931* 227 Spry developed four points from his earlier writings on broadcasting, viz., the present distribution and ownership of Canadian stations, the recommendations of the Royal Commis sion on Radio Broadcasting, the conflict between the forces supporting or condemning the Commis sion’s policy of nationalization, and the influence of the American situation upon Canadian opinion. 177 He introduced one new notion when he stated that because the Canadian people were accustomed to a license fee, they had "a very great opportunity to save their broadcasting from the intense commercialism and ruthless capitalism which seems to me to be the characteristic of the North American situation."I?® He stated that the League hoped that its recommendations would be adopted by the government but that it had no assurances that this 179 would happen. He stressed that the controversy between the League and its opponents was "fair and honest, friendly i fin and decent relations existing between the two forces." He concluded the address with these comments: More than selling cakes of soap and toothpaste, more than an evening's entertainment or an after noon's relaxation, more even than school broad casts or adult education, it seems to me is wrapped up in the problem of broadcasting control. To me, the problem is the problem of free public opinion. The issue is freedom. Let the air remain as the prerogative of commercial interests and 178Ibid., p. 83. 1 ibid. l8°Ibid.. p. 85. 228 subject to commercial control, and how free will be the voice, the heart of democracy. The maintenance, the enlargement of freedom, the progress, the purity of education* require the responsibility of broadcasting to the popular yill. Commercial interests cannot be chastened. they anat be subdued. There can be no liberty complete, no democracy supreme, if the commer cial interests dominate the vast, majestic resouj'gi of broadcasting t italics in the origi- After the Institute Spry visited Washington and New York where he gathered information on American broad casting and on "the activities and ramifications of the l82 Trust." He had interviews with Erwin Davis, Senator Dill, Judge Robinson of the Federal Radio Commission, Joy Elmer Morgan, "Aylesworth [President of N.B.C.] and some of the Columbia chaps"? he also interested the Hon. W. D. Herridge, successor to Vincent Massey as Canadian envoy to Washington, in the program of the Radio League. Plaunt meanwhile was strengthening the organiza- Igk tional structure of the League. He sought support from "all the important uncommitted organizations in Canada and 1 8 1Ibid. 182 Plaunt Papers, Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 52-53. ^ • 88Ibid.. pp. 53-5l +; Box 3. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Dr. George Wrong, July 17, 1931. ^81+Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 5^. 229 18*5 a number of businessmen." In June he issued the third 186 revised booklet of the League. Almost identical with the previous edition, it contained a list of the League's most recent supporters. ' ^ ' 7 Miss Charlotte Whitton was a member of the Executive Committee. R. Fletcher, Deputy Minister of Education for Manitoba, Lt. Col. W. A. Bishop, V. C., D. S. 0., M. C., D. F. C., and Thomas Bradshaw, President of the Northern Life Assurance Co., were new members of the National Council. The Port Arthur News Chronicle. the Woodstock Sentinel-Review« the Canadian Railway Employees Monthly, the Regina Leader Post, the Charlottetown Guardian, and the Glace Bay Gazette joined other newspapers in supporting the League, while Quebec -i O Q Le Soleil was no longer listed. With the arrival of autumn the League found itself "with a completed organization and nothing to do with it."189 General Odium advised that the League should await the return of prosperity before continuing with its pro gram; other supporters began to express the opinion that 1QO the League was too idealistic and impractical. 7 At this l8^Ibid. 1 8 8Ibid., Box 22. The Canadian Radio League. June, 1931. l87lbid.. pp. 31-32. 188Ibid.. pp. 26, 27, 32. l89Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 56. 19°Ibid.. pp. 56-57. 230 juncture in the affairs of the League, Vincent Massey- invited Plaunt to accompany him to China as a member of the Canadian Delegation to the Institute of Pacific Relations; Plaunt refused because he "did not feel justified in 191 loosing [sic] contact with the League." The forces of the opposition were not idle during the summer months. Corbett reported that he spent one day with Murray Gibbon of the C. P. R. and added: I can assure you that the C. P. R. this winter is going to lead the way in program activities on the air so far as Canada is concerned. Apparently they feel quite sure that the future of radio in 192 Canada will be largely in the hands of the C. P. R. In late fall Ashcroft visited England "for the pur pose of assembling more material for his campaign against iqo public service broadcasting in Canada." By mid-December Spry had the "definite feeling that financial conditions compel a compromise scheme [and] the temporary abandonment of the idea of a single government 19*+ company." The alternative to the League's original proposal would be a company 1 9 1Ibid.. pp. 57-58. • ^ 9^Ibid.. Box 3. Letter from E. A. Corbett to Alan Plaunt, September 2, 1931* ^93lbid., Box Letter from Gladstone Murray to Alan Plaunt, January 15, 1931. 19^Ibid.. Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Hume Blake, December 18, 1931. 231 formed by the railways, owning the transmission lines, and broadcasting more than any other institution, the Canadian Marconi, which has the beam and short-wave services which would tie up Canada with services in other parts ,-of the world, and the government of Canada. 77 He sought advice on the matter from Hume Blake, an 196 outstanding supporter of the League in Toronto. 7 If Blake agreed that financial circumstances dictated a com promise , then the League could adopt a new position and attempt immediately to discredit the G-ibbon-Ashcroft pro- 197 posal for the two national systems. Spry thought that their proposal could be discredited by simply drawing 198 attention to it. The League could accomplish this objective by submitting a brief to the Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation in which Hume Blake was 199 secretary to the President. Spry accordingly prepared a memorandum and submitted it, on behalf of the League, to the Royal Commission on 200 January l1 * - , 1932. He stated that the Radio League sought reform in broadcasting rather than "any particular method of 19^Ibid. 196Ibid. 197Ibid. 198Ibid. 199ibid. ^ ^ Ibid.« Box 17. Memorandum presented to the Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation by Graham Spry, Ottawa, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Canadian Radio League, pp. 15. 232 reform." 201 The essentials of that reform were six in number 1. Canadian ownership of broadcasting stations and facilities; 2. Government control of licensing and regulation; 3. An increase of revenue for program purposes by an increase in the listener's fee; V. The elimination of direct advertising; 5. The reduction in the number of stations and the increase of the power of stations, so located to ensure Canadian coverage; 6. The use of broadcasting for developing a national public opinion, and for educational purposes, under provincial control.202 The League was "necessarily Interested in the broad casting services performed by the Canadian railway sys- 203 terns." The railways were the "principal programme build ers in the Dominion and their programmes represent a half 2oh of all the coast-to-coast broadcasts in the Dominion." He described the structure of Canadian broadcasting and explained how the transmission lines of the railways were 205 employed for national broadcasts. Although the first use of transmission lines was telegraphic, they were adapted to radio broadcasting purposes. He maintained that the railways had two reasons for being interested in broadcasting: (1) the programs which they sponsored had publicity value; and (2) the leasing of their wires for 2Q1Ibid.. p. 2. 202Ibid. 203Ibid. 204Ibid., p. 3. 205Ibid.. pp. 3-7 233 207 broadcast purposes could produce large revenues. "The more network programmes there are, the greater the revenue pAO of the wire companies will be." In his opinion it was here that the objects of the Canadian Radio League coincide with the interests of the wire companies. The League is interested in increasing the number of programmes, originating in Canada. So are the railway wire companies. The League is interested in seeing these programmes made available to the whole of Canada. So are the wire companies. The League is interested in seeing the moneys supplied to broadcasting purposes increased, provided the burden upon either the railways or the government is not increased. So are the railway wire com panies. The Canadian Radio League is interested in seeing that Canadian and not American influences dominate Canadian broadcasting, and that Canada is not made a part of the American radio sphere. So are the railway wire companies.20° Spry held that the main difficulty of Canadian broadcasting was financial; any hope of a government sub sidy was unrealistic; sufficient advertising revenue did not exist in Canada "to finance adequate Canadian broad- 210 casting on a national scale." An annual license fee of $3 would produce revenue in excess of $1,500,000 which, when added to the revenue from indirect advertising, would 211 provide a sum of at least $2,000,000. 2Q7Ibid.. pp. k-7. 2Q9ibid.. pp. 7-8. 211Ibid.. p. 10. 208-1-1,4 a n Ibid., p. 7. 210Ibid., pp. 8-10. 23b What agency, he asked, should dispense these 212 funds? Not the licensees of the "present chaotic struc ture of broadcasting [which] has no serious defenders and need not be discussed"; not the dual system proposed by R. W. Ashcroft and endorsed by J. M. Gibbon which was "inefficient, expensive, and as unbusinesslike as proposing 213 competing telephone services for one city." J A choice existed between "a company formed by the two railways, and by the telephone and Canadian Marconi interests under the federal government and with directors appointed by the federal government," or a company formed by the government 2lk along the lines of the Report of the Aird Commission. The Radio League proposal, in brief, was 1. That the broadcasting services, facilities, staffs of both railway companies be amalga mated under a new company. 2. That the new company create a programme building organization to assist sponsors of indirect advertising programmes, as well as to provide railway programmes financed bv - the publicity department, as at present Spry advocated that under the Aird proposals this company could sell time to the government company or, under the other alternative, could be "an integral part of the pi A combined governmental and private company." He foresaw 212Ibid. 213Ibid., pp. 10-12. 21>+Ibid. 21^lbid.. p. 13. 21^Ibid. 235 many advantages from such a "pooling of wire services and the formation of a programme building organization.I,2^7 He suggested that the Radio League might wish to present a fuller proposal after the decision of the Privy Council on PI o radio jurisdiction was announced. He concluded by stating that the Radio League appeared before the Commis sion to stress three things: First, the possibility of co-operation between the wire services of the two railways for broadcasting purposes and the formation of a single broadcast ing company; Second, to express, as an organization widely representative of the public, appreciation of the broadcasting programmes and services rendered to the Canadian people by both railways; and Third, to emphasize that the improvement of Canadian broadcasting and the increase of the listener's license fee from one to three dollars would greatly increase both Canadian programmes and railway wire revenues.21 ° As January wore on persistent rumors circulated that the Privy Council decision on radio jurisdiction would soon 22 0 be announced. Spry and Plaunt believed that the time 221 was ripe to reactivate the League. Accordingly they 21?Ibid.. pp. 13-llt. 21^Ibid.. p. I1 *. 219ibjd.. p# 15, 22QIbid.. Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 58. 221Ibid.. pp. 58-59. 236 planned a new delegation from the League to the Minister 222 of Marine. VIII. SUMMARY In anticipation of its projected campaign before the opening of Parliament, the Radio League held its second formal meeting on February 5, 1931* Activities throughout Canada were reported; the advisability of seeking a parlia mentary committee on broadcasting was discussed; Plaunt proposed a six-month budget for approval. The budget was approved and Plaunt was authorized to seek donations from League supporters. His efforts in fund raising were suc cessful; by January 29, 1932, the League received $2,26M-.00 of which $2,192.91 was used to meet expenses. The Minister of Marine was informed of the meeting and was provided with the most recent list of the League's supporters. In February R. W. Ashcroft wrote to members of the League's National Council. Apparently the purpose of the letters was to cause the members to withdraw from the League. Several members wavered in their support until their doubts were allayed by the Hon. N. W. Rowell. Attempts were made to have Spry discharged as Secretary of the Association of Canadian Clubs and "all sorts of most 222Ibid 237 absurd motives" were imputed to him in some eastern news papers. The Government announced on February 20, 1931, that "questions regarding radio have been submitted to the Supreme Court for interpretation and decision." In view of the necessary delay before a decision could be rendered, the League became uncertain of its own best course of action. It decided to continue the publicity campaigns. Spry and Plaunt were well-satisfied with the results of the first four months' activity; Spry expressed the view that the League would gain 75 to 100 per cent of all that it advocated. Plaunt revised the League's booklet a second time; it was issued in March. The National Council grew from sixty members in January to eighty-five members in March; forty-seven newspapers supported the League program; the number of national organizations which had endorsed the League grew from nineteen to twenty-one. During the spring of 1931 the League concentrated its activity upon two projects: (1) an attempt was made to have provincial governments file declarations "in support of the Dominion Government's jurisdiction over radio"; and (2) an attempt was made to have stations which were friendly to the League withdraw from the Canadian Associa tion of Broadcasters before it issued a pamphlet in which 238 the Association would attack the B. B. C., the Radio League, and the concept of public ownership of radio. Stations of the C. N. R., the Manitoba Government, and several others withdrew from the Association before the pamphlet was published in late April, 1931* John Murray Gibbon, General Publicity Manager of the C. P. R., wrote an article on broadcasting for the March issue of the Canadian Forum. In it he attacked the B. B. C., the recommendations of the Aird Report, and the policies of the Canadian Radio League. He maintained that more and better Canadian programming was becoming available nationally; for further improvement "a re-alignment of wave lengths and stations" was required. He endorsed the Ashcroft proposal for new national networks, one privately owned which would accept direct advertising, and the other government owned, which would provide "the educational and 'uplift' programmes for which the Canadian Radio League is crying." Spry was invited to present a rebuttal of the Gibbon article in the April issue of the Canadian Forum. He received the page proofs of the Gibbon article before the March issue was distributed. Immediately he prepared lengthy memoranda in which he held that the attack on the B. B. C. was "unwarranted and untrue," that the Radio League was "neither highbrow or impractical," and that 239 competition in radio stations would result in duplication of costs without providing the required service. These memoranda were distributed confidentially to friendly news papers across the country. When the March issue of the Canadian Forum appeared, the Gibbon article was "ridiculed [and] killed in editorial columns from Halifax to Vancouver." The Radio League arranged for the B. B. C. to receive a copy of the Gibbon article, which was described by an official of the B. B. C. as "a unique combination of inaccuracy and malevolence." The B. B. C. demanded an explanation of the European General Manager of the C. P. R.; after some delay an explanation was arranged; Gibbon wrote the article "in his capacity of past President of the Canadian Authors' Association" and not as an official of the C. P. R. When the story in explanation of Gibbon's position was refused by the Canadian Press "on the ground of propaganda," the Radio League mailed it to friendly news papers across the country. It was used to counteract much of the unfavorable publicity which the B. B. C. was receiv ing at that time. Spry’s rebuttal was published in the April issue of the Canadian Porum. In it he stated that the question was whether radio should be subordinated to advertising purposes or whether it should he "developed to serve the broadest Canadian purposes." He outlined the proposal of the Radio League for a national broadcasting system and analyzed "the only other proposal before the Canadian people— a dual railway system." He maintained that this dual railway sys tem in which the "profits will go to the C. P. R. while the public carries the bag for a private system" would never receive the approval of either the C. N. R. or the Canadian people. He concluded by stating that the league would reprint Mr. Gibbon's article along with excerpts from Mr. Ashcroft's and would issue the reprint "with the com pliments of the Canadian Radio League." Gibbon demanded an apology after Spry's article appeared; Spry refused to apologize, maintaining that "a scrupulous reading of your article on radio . . . provides me with no ground for accepting your request." Although newspapers' support of the League's objec tives continued to grow, Spry and Plaunt were not satis fied. They decided to pursue a more aggressive policy with the press. Spry attended the Daily Newspaper Association Convention in Toronto in the last week of April, 1931. He distributed a pamphlet on radio advertising which "was a direct appeal to cupidity." Entitled "Radio Advertising— a Menace to the Newspaper and a Burden to the Public," the pamphlet drew attention to the vastly increased expenditure 2*+l for radio advertising on the part of national advertisers and the consequent decrease in newspaper advertising by the same advertisers. It outlined the two proposals for radio before the Canadian people; it listed the supporters of the Radio league and concluded with a summary of what the League advocated. Several members of the League objected to this kind of appeal to the newspapers; Spry and Plaunt maintained that there was "a definite quickening of interest in the subject and in [League] dispatches." The Supreme Court heard the reference on radio jurisdiction in early May, 1931* The Radio League pre sented its arguments on May 6, 1931. Brooke Claxton, Counsel for the Radio League, argued that broadcasting was inevitably inter-provincial and international; that because it was "the most powerful instrument ever devised for the development of public opinion and public taste," it required action for the whole country by the Federal Gov ernment; that it was "a work and undertaking of the same class as lines of steam and other ships, railways, canals, and telegraphs." His presentation was described as "most impressive and useful." The Supreme Court rendered its decision in favor of the Federal Government in the first week of June, 1931. Quebec appealed the decision to the Privy Council. Spry 2b 2 made plans to have the League represented in the Privy Council hearings and solicited funds for that purpose. In the second week of November Brooke Claxton received a sum of $700 to pay the expenses of the trip to England. He presented the League's arguments before the Privy Council in December, 1931? expanding on the presentation he made before the Supreme Court. Spry and Plaunt believed "on excellent authority" that his appearance before the Privy Council was instrumental in winning a favorable decision. Spry read a paper at the second annual Institute for Education by Radio at Columbus, Ohio, on June 18, 1931. He developed the points of his lecture from his earlier writ ings on radio. He described Canadian broadcasting by pri vate enterprise; he developed and explained the recommen dations of the Aird Report; he exposed the conflict between the Radio League and its opponents; he explained the fear in Canada of American domination through radio. He stated that the central problem was that of free public opinion and that the issue was freedom. Both free public opinion and freedom were impossible as long as the air "remained the prerogative of commercial interests." After the Institute Spry visited Washington and New York where he interviewed prominent men in American broadcasting. Meanwhile Plaunt continued to strengthen the organi zation of the League. The third revised booklet was issued 2M-3 in June, 1931. Almost identical with the earlier edition, it provided the names of the league's most recent support ers. With the arrival of autumn the League found itself "with a completed organization and nothing to do with it." Some League members advised Spry and Plaunt to await the return of prosperity before continuing with the League's program. The forces of the opposition were not idle during this period. The C. P. R. planned to sponsor excellent programs during the ensuing winter, apparently being quite certain that the future of radio in Canada would be largely under its control, R. W. Ashcroft toured England in the fall and made a thorough study of the B. B, C. "for the purpose of assemblying more material for his campaign against public service broadcasting in Canada." In the last weeks of December Spry began to think that a compromise proposal might be necessary because of financial conditions. He developed a new proposal and presented it on behalf of the Radio League to the Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation on January 1*+, 1932. In it he stressed that the Radio League sought reform in broadcasting rather than "any particular method of reform." He listed the six essentials of that reform. He proposed that (1) the two railway companies amalgamate 2M+ their broadcasting departments to form a new company and (2) that this new company "create a programme building organization to assist sponsors of indirect advertising programmes." This new company could sell time to the government company or "could be an integral part of the combined governmental and private company." As January drew to a close rumors circulated that a decision of the Privy Council on radio jurisdiction was imminent. Accordingly Spry and Plaunt reactivated the League and planned a delegation to the Minister of Marine. CHAPTER VI THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE AND THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RADIO BROADCASTING, 1932 Anticipating an early decision of the Privy Council on radio jurisdiction, Spry and Plaunt called a meeting of the Executive Committee of the League for Priday, January 29» 1932.^" The meeting was held at the Chateau Laurier, Ottawa, at 5 P.M. to discuss "the present [broad casting] situation and also to authorize a delegation to wait on the Minister of Marine to present the Leagued 2 views and support." I. EXECUTIVE MEETING OP THE LEAGUE A financial report was prepared which showed that until January 29 the League received $2,26*f.00 of which $2,192.91 was used to meet expenses. These data are in ^-University of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box *+. Letters from Alan Plaunt to Pather St. Denis, George Pelletier, Eugene L'Heureux, and Brooke Claxton, January 25, 1932. 2Ibid. ^Ibid., Box 16. Statement of Receipts and Disburse ments of the Canadian Radio League to January 29, 1932. 2k5 2^6 Table XII on page 191. After the meeting the League issued a press release. It stated that coast to coast programs had decreased to less than one half the number of the previous season 5 because of insufficient advertising revenue. "It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that there is not enough national advertising revenue in the Dominion to finance programmes the Canadian people expect." Very few stations operated profitably; few could find advertisers to sponsor programs; 7 few could afford to broadcast sustaining programs. The statement maintained that support for the radio Q League program was almost unanimous. A national radio broadcasting system was desired by almost every disinter ested organization in the country; opposition was to be found mainly in the ranks of the private station owners and 9 in the Canadian Pacific Railway. The average Canadian station used only a portion of its broadcasting time; in a typical winter week the average number of broadcast hours of all stations was only four hours and forty-five minutes; only six stations were on the air more than an average of ten hours a day.^ Until Canada began to use the I I Ibid., "The Canadian Radio League," January 29 ? 1932. 5Ibid., p. 1 6Ibid. 7Ibid.. p. 2. 8Ibid. 9Ibid. 1QIbid.. p. 3. 21+7 facilities it had, there was no point in demanding a greater share of the North American broadcasting band."^ In addition to advertising two methods could be employed according to the statement to finance broadcastingi 12 a government subsidy and a listeners* license fee. Because of the difficult times the subsidy should not be requested; a yearly license fee of $3? which amounted to less than one cent a day per person, would yield the required revenue The release declared that the National Broadcasting Company was "circulating a petition to have its programs iL. brought into Alberta" from the United States. While expressing the hope that a national system would relay "selected programs" in the near future, the League opposed "the entry of N, B. C. into further Canadian communities 15 until the policy of the government has been determined." The League communicated with the government on the matter to discover that the government "had no control over the stations making arrangements with American broadcasting systems The announcement was made that the League would send a delegation to the Minister of Marine on February 2 to 11Ibid. 12Ibid. lLfIbid.. p. *+. ^Ibid. 13lbid., pp. 3-1+ l6Ibid. 2*f8 urge the adoption of a radio policy at the next session of 17 Parliament. II. DELEGATION TO THE MINISTER OP MARINE The Minister of Marine received the delegation from 18 the Radio League on February 2, 1932. It included Father Marchand, George Heming, Mrs. J. A. Wilson, Tom Father Marchand lectured the Minister on the Pope's latest Encyclical which, he was assured, practically exhorted Canada to set up a nationally owned radio system. Graham [Spry] gave a_reasoned plea for action in the coming session. u The Minister assured the delegation that the govern ment would take action as soon as the Privy Council ren- 21 dered its decision on radio jurisdiction. His statements 22 were duly publicized by the League. III. GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT OF SPECIAL RADIO COMMITTEE The Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council announced its decision in favor of the Federal Government on February 9» 1932; the way was clear for the Federal ^■^Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 59. 20 Ibid., p. 60. The reference was probably to the Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri (Christian Educa tion of Youth) which Pope Pius Xi issued in 1929. 19 Moore, Plaunt, and Spry. Plaunt recalled later that 18 Ibid 21Ibid.. p. 61 2^9 Government to proceed with the formulation of a radio 23 policy. On February 16, 1932, Prime Minister R. B. Bennett announced in the House of Commons that a Parliamentary Committee would be appointed to study broadcasting problems. He stated: It must be agreed that the present situation of radio broadcasting is unsatisfactory. Canadians have the right to a system of broadcasting from Canadian sources equal in all respects to that of any other country. Such a scheme can be estab lished only after the most thorough inquiry and upon a program which will take several years to carry into effect. The enormous benefits of an adequate scheme of radio broadcasting, controlled and operated by Canadians, is abundantly plain. Properly employed, the radio can be made a most effective instrument in nation building with an educational value difficult to estimate.24' The Radio League had closed its office in Ottawa in O % June, 1931? and Plaunt was living in Toronto. After the Prime Minister's announcement in the House of Commons, Plaunt immediately returned to Ottawa and established League 26 headquarters at his home, 1 Clemow Ave. 23 Editorial in the Prince Rupert News. February 10, 1932. oh. Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, 1932, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King’s Printer, 1932), p. 76. During his testimony C. A. Bowman cited the Prime Minister. 2^Plaunt Papers, Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, P. 63. Ibid.; Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to H. S. Moore, February 23? 1932. 250 IV. LEAGUE PREPARATIONS FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE In a letter dated February 22, 1932, E. A. Corbett informed Spry of a long conversation he had with the Hon. Vincent Massey on February 20 concerning the Radio 27 League and the Parliamentary Committee. Massey expressed the hope that the League would be extremely active "at this critical period"; further he thought that Corbett "should 28 most certainly appear before the Commission," Spry and Plaunt needed no urging. Before Corbett’s letter arrived letters were sent from the League to the National Council of Women, the Universities’ Conference, the Native Sons of Canada, the Canadian Legion, the Western Producer, the United Farmers of Alberta, the All Canadian Congress of Labour and the Imperial Order Laughters of the Empire; each organization was urged "to take a strong stand 29 severally before the Parliamentary Committee." Meanwhile Spry addressed the Canadian Association of Broadcasters through its President, H. S. MooreHe 27 Ibid. Letter from E. A. Corbett to Graham Spry, February 22, 1932. 29Ibid.. Box * + . Letters from Alan Plaunt to each of these organizations, February 23, 1932. •^Ibid.. Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to H. S. Moore, February 23, 1932. 251 suggested that on several points the Radio League and the Association "might find it possible to agree in their repre- 01 sentations to the Parliamentary Committee." He could see no ground for disagreement on the matter of a Canadian delegation to the Madrid Conference on wave lengths; like wise he thought that the Association and the League could agree on the urgency of a radio policy in order that the stalemate might be ended.”' There might be disagreement between the two groups on the annual S3 license fee but he added that "upon inves tigation private broadcasters will find it in their interest 33 to concur." He maintained that there was not the slight est hope of a government subsidy, that advertising revenue was insufficient to provide "more broadcasting of Canadian origin"; there remained the S3 license fee which would impose "no burden on the government, no burden on radio 3 i f manufacturers, or broadcasters."-^ The yearly revenue from this license fee would amount to more than Si,500,000; if the government were to reject the program of the Radio League for a national company, would not this license fee "be necessary and would it not greatly aid private broad- 35 casters?" 31Ibid. 3**Ibid. 32Ibid. 3^Ibid. 33Ibid. 252 Spry offered several suggestions for the use of revenue from license fees: (1) private enterprise might organize a "national programme building organization" which would produce sustaining programs and offer them to differ ent stations; (2) the total annual revenue could be divided among all stations, thus providing a subsidy to the pio neers of Canadian broadcasting; and (3) the wire companies could be subsidized, thus enabling small stations "to pur chase sustaining programs at greatly reduced wire charges He concluded that financing was the fundamental problem of Canadian broadcasting.8" ' 7 He suggested a meeting with the officers of the Association, stating that he would be "very glad to come to Toronto for that purpose."3® Two days later the secretary of the Association replied by telegram that the meeting which Spry suggested was not possible.'" After a lapse of three weeks Spry was advised that he might "dictate a letter to the Board of Directors of the Association, of which there are 11, out- *f0 lining what you might wish to discuss further with us." If Spry would forward the eleven letters to the secretary- 86Ibid. 37Ibid. 38Ibid. 8^Ibid. Letter from Edward Greig to Graham Spry, March 19> 1932. 1+0 Ibid. treasurer, he in turn would solicit the opinion of each director and then "draft a proper reply to the Canadian Radio League., , L f l V. INITIAL PROCEEDINGS OP THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE The Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting included four Conservative Members, Messrs. Morand (Chairman), Wright, Smith and Gagnon; three Liberal Members, Messrs. Euler, Ilsley and Cardin; and one Independent Mem- 1+2 ber, E. J. Garland. They were appointed on March 2, 1932. Lt. Col. W. A. Steel of the National Research Council, Lt. Commander C. P. Edwards, and Mr. J. W. Bain of the Department of Marine were named technical advisors. The order of reference was as follows: (1) To consider the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting dated the 11th day of September, 1929» and, commonly known as the Aird Report. (2) To advise and recommend a complete technical scheme for radio broadcasting for Canada, so designed as to ensure from Canadian sources as complete and satisfactory a service as the present development of radio science will permit. (3) To investigate and report upon the most satis factory agency for carrying out such a scheme, 41Ibid. j i p ^Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit.« p. ii. ^IMd. 29+ with power to the said committee to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses, ) | 1 | and to report from time to time to the House. At the request of the Committee Commander Edwards presented a rgsum^ of Canadian broadcasting at the first **5 formal meeting which was held on March 11, 1932. There were sixty-six broadcasting stations in Canada; in addition eighteen licenses were issued for "phantom sta tions."1 *^ These data are in Table XIV on page 255- Edwards reported that the total number of receiving set licenses for the first ten months of fiscal year 1931 was 571,893 and that the license fee would be increased 1+7 from $1.00 to $2.00 per annum on April 1, 1932. The data of receiving set licenses are in Table XV on page 256. He maintained that comparatively few changes had occurred since 1928 when Mr. Cardin, the then Minister of Marine, announced the formation of a Royal Commission to h8 study broadcasting conditions. Three new stations were in operation; five stations were granted significant increases in power; twenty-five stations increased their 1^.0 power from ten to one hundred watts. 7 Four hundred ^ Ibid. ^ibid.. p. 2. ^ Ibid.. p. 3. For a definition of phantom stations vide p. 36, note. ^Ibid., p. *+. ^ Ibid.. p. 5. ^ Ibid.. pp. 5-6 . 2 55 TABLE XIY CLASSIFICATION OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING STATIONS BY OWNERSHIP AND BY POWER, MARCH 11, 1932a Classification by Ownership (1) Radio manufacturers and dealers............ 1*+ (2) Railway companies and commercial organizations 15 (3) Newspapers...................................9 (i+) Radio clubs and non-commercial organizations. 18 (5) Religious organizations ..... ......... 2 (6) Retail stores............... 8 Total................... 66 Classification by Power 10,000 watts ......... 5,000 watts ......... ^,000 watts ......... 1,000 watts ......... 5oo watts ......... 250 watts ......... ... 3 100 watts ......... 5o watts ......... 25 watts and under . . . . _z Total .... ... 66 aSpecial Committee on Radio Broadcasting, 1932, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King’s Printer, 1932), p. 256 TABLE XV RECEIVING SET LICENSES FOR THE FIRST TEN MONTHS OF FISCAL YEAR 1931, ENDING MARCH 31a Alberta ........ * • . 26,198 British. Columbia. • • . 53,917 Manitoba........ • • 32,666 New Brunswick . . . 12,875 Nova Scotia . . . Ontario ........ Prince Edward Is. • • 1,152 Quebec. ........ Saskatchewan. . . • • . 29,559 Northwest Territories and Yukon . . . • • . . 132 Total • • . 571,893 aSpecial Committee on Radio Broadcasting Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King’s Printer, 1 ' p. 1 +. 257 applications were on file with the Department of Marine for new stations; Commander Edwards expressed the view that "probably less than one hundred" were bona fide applica tions.^ Canadian stations were using twenty-five channels; 51 of this number six were exclusive. Eleven of the ninety American channels were low power so as not to interfere 52 with stations which were using these channels in Canada. The view was expressed that Europe and perhaps America would bring great pressure to bear at the Madrid Conference 5 -5 for the use of more channels. J In addition to the regular commercial stations there were l,*+82 stations operating in 5^ Canada, all performing useful functions. Broadcasting licenses, issued for one year, auto matically expired at the end of each fiscal year. Dealing exclusively with technical matters, they had no reference 55 whatsoever to censorship. Three broadcasting chains operated from coast to coast; the Canadian National Rail ways owned one chain, the Canadian Pacific Railway owned one, and the third was a new all Canadian telephone line.^ The average broadcasting day for some Canadian sta tions was one hour per day seven days a week; other stations ^Ibid., p. 6. •^•Ibid., pp. 6-7. ^ Ibid. 53Ibid., p. 8. ^ Ibid.. p. 9 . 55ibjd. 56Ibid., p. 11. 258 57 averaged as high as ten hours a day. The average broad casting day for fifty-six stations was six hours and fifteen CfQ minutes. The average broadcast day was then given for each province.'*9 These data are in Table XVI on page 259* To replace every station in Canada the Department estimated that $1,800,000 would be required.^ Commander Edwards concluded the Report by stating that four Canadian stations, CFCF (Marconi) and CKAC (La Presse) in Montreal, CKGW (Gooderham and Worts) and CFRB (Rogers-Majestic) in Toronto, had regular American connections; a fifth station, CFCN in Alberta, was attempting to affiliate with an American network.^ In reply to a question from the Committee concerning the number of complaints which were received by the Depart ment of Marine, Edwards replied: 57Ibid. ^Ibid,, p. 12. Edwards did not explain why the average was provided for only fifty-six stations instead of the average for Canada’s sixty-six stations. 59Ibid., p. 11. 6QIbid.. p. 1 3. ^Ibid., p. 1 6. Edwards reported on March 18, 1932, that stations CKGW and CFRB received approval to increase their power after the Special Committee began sitting; the approval was subject to the non-compensation clause. (Minutes of Evidence, p. 118) 259 TABLE XVI AVERAGE LENGTH OP BROADCASTING DAY IN EACH CANADIAN PROVINCEa Province Number of Stations Average Day Hours Minutes Alberta 8 58 British Columbia 10 6 — Manitoba 2 6 New Brunswick — bO Nova Scotia 1 + 3 30 Ontario 18 6 5 > f Prince Edward Island — 7 15 Quebec — 11 ll Saskatchewan 5 5 * f aSpecial Committee on Radio Broadcasting, 1932, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1932), p. 11. fidwards did not list the number of stations in New Brunswick:, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. 260 We have a certain number of complaints, not very- serious. They are on record with the Department. That is, the people who have taken the trouble to write in. We will have the complaint file sent over and you can see all the complaints we have. It is also our intention to file with you all the resolutions, letters and everything we have pro and con government ownership. First evidence of the Radio League. Spry, on behalf of the Radio League, made two formal appearances before the Committee, the first on March 15, 1932, and the second on April 18, 1932.^ In his first appearance he argued that Canada should be represented at the Madrid Conference on wave lengths in the fall of 1932; to do this the nation would first have to establish a definite radio policy. If Canada has no program, how can she bargain for wave-lengths at Madrid? If we have no program, how will we know what to claim? And if we make an arbitrary claim, how will we support that and substantiate it? A nation that neither knows what it wants, nor what it wants it for, will be in no position to hold its own with European nations or with North American nations ardently competing,, for greater portions of the broadcasting band.'54' Spry then presented a summary of broadcasting con- 6 5 ditions in the United States. J Next he presented an ^2Ibid., p. 2b, 63lbid., pp. >+1-55, 5^5-588. 6IfIbid., p. 1+3. 65lbid.; vide Appendix B, "Canadian Radio for Canadianst r which was issued by the Canadian Radio League in the third week of March, 1932. This pamphlet provides a summary of Spry's evidence before the Committee. 261 outline of the League's objectives: (1) Canada should be represented at the Madrid Conference; (2) a long term but definite broadcasting policy should be enacted at the present session of Parliament; and (3) this policy should be based on the public ownership and operation of all 66 _ broadcasting stations. In reply to a question on how a national scheme might be financed, Spry stated that the League would make detailed recommendations before the 67 Committee at a later date. The members of the Committee directed numerous ques- 68 tions to Spry concerning the Canadian Radio League. They wished to know whom Spry represented, who were members of the League, who contributed money; they questioned the role of newspapers in the League; they inquired whether "all these organizations you have spoken of as being members of your League have definitely acceded to this policy which you have enunciated here"; they inquired about protests from League members; they wished to know whether all mem bers of the League were "unanimously in favour of the public 69 ownership of radio in Canada." Spry replied that the League was an entirely volun tary and independent organization: 66Ibid., p. i*6. 67Ibid.. p. b7. 68Ibid., pp. **7-55. 69Ibid. 262 It was organized "by a small group of listeners. It is financed by appeals to the organizations supporting U 3 , such as churches, national associa tions, labour bodies, farm organizations and pri vate individuals who are members of the League. I think we have received contributions from not more than three [newspapers] and both the secre tary and myself have contributed more than any one newspaper, and between the two of us we have contributed the majority of the funds.™ The League, Spry continued, was "in effect the agency of all federations and organizations which are supporting the improvement and public ownership of Canadian broadcast- 71 ing." Before the League asked for support it clearly enunciated its policies in its promotional pamphlets and 72 secured as much publicity as possible. He presented a summary of the League's support, showing that the League was especially strong in the Prairie Provinces, the Mari- times, and French Canada; he stated that the League "had not won the battle in the City of Toronto" and added: What is more, the people of Central Canada, and particularly the people of Toronto and Montreal, receive adequate and valuable broadcasting. With them, therefore, the question of improving Canadian broadcasting is not so urgent as in other parts of Canada. But what is the situation in Ontario? Well, when we announced our existence, one of the Toronto stations, CKG-W, broadcast the suggestion— I will not say the statement— that we were advocating a $30 license fee. There was also the suggestion that we were advocating the abolition of Amos ’n Andy programs. Mr. Chairman* we have been beaten in Toronto by Amos 'n Andy.73 70Ibid.. p. ^7. Cf. p. 30*f. 72Ibid. 71 Ibid. 73lbid., p. i f 9 . As evidence that members of the League were support ing League policies, Spry stated that they sent money to help promote the work, communicated with League headquar- He stated also that the League wrote "a number of the reso lutions which are in question" for affiliated organiza tions; these resolutions were subsequently discussed at national conventions and, on the principle of public owner- 75 ship, were passed unanimously by those organizations. He informed the Committee that comprehensive lists of League membership were being prepared and that each member of the Committee would receive a copy of the statement along with a copy of resolutions which were received from various organizations.^ Before the Committee adjourned Spiy announced that the Radio League was "prepared to bring from Great Britain a Canadian gentleman of large experience who has been studying British broadcasting,” and a gentleman from the United States "who has wide experience in educational broadcasting"; if the Committee should so desire, these gentlemen would appear without any expense to the govem- 77 ment. J. L. Ilsley moved that the offer be accepted and ters, and assisted the League in procuring new members. 7^ ^ Ibid., p. 50 76 Ibid. Ibid 77Ibid«> p. 60 26k nQ the Committee members concurred. League activity during the Committee Hearings. In early March it became clear to Spry and Plaunt that the forces which opposed a national system of broadcasting were attempting to stage a "popular campaign" against the adop- 79 tion of the system. Stations CKAC, CFRB, CKCO, and others were broadcasting statements that "a government system would cost $15,000,000 a year and would require a license fee of $30 to finance" and that "under a government system no Canadian would be able to hear American pro- 80 grams." Montreal La Presse was conducting a spirited 81 campaign. In addition there was the behind-the-scenes activity of the Canadian members of the RCA group, the con certed opposition of the Canadian Association of Broad casters , and the power and prestige of the Canadian Pacific 82 Railway. The Columbia Broadcasting System and the National Broadcasting Company had "a definite concerted plan to cover Canada"; in anticipation of that eventuality, the Bell System established a trans-Canada circuit and a Ibid. 79piaunt Papers, Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, P. 63. 8^Ibid., pp. 6k-65. 8^Ibid. 82Ibid. 265 new station in Calgary was constructed, with other stations to follow in Windsor and Hamilton.®8 Moreover a new group which called itself the Ontario Radio League was organizing; R. W. Ashcroft was one of its 81+ leaders. The new League was "stimulating large quanti ties of popular letters and telegrams which are pouring into the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. Morand. While the value of this type of opinion has to he discounted, never- 85 theless it creates an atmosphere and we must combat it." At the beginning of March the Ontario Radio League sent out the following circular letter, using 69 Yonge St., Toronto, as the return address: You reside in that section of Ontario which, for some time past, has been receiving very satisfac tory service from the high-powered Ontario sta tions which are affiliated with the Canadian and United States networks, and which broadcast pro grams originating in all parts of the world. You pay for this service a license fee of $1 per annum, plus the expense of the up-keep of your receiving set for tubes, etc., which is nominal. Not one cent of your dollar is used by the Dominion Government to help provide you with music and entertainment. Nevertheless they intend to DOUBLE your tax. Radio service to some other parts of Ontario, and in the other provinces is admittedly bad, and 88Ybid., p. 66. O K Ibid., Box Letter from Alan Plaunt to Fred I. Ker, March 21, 1932; cf. p. 162. 85Ibid. 266 "because of this, the dominion government is being asked to take over the business of broadcasting in Canada, and to expend millions of public money to build stations from coast to coast, to spend many more millions each year to operate them, and you and the other 250,000 Ontario licensees— out of a total of approximately 500,000 licensees throughout Canada— are to be taxed to pay half the bill for this ALL-CANADIAN radio service. Those who are in a position to know, tell us that, to provide ALL OP CANADA with radio service as good as what you are now getting, would cost AT LEAST $15,000,000 per year. In other words, your license fee would cost you $30 per year instead of $1, and you would have to tune in American stations for some of your favorite programs and for all broadcasts from Europe and elsewhere. Those who don*t know say that a $3 license fee, or $1,500,000 per annum, would be sufficient to give Canada a first-class All-Canadian service, quite as good as that to the south of us. Those who do know say that $1,500,000 per annum would be a mere ''drop in the bucket" and that, if that amount were all that you and other Canadian licensees were asked to provide the gov ernment for operating expenses, the Canadian pro grams would be so mediocre and banal that you would soon be listening only to American programs as was probably your habit some three or four years ago. In any event you are asked to: 1. Join the Ontario Radio League, which will represent you before the Parliamentary Committee in Ottawa. THIS WILL ENTAIL NO EXPENSE TO YOU, and you may send your application for membership on enclosed pre paid postal card. 2. Write to your M. P., or to the Prime Minis ter at Ottawa, or to us and express your views in detail. Yours faithfully, Ontario Radio League K. Whetham, Hon. Secretary. 267 P. S. Please return your postal card promptly. Membership in the League will cost you nothing, as there is no initiation fees or dues. VOLUNTARY contributions no matter how small, will be gratefully received and acknowledged After considering the situation, Spry and Plaunt decided that a strong "popular" counteroffensive was abso- 87 lutely necessary. They estimated that the League would require one thousand dollars for delegation expenses, 8ft stenographic assistance and publicity. Plaunt wrote to several supporters of the League, explained the situation, and requested donations for the campaign.89 His efforts were successful; by May 31, 1932, he received $987.50 from these sources: W. P. Herman— $200, Joseph Atkinson— $250, Harry Sifton— $25, Glyn Osier— $12.50, Hume Blake— $50, the Hon. N. W. Rowell— $50, and the Hon. Vincent Massey— $*+00 88Ibid.; also Special Committee on Radio Broadcast- ing, op. cit.. pp. 350-351. 8?Plaunt Papers, Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 66-70. 88Ibid., Box *+. Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Vincent Massey, March l1 *, 1932. 89Ibid. 90Ibid., Box 26. Contributions to the Canadian Radio League, March 22-May 2 8, 1932; Box *f. Letter from the Hon. Vincent Massey to Alan Plaunt, April 29, 1932; Box 11. Letter from the Hon. Vincent Massey to Graham Spry, May 31, 1932, with cheque to the amount of $MX). Plaunt arranged the contribution from Vincent Massey to help defray the travelling expenses of Gladstone Murray. Cf. p. 305. In addition to the Massey contribution, the BBC contributed BlM-0 and Major Murray Bb-0. (Box 26, Radio League Accounts &nd Membership.) Next, Spry and Plaunt took steps to have two expert witnesses testify before the Committee. Plaunt suggested in a message to Gladstone Murray of the British Broadcast ing Corporation that Arthur Grier of Montreal, who was studying broadcasting with the BBC in England, might return to Canada to testify.^ Murray cabled that he was opposed to the BBC volunteering evidence "unless Committee induces 92 government extend official invitation to Corporation."^ The League then decided that Murray himself should appear before the Committee; after several exchanges across the Atlantic, Murray cabled: We cannot proceed except on invitation direct from Committee to Corporation. If this is received Sir John will nominate me.“3 As the Committee was in recess, Plaunt telephoned Dr. Morand at his home in Windsor, Ontario, on March 23, oh 1932. He explained that Murray required a direct invita tion from the Committee; Dr. Morand authorized Plaunt to send this message to the BBC: 91 7 Ibid., Box 11. Cablegram from Gladstone Murray to Graham Spry, March 21, 1932, in reply to a message from Alan Plaunt, March 12, 1932. 92Ibid. 9^Ibid., Box M-. Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Raymond Morand, March 23, 1932, in which he cited two telegrams. 9l+Ibid 269 On behalf of Parliamentary Committee on Radio Broadcasting invite Murray appear as witness. Necessary come immediately. 95 Raymond Morand, Chairman. On April 7, 1932, Major Gladstone Murray, Deputy Director of the British Broadcasting Corporation, testified 96 before the Special Committee. He described the origins of the British broadcasting system, the operations of the BBC, the composition of programs, the types of music being broadcast, the success of the Empire broadcasts, the arrangements for exchange of programs, and the educational uses of British radio, in which he included both school 97 broadcasts and adult education programs. He was ques tioned concerning parliamentary control over the operations of the BBC, the arrangements between parties for political broadcasts, the possible role of small local stations if a national system were established, and the existence of any evidence that a large number of English listeners would wish to return to a privately owned broadcasting system. After Parliament passed the Broadcasting Act, Spry stated his belief that Gladstone Murray 9^Ibid. 96. Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, 1932, op. cit.. pp. 295-318. 9?rbid.. pp. 295-306. 9^Ibid.« pp. 306-318. 270 was the first person before the Committee who really convinced the Committee that they were dealing with a subject of the first importance, and he raised the whole level of subsequent discussions.99 While Plaunt was working to have Major Murray appear before the Committee, Spry wrote to Dr. Joy E. Morgan of the National Committee on Radio in the United States, invit ing him to testify as the guest of the Radio League. Dr. Morgan accepted; he received these suggestions from Spiy as guidelines for the preparation of his address: First, the difficulties educators and small inter ests have in maintaining their rights against the dominant group, showing how stations have been put off the air, etc. Second, the part of the Federal Radio Commission in this, and some examination of its prejudices, its tendency, if any, to favour the dominant group. Third, some description of the dominant group, its ramifications, what, as a power group it did in schools and universities. Fourth, the objection to commercial interests acting as media of public education, and evidences of a growing American opinion against the commer cialization of the air. Fifth, some hint of the opportunity Canada has of establishing a system that will embrace the best features of American and European systems. The stress upon educational advantages should not be too heavy, I feel. Private interests are using 99Ibid.. Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to the Hon. Vincent Massey, June 8, 1932. IQ^Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to Dr. Joy E. Moigan March 16, 19^2, in reply to a telegram from Dr. Morgan on March 1*+, 1932, 271 the argument that the Canadian Radio League wants to have only educational programmes and to abolish Amos *n Andy etc. The emphasis that would be most valuable to us would be upon the power of the R. C, A, group and how it impinges upon public educat^gyal rights, threatens freedom, and so Dr. Morgan gave evidence before the Committee on 102 April 13, 1932. Developing the points Spry suggested, he presented a factual account of broadcasting conditions in the United States, citing Resolution 129 of the United States Senate which was passed unanimously on January 12, 1932, and which recognized the unsatisfactory broadcasting conditions in America. The League also invited Dr. Lee de forest to testify lO^ before the Committee. Unable to appear, he sent a memorandum which was read into the record of the proceed- 105 mgs. On March 16, 1932, the day following his appearance before the Committee, Spry summarized the situation in a 101Ibid. 10^Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, on. oit. . pp. ^6 9-^8 6. 1Q3lbid. 1QlfPlaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Dr. Lee de forest, April 9, 1932; also Letter from de forest to Spry, April 13, 1932. lO^Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, on. cit., pp. 1+ 8 6- W . ' ---- 272 letter to Hume Blake: The undercurrents which are working against us at the present time are three-fold: first, the Radio League is a bluff and the names really don't repre sent anything. Secondly, if they do represent anything, then they were secured from people who didn't understand they were supporting the public ownership of radio stations. Third, in any event most of these people are strong Liberals and the Conservatives should be careful to avoid tying themselves in with what may be a Liberal policy. He suggested that perhaps Blake could arrange to appear before the Committee, bringing "letters or other strong support" so that the evidence could be presented 107 and appear in the official record. Within the next few days, Spry wrote to several members of the Special Committee, enclosing specific infor mation on questions which were asked during the proceedings of the Committee.10® But the feeling persisted that the League should launch a "popular" countermovement to offset the drive of the Ontario Radio League; Plaunt later recalled that "our go-between with His Majesty's Advisor 109 expressed the greatest concern." ' 1^Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from Graham Spry to Hume Blake, March 16, 1932. 107Ibid. 10®Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to the Hon. P. J . A. Cardin, March 18, 1932; also Letter from Graham Spry to R. K. Smith, M. P., March 18, 1932. 10^Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 66- 67. The reference was probably to the Hon. W. D. Herridge, 273 Upon receipt of this information, Spry immediately decided to make a quick tour through the western provinces; his purpose would be to "stir up" the newspapers, the Con servative organizations, the farmers* organizations, pro vincial governments, and the League's regional com mittees.11^ Arriving in Winnipeg on March 20, 1932, he spent one day in each major city organizing committees, broadcasting, and encouraging the people in each area to telegraph their views to the Special Committee and to the Prime Minister.111 Plaunt remained at League headquarters in Ottawa and attempted to do the same thing for Ontario, Quebec, and the 112 Maritimes. First he prepared an eight-page pamphlet; it presented a summary of the points which Spry developed in his first appearance before the Special Committee; the 11 q pamphlet was ready for the printer on March 21, 1932. J The pamphlet is reproduced in Appendix B. Next he wrote to the "friendly newspapers." After explaining the program of the commercial lobby, he outlined three steps for the League's campaign: brother-in-law of the Prime Minister, with whom Spry and Plaunt were in frequent communication. Vide pp. 76-79, 228. 11QIbid. 111n>id., p. 67. 112Ibid., pp. 67-68. 11^Ibid., pp. 68-69; Box *+ . Telegram from Graham Spry to Alan Plaunt, March 21, 1932. 27*+ 1. We must get all our supporters and other influential individuals in each locality to write or wire into the Committee supporting public ownership. 2. We must stimulate a flow of popular telegrams and letters from individuals and organizations. These should be directed, first, to Dr, Morand, the Chairman of the Committee, and secondly, to the local M, P, 3. The newspapers should give us more news space. Editorial support is valuable, but the popular appeal is what is needed now.11^ Arthur Partridge, Manager of the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, informed Plaunt during the last week of March that he sent a circular letter to "the friendly list"; the letter went "farther than I really have a right to go," he added, "but I felt that I should like to give 115 them one more jolt to wake them up if possible," In his circular letter Partridge stated that the "organizations controlled by the Broadcasters* interests have been bombarding the Parliamentary Committee on Radio with letters of protest and telegrams from radio owners 1 16 against any form of government control," Partridge continued: Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 68; Box b. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Fred I. Ker of the Hamilton Spectator, March 21, 1932. ^-^Ibid., Box *+. Letter from Arthur Partridge to Alan Plaunt, March 31, 1932, with a copy of the circular letter which was sent out by Partridge. 116ibid. 275 Amazing inertia on the part of daily newspapers is being displayed in this matter, even by those who seem most fearful of radio as an advertising competitor. Editors, reporters, advertising men, clerks, compositors, pressmen have as much right to address letters to the Parliamentary Committee as have other Canadian citizens. They have the right to advise and persuade their families and friends to do likewise. With such a beginning— properly inspired— a stream of letters could be directed to the Chairman of the Parlia mentary Committee on Radio at Ottawa. Similar letters or resolutions from women’s organi zations, national associations, outstanding cor porations and men have been suggested. If such action commends itself, it must be quick as the Parliamentary Committee may not meet more than two weeks longer. Let those who favour nationalization of broadcast ing or a strong government regulation of this great invention say so and quickly or the private system is fixed on us for life. If those who have been saying they have so much at stake are too indifferent to stir themselves to write or inspire a few letters, they can have no cause for complaint if the Parliamentary Committee on Radio adopts the views of the private broadcasting interests so strongly supported by supposedly favourable radio owners [italics in the original].H• Next Plaunt wrote to all the organizations which were affiliated with the Radio League; he requested them to appeal "to their local bodies for popular demonstrations of I 1 O support." He composed a circular letter for the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada which was sent to fifty-one locals, being authorized to issue it under the signature of 117Ibid. Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 69. 276 Tom Moore, the President, and P. M. Draper, the Secretary- TreasurerHe requested all League members to telegraph support for the League’s proposals and to organize tele- 120 . graphic support from people in their own localities. A special appeal was directed to University Presidents, the 121 majority of whom were members of the Radio League. The response to the appeal, in Plaunt's words, "was T P? simply magnificent." Letters, telegrams, and resolu tions were sent to the Special Committee.1^3 The League distributed a memorandum to the Committee which contained the "highlights of recent Canadian editorials supporting a iplf Nationally-owned Broadcasting Corporation." Spry's efforts in the west resulted in a "quantity of representations"; fifty telegrams went to the Committee from League supporters in Kitchener; "most of the organiza tions, and especially the local labor and women’s groups ^Ibid.. pp. 69-70; Box 12. Circular Letter from Tom Moore to all locals of the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada, March 25, 1932. 1 90 Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 70; Box *+. Letter from C. L. Burton to Alan Plaunt, March 22, 1932. Burton did not wish to take "an active part on either side of the argument"; his name was withdrawn from the list of League supporters. Cf. pp. 19^-195. 121Ibid. 122Ibid. 123Ibid.. pp. 69-70. ^2^Ibid., Box 22. Highlights of Recent Canadian Editorials Supporting a Nationally-owned Broadcasting Corporation, April 9, 1932. 277 acted immediately."12" ^ In Halifax the local League members drew up a petition, favoring a national broadcasting system which was signed by the Mayor and thirty outstanding citi- The League intended to send a large delegation, composed of supporting organizations, to the Parliamentary Committee but Spry was informed that the Committee could 127 not give a hearing to this type of delegation. Conse quently the League urged the important organizations which supported its policies and several prominent Canadians to 128 appear before the Committee individually. The names of these organizations and individual#y--&Pc*ig~vith~-the dates on which they testified, are in Table XVII on page 278. 125lbid., Box 2 6. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 71- 72; Box **. Letter from D. N. McLachlan, Secretary, Board of Evangelism and Social Service of the United Church of Canada, to Alan Plaunt, April *+, 1932, with copy of the resolution which was sent to the Chairman of the Parliamen tary Committee; Letter from G. J. McDonagh, National Secre tary, Native Sons of Canada, to Alan Plaunt, April *+, 1932, with copy of the resolution which was sent to the Chairman of Parliamentary Committee; Letter from Charlotte Whitton, Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, to Alan Plaunt, April 7, 1932, with copy of the resolution favoring Govern ment control of Broadcasting. 12^Ibid., Box 26. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, p. 72. 127 Ibid., Box *f. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Charlotte Whitton, April 2, 1932, with reference to a letter of March 10, 1932, from Plaunt to the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire. i Ibid.; also Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, March 2k, 1932, with reference to having Professor Clarke testify before the Committee. 278 TABLE XVII ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHICH APPEARED BEFORE THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RADIO BROADCASTING AT THE REQUEST OF THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE8- Date Witness Organization March 15, 1932 Graham Spry W. T. Burford Pres., Canadian Radio League Secretary, All Canadian Congress of Labour March 17, 1932 C. A. Bowman1 3 Augustin Frigon Commissioners, Royal Com mission on Radio Broad casting April 1, 1932 E. A. Corbett University of Alberta April 5, 1932 Gladstone Murray Brooke Claxton Deputy Director, BBC, London Counsel, Canadian Radio League April 7, 1932 H. Mitchell, M.P. Mrs. J. A. Wilson J. C. G, Herwig Trades and Labor Congress National Council of Women and affiliated organiza tions Canadian Legion April 12, 1932 Prof. D. Clark J. F. Garrett McGill University, Faculty of Music; Conductor, Montreal Symphony Orch. Saskatoon April 13, 1932 Dr. J. E. Morgan National Committee of Edu cation by Radio, Washington, D. C. 279 TABLE XVII (Continued) Date Witness Organization April lb, 1932 Sir John Aird^ Hon. N. W. Rowell Chairman, Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting Member of National Council of the Radio League, appearing in personal capacity April 18, 1932 Graham Spry Alan Plaunt Pres., Canadian Radio League Hon, Secretary, Canadian Radio League aCf. pp. 250, 2^1, 268-278. Cf. also Chapter VI, footnote 125, p. 277. During the hearings the League filed with the Committee statements of support from the Primate of All Canada, the Archbishops of Quebec and Ottawa, Professor C. H. Mercer of Dalhousie University, and Dr. Lee de Forest. It also filed a resolution in support of a national broadcasting system from the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire. ^The members of the Royal Commission are listed as supporters of the Radio League although they were invited to appear by the Committee. 280 A number of major organizations which opposed the recommendations of the Aird Report and the program of the Canadian Radio League also appeared before the Committee; Table XVIII on page 281 lists these organizations with the dates on which they testified. VI. SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE As the Committee Hearings wore on, three major posi tions became clearly outlined from the evidence that was presented; (1) the continuation of the status quo; (2) a private monopoly; and (3) a public monopoly. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Association of Radio Manufacturers, Station CKAC (Montreal), and Station CPCN (Calgary) presented the main arguments for the contin- 129 uation of the status quo. They advocated private owner ship of stations with government control through the estab lishment of some type of commission, the continuation of direct advertising with a stipulation that it should not exceed 5 per cent of any program period, and the subsidiza tion by the government of coast-to-coast transmission lines 129 ^Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit., passim. 281 TABLE XVIII MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHICH APPEARED BEFORE THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RADIO IN OPPOSITION TO A NATIONALLY OWNED AND OPERATED BROADCASTING SYSTEMa Date Witness Organization March 31, 1932 April 1, 1932 April 5, 1932 J. E. Walsh J. A. Macfarlane K. S. Rogers C. M. Passmore A. M. Patience E. L. Bushnell H. S. Moore W. E. Morgan-Dean J. A. Dupont R, W. Ashcroft Gen. Mgr., Canadian Manu facturers' Association (CMA), Toronto. Counsel of the CMA, Toronto Vice Pres., Rogers Majes tic Corp., Station CFRE^ Toronto Campbell-Ewald Advertis ing Agency, Toronto Association of Radio Mam- facturers, Toronto Announcer, Station CKCN, Canadian Carbon Com pany, Toronto Pres., Canadian Associa tion of Broadcasters (CAB), Station CFRB, Toronto CAB, Toronto CAB, Station CKAC, Montreal Station CKGW, Trans-Canada Broadcasting Co., Toronto 282 TABLE XVIII (continued) Date Witness Organization April 6, 1932 G. G. Plaxton W. W. Grant Counsel, Ontario Radio League, Toronto Part owner and broad caster, Station CFCN, Calgary April IS 1932 A. Geoffrion Arthur Dupont Counsel, Province of Quebec and Station CKAC, Montreal Mgr., Station CKAC, La Presse, Montreal April 19, 1932 Arthur Dupont Dr. G. M. Gelbert Mgr., Station CKAC, La Presse, Montreal Owner, Station CKCO, Ottawa, Vice Presi dent CAB April 20, 1932 E. W. Beatty, K.C. H. S. Moore H. N. Stovin President and Chairman, Canadian Pacific Railway President, CAB, Station CFRB, Toronto Station CKCK, Regina aSpecial Committee on Radio Broadcasting, 1932, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1932), passim. 283 130 and of the better national programs. The second group, which advocated a private monopoly, consisted of R. W, Ashcroft of the TransCanada Broadcasting Company, the Ontario Radio league, and E. W. Beatty, Presi- 131 dent and Chairman of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Their proposals, similar in many respects to those of the first group, advocated in addition the abolition of all low- powered stations and a limitation on the number of high- powered stations. The supporters of the third position, viz., a public monopoly, were the Canadian Radio League and its affiliated organizations which based their stand on "public interest, amounting to necessity." The names of the major supporters of this position at the hearings are listed in Table XVII on page 278. Spry testifies a second time. On April 18, 1932, 133 Spry completed his testimony before the Committee. In his opening remarks he singled out the attempts of the opposing forces to "challenge the existence and reality of 13*+ the League." J He mentioned the letters which were sent ^ O ibid.. pp. 125-1?+; 271-28*+; 171-173; 526-535; 369-372. 131lbid.. pp. 330-333; 31 +6-3l +8; 658-663. 132Ibid. -*-3:3Ibid.. pp# 5*+3“587. - ^ Ibid. t p> 5 1+3. by "Mr. Ashcroft's organization to the individual members of the Canadian Radio League in an effort to dissuade them from remaining in association with the League."^3^ While the Committee was in session all members of the League received copies of the first evidence which the League presented to the Committee; they were requested to restate their position in support of the League and with one excep- 1 ^ tion all did so. Spry then considered the statement which was made on April 7 by Colonel Phinney that "the reality of the League was doubtful in Nova Scotia."137 He declared that the Chairman of the Committee had since received "ample evidence that there is support in Nova Scotia for the League"; moreover the League would file a statement of Maritime support which it prepared after the statement by Phinney.13^ He denied absolutely that the League was created by newspapers or that it was being used by newspapers; he and Plaunt contributed more to the League than all the newspaper interests in Canada combined.13^ He challenged any member of the Committee to disprove a l^O single statement he had made. 13^lbid.; cf. pp. 192-191 +. l38Ibid .; the exception was C. L. Burton. 137Ibid.. p. 5Mf. 138Ibid. 139Ibid. 11+0 Ibid. 285 Spry next turned his attention to those who opposed the program of the League; he questioned whether a single organization had appeared before the Committee in opposi tion to public ownership that was not interested commer- ll+l cially. At this point he filed with the Committee an jh-2 analysis of the support of the Canadian Radio League, Spry then presented the arguments for a national system of broadcasting which were developed in his earlier llf ^ writings. He stated: "The advertising basis of financ ing broadcasting under private enterprise has been tested. It has proved inadequate. It has failed." He maintained that "station owners have assiduously sought to convey the impression that great educational ventures are being undertaken by the private owners"; no school broadcasts, however, were being aired except in lift? Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia, Further, the majority of the educational leaders of Canada supported the 1^+6 public ownership of radio broadcasting stations. He 1IflIbid., p. 5^5. ll+2Ibid., Appendix No, ^3 in the Minutes of Evidence. ll+3vide pp. 129-139, 172-17*+, 2 0 9-2 1 2. Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, op. cit., p. 551. ^ ^Ibid. 1 6 Ibid . 286 then described the "American situation" in broadcasting and lU 7 its possible effects on Canada. ' Next he described the program of the Canadian Radio League and stated that the League advocated the public ownership of radio broadcasting stations for these reasons: Because of the power of the American power group, because of the failure of private enterprise, because of the inadequate advertising revenue available for Canadian radio broadcasting, because no scheme of broadcasting upon a national scale has been proposed that does not require a subsidy either direct or from the listener, because the fullest use of musical talent and educational resources cannot be made under commercial guid ance, and above all, because no agency so power ful as broadcasting should be owned and operated by irresponsible agencies, the Canadian Radio League advocates the public ownership of radio broadcasting stations. Spry explained that the recommendations of the League envisaged as the ultimate structure of Canadian broadcasting, a national system owned and operated by a national company, and a series of low powered stations, owned and operated by local authorities, operated by them, and subject to control and inspection by the technicians of the national system. The attainment of this objective might take from three to seven years; the program could proceed in three stages. Ibid., pp. 552-56k. A summary of the major points which Spiy developed is contained in the pamphlet which is reproduced in Appendix B. ^ ^ Ibid., p. 565. ^ 9 ibjdt , , pp. 565-566. 28 7 The first stage, to be completed within a year after the Act was passed, would include the establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Company or Corporation, with an interim directorate of "not less than three, not more than 150 seven," and a competent director-general, who would be responsible to the directorate and in charge of the opera- 15l tions of the company. The services of a program build ing organization, similar to those in the radio branches of the CNR and the CPR, would be secured and sustaining and non-advertising programs would be produced with Canadian talent; these programs would be made available at no cost to the existing stations while wire charges would be met by 152 the company. Contracts would be negotiated with the wire companies so that wires from coast to coast would be 15^ available for national broadcasts eight hours daily. During the first year the company in conjunction with the Department of Marine would conduct a scientific engineering survey of the settled areas of Canada in order to prepare a long range technical scheme for clear daylight reception 19+ in all areas of the country. The total revenue from the $2 license fee would accrue to the company; the existing ownership and operation of stations would continue for two 1^°Ibid., p. 566. 1?1Ibid. I^2Ibid. ^Bibid. l5l+Ibii. 288 years on condition that the licensees recognized that full ownership was vested in the Crown, that spot advertising and direct advertising would be eliminatedDirect advertising was defined by the League as "advertising announcements in excess of 5 per cent of a program exclu sive of station call letters, and containing prices, tele- 156 phone numbers, street addresses." Indirect advertising would be permitted which the League defined as advertising announcements occupying not more than five per cent of the total time of the accompany ing program, i.e., three minutes per hour and consisting of the name of the sponsor, the products advertised, and reasonable references to the qual ity of the product, provided these references com ply with the time limit. At this juncture Spry pointed out that the Radio Manufacturers* Association and "numerous private witnesses" had suggested the same definitions for direct and indirect 1 C ' o advertising. Further restrictions concerning advertis ing stipulated that no advertising was to be included in programs consisting of records, no advertising program was to be less than fifteen minutes in length, and no patent 159 medicines were to be advertised. The new company was to control all chain broadcasts; an annual license fee of S3 would begin on April 1, 1933; i^ibid.. pp. 566- 567 156Ibid.. p. 567. l57Ibid. l58Ibid. 1^ibid. 289 licenses for low-powered stations would be issued to bona fide applicants provided that they could show financial resources and technical ability; the investment in the sta- i An tion by foreign capital was not to exceed 20 per cent. No capital expenditure for the new company was proposed for the first stage. In the second stage, stations would be expropriated by the company to establish a network; fair compensation would be allowed but the item of goodwill would not be con- X&2 sidered. The technical survey having been completed, the company would initiate a long term technical scheme which would involve capital expenditures for the erection of high-powered stations. Provincial advisory councils would be appointed so that they might take office at the beginning of the third stage; notification would be sent to provincial departments of education that the company would provide free time for school and other broadcasts on condition that the cost of lecturers would be met by the provinces; the company would 16Ll receive the total revenue from the $3 license fee. The expropriation of stations would constitute the total capi tal expenditure and would be financed completely from l6oIbid. 161Ibid. l62Ibid. l63Ibid. l6IfIbid.. p. 568. 290 l6 5 license revenue. ' The third and final stage in Spry’s proposal foresaw the actualization of a national system, owned and operated by the company; local low-powered stations would be retained for local purposes and could be operated commercially or by some civic authority.-^6 directorate would be appointed in conformity with the recommendations of the Aird Report; a sub-committee of the Privy Council, which would consist of the Minister of Marine and two other ministers, would deal with radio broadcasting; provincial advisory committees would be established; the remaining commercial stations would be expropriated; the company would arrange an exchange of programs between Canada, the United States, and Europe; provision would be made for school broadcasts; steps would be taken to form a national symphony orchestra; and complete Canadian coverage would be achieved through the erection of high-powered stations.1^ Spry expressed regret that the private broadcasters had not presented a technical scheme for national coverage when they were testifying before the Committee; what they did propose could only be described as ’ ’ inaccurate, ill- n Aft thought out, incomplete and without merit." The Radio League advocated, with several exceptions, the technical l65lbid. l67lbid. l66Ibid. 168ibid.. p. 569. 291 scheme which was proposed by the Aird Commission.The League’s proposals envisaged one less 50,000 watt station than the Aird recommendations, one more 5,000 watt station, and eight additional lesser power subsidiaries; in addition, the League recommended the purchase or leasing of short 170 wave sending and receiving stations. Finally, the League advocated that at specified times the low-powered stations in Quebec Province could be joined to the national system, thus ensuring an entirely French speaking network 171 for Eastern Canada. He maintained that through such a long term scheme of financing, expro priation, and construction, no burden is imposed upon the government, the station owners are ade quately compensated, and the people benefiting, the listeners themselves pay less than one cent a day.172 In the afternoon session Spry resumed his testimony, presenting a two-page summary which showed estimated 173 revenues and expenditures. When questioned by a member of the Committee on his objections to the establishment of a commission which would be similar to the Federal Radio Commission in the United States, he replied: There are two aspects to commission control. There is first of all the private enterprise, and secondly, l69Ibid. 170Ibid.. pp. 569- 570. 171 Ibid., p. 570. 172lbid. 173ibid., pp. 572-573. 292 there is a commission. The control, to my mind, can be secured through the ownership of stations and if you leave those high powered stations to private enterprise, you are taking a chance on Canadian control. In the private system, not a single solution has been presented to this Com mittee for the problem of financing a network of stations that would give complete Canadian cover age. In fact there is no detailed analysis of the financing of a complete system before this Committee, except the Aird Report and the one we presented. There is no detailed financial state ment concerning the proposals of the private interests. I cannot recall any proposal that did not involve a subsidy from the government. It [the sugges tion of a commission] does not touch upon the problem of how you are going to get money to finance really efficient stations with adequate studios, adequate staff, operating for something more than two or three hours a day.1'4' He maintained that the commission function would be primarily negative; of necessity it would be concerned 175 mainly with censorship. ' J The type of men that would be attracted to a position on the Commission would be quite inferior to the type that would respond to the challenge 176 of "promoting positively a great national network." Spry concluded his testimony after having spent almost four 177 hours on the witness stand. fr Major concerns of the Committee. Throughout the six weeks of the hearings members of the Committee repeatedly 1 Ibid. l7lfrbid., pp. 581-58*+. 175ibjd.. p. 585. 177Ibid., pp. 5*+3-587. 293 sought information from witnesses on several items. They desired to know what role, if any, local low-powered sta tions would be accorded in a national broadcasting sys- X 78 tem. They desired detailed information on the govern ment subsidies which the private broadcasters were 179 advocating. They sought information likewise on the type of commission which the private broadcasters were request- 1 On ing. They asked numerous questions concerning the mem bership of the Canadian Radio League and wished to know whether all members actually approved of the League's pro posals; they also asked numerous questions concerning the membership of the Ontario Radio League and suggested that the officers of this group had misrepresented the issues 1 f t l in their propaganda. Special Committee reports to the House of Commons. On Kay 9, 1932, the Committee submitted its unanimous * » report to the House of Commons. After praising the 178Ibid., pp. 71, 72, 307, 359, 39V-395, 397, 533, 577-578, 650^676. 179Ibid.. pp. 131, 166, 176, 178, 271, 282, 333-33V, 35V, 358, 3537 *69, Voo, W 7-V+8, V9V, 526, 58V, 587, 590, 622, 6V6, 660, 681-682, 720. „ , „ l80gid', pp. 8°, I6|f, 271, 3b6, 367, W , 5l>t, 518, 526, 5V0 , 585, ©57, 660, 66V. 181Ibid.. pp. V6-55; 335-338, 351-353. I82Ibid., Pinal Report Ho. 17. 291 * - pioneering work of the commercial broadcasters, the Report stated "that the present system, excellent as it is in cer tain respects, does not meet the requirements in quality 183 and scope of broadcasting to ensure its maximum benefits. Although the Committee did not accept completely the find ings of the Aird Commission, the Report recommended the "establishment of a chain of high-powered National Stations, operating on clear channels, located at suitable intervals, the location to be determined by a careful technical survey 1 or of Canada." In addition it recommended that "a number of stations of 100 watt power and under, operating on shared channels, located where required" be established: (a) To serve areas not satisfactorily covered by the National Stations. (b) For secondary stations in areas where there is a demand for several channels to be in operation at the same time. (c) For educational purposes. (d) For legitimate experimental work. (e) For local broadcasting of community inter est.185 The Report recommended that "the cost of radio in Canada be self-sustaining"; it made no recommendation con cerning the co3t of the annual license fee, suggesting that this matter should be left entirely "in the hands of the 186 Governor in Council." l88Ibid., p. 1. l85Ibid., p. 2, l8IfIbid., pp. 1-2 l86Ibid. 295 As the most satisfactory agency for carrying out this scheme the Report recommended "that a Commission be appointed, consisting of three adequately paid Commission ers"; an assistant commissioner was to be appointed in each -I Orp of the provinces. The Commission would exercise com plete control over Canadian broadcasting; it would own and operate stations; it could lease, purchase or expropriate all existing stations; it would "originate programs, and secure outside programs by purchase or exchange"; it would have authority to issue or to cancel licenses; it would prohibit the establishment of commercial networks; it would be vested with all the "necessary powers to carry on the business of broadcasting in the Dominion of Canada [and] subject to the approval of Parliament, to take over all 1 88 broadcasting in Canada," Nine further recommendations were listed in the Report by way of amplification: land-lines for national broadcasts should be secured "as soon as possible"; a nationally-owned system should be established through the acquisition of such stations as might be required; all low power stations of 100 watts and under, which were not required for the national system, should remain under pri vate ownership but should be regulated by the rules of the 187TV_ Ibid., p. 3. l88Ibid., pp. 3-If. 296 Commission; the revenues from license fees, advertising, and "other revenues accessory to the business of broadcast ing" should be used to promote Canadian broadcasting; advertising was to be restricted to 5 per cent of each pro gram period; the development of Canadian talent was to be encouraged and arrangements were to be made for outstand ing foreign programs; when possible, the Provinces were to have the use of network facilities; before instituting changes, the Commission was to undertake "a complete survey of the present system, with particular reference to ade- ,,189 quate coverage." In concluding the Report, the Committee called attention to "the extreme importance that the Board should not ass\ime, or even be suspected of assuming, a political 190 complexion.1 1 ' Similarities between the Report and the League proposals. In recommending the establishment of a three- man Commission "to carry on the business of broadcasting" in Canada and "to regulate and control all broadcasting," the Special Committee departed from the recommendations of the Aird Commission and of the Radio League for a public corporation which would have almost complete independence from the government. Likewise the Report did not recommend l89ibid., pp. ^ O rbia,, p. 5. 297 the $3 license fee hut stated instead that the amount of the license was to be left to the decision of the govern ment. In the remainder of the Report the major proposals of the Canadian Radio League were incorporated in the recommendations of the Special Committee, viz., the pro gressive establishment of a publicly-owned system of high- powered stations, the retention of local low-powered sta tions, restrictions on the amount of advertising, the immediate inception of coast-to-coast broadcasts, the exchange of programs with the United States and Europe, and the financing of the system through revenues derived from license fees. Above all, the Report established "the prin ciple of national ownership of radio in Canada" and totally rejected the suggestions for a private monopoly. VII. REACTIONS TO THE REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE To obtain a unanimous report "from a Committee of such mixed character" was, in the opinion of one commenta tor, "almost unprecedented" and a remarkable triumph for 192 Spry and the League. 7 191 Cf. the proposals of the League, pp. 286-291 and the recommendations of the Pinal Report, pp. 293-296. •^-^Plaunt Papers, Box 11. Letter from Pred R. MacKelcan to Graham Spry, May 10, 1932. 298 In a letter dated May 10, 1932, E. A. Corbett of the University of Alberta offered Spry his congratulations on the success of the League’s efforts and made several sug gestions concerning the proposed commission: Will the commission appointed consist of good Con servative brothers of Mr. Bennett, or do you think he will be sufficiently aware of the importance of such a commission to make it strictly non partisan? Have you anybody in mind for such a commission? I had thought that Vincent Massey would be a top-notch man for chairman. If you agree with me, it will require some boosting in the press. I realize, of course, that Mr. Massey is more or less tied up with the Liberal party, but would it not be an excellent way for Mr. Bennett to get him out of politics? You yourself should be secretary of the commission. • . .193 The Report of the Special Committee received the unanimous approval of the House of Commons on May 11, 1932; the establishment of a national broadcasting system seemed iqL assured. Spry had information however that the unani mous approval of Parliament was part of an over-all 195 strategy to delay enactment of a broadcasting act. On the evening of May 11, he sent this telegram to thirty newspapers: THE RADIO BATTLE IS NOT OVER THERE IS A POSSIBILITY EVEN A DANGER THAT OWING TO PRESSURE UPON THE 193jbide} Letter from E. A. Corbett to Graham Spry, May 10, 1932. 19*4- Ibid., Telegrams from Graham Spry to thirty news papers, May 11, 1932. l^Ibid. 299 GOVERNMENT AND INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OP PARLIAMENT THAT THE ENABLING LEGISLATION MAY BE DELAYED UNTIL NEXT SESSION STOP THAT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE PERHAPS DISASTROUS STOP THE PRIME MINISTER WE BELIEVE PROM HIS UTTERANCES IN THE HOUSE SUPPORTS THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATIONS OP THE MORAND COMMITTEE BUT THERE IS A POWERFUL LOBBY NOW PRESSING FOR DELAY STOP IT IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTACKING THE REPORT SO MUCH AS URGING CAUTION UNTIL NEXT SESSION STOP RAILWAY AND MANUFACTURING INTERESTS REGARDLESS OP THE WISHES OP THE PUBLIC ARE ACTIVE IN THIS LOBBY AND ARE SECURING THE SUPPORT OP INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS STOP A TELEGRAM DELUGE IS BEING ORGANIZED STOP THE PACT THAT THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE MORAND REPORT TODAY WAS PART OP THE STRATEGY THE REPORT WAS TOO WIDELY COMMENDED TO BE DIRECTLY ATTACKED STOP THE WHOLE PLAN IS TO CAUSE DELAY THROUGH THE CAUCUSSES AND TO PREVENT ACTION AT THIS SESSION STOP IF THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE LEGISLATION THE OPPONENTS OP THE NATIONAL SYSTEM WILL ORGANIZE TO DEFEAT THE BILL AT THE NEXT SESSION STOP IT WOULD BE DISASTER IP THE INTENTIONS OP THE GOVERNMENT NOW SO MANIFEST AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OP THE COM MITTEE SO PALPABLY SATISFACTORY pRE DEFEATED THROUGH ORGANIZED OBSTRUCTION 19o On the same day Spry telegraphed Rohie Reid (Vancouver), General Victor Odium (Vancouver), President Klinck, University of British Columbia (Vancouver), Colonel J. H. Woods (Calgary), E. A. Corbett (Edmonton), Prank Eliarson, United Farmers of Canada (Saskatoon), 9 Ibid.; Telegram sent to Vancouver Province, Vancouver Sun, Victoria Times, Calgary Herald, U. P. A., Calgary, Edmonton Bulletin, Saint John Telegraph Journal, Lethbridge Herald, Prince Albert Herald, Western Producer. Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Regina Star. Moose Jaw Herald and Times, Winnipeg Tribune, Manitoba Free Press. Toronto Star, Toronto Mail & Empire, Hamilton Spectator, Hamilton HeralcL, Montreal Le Devoir, Kingston Whig Standard, Windsor Border Cities Star, Port William Times Journal, St. Catherines Standard, 6uelph Mercury, Stratford Beacon Herald, kitchener Record, Woodstock Sentinel Review, North Bay Nugget, Montreal Star, May 11, 1932. 300 Percy Gordon (Regina), Paul Wanton (Winnipeg), Anna Gray, United Farmers of Manitoba (Winnipeg), President Falconer, University of Toronto (Toronto), President Hamilton iyfe, Queen’s University (Kingston), W. M. Birks (Montreal), Sir George Garaeau (Quebec), and General T. L. Tremblay (Quebec).He stated: ADVOCATES PRIVATE MONOPOLY OTHER PRIVATE INTERESTS HAVE ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN URGE GOVERNMENT DELAY IMPLEMENT REPORT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE PROVED [sic] UNANIMOUSLY BY HOUSE TODAY BELIEVE THIS WMLD BE UNFORTUNATE PERHAPS DISASTROUS BENNETS ACTION SHOWS HIM FAVOURABLE BUT HAND WOULD BE STRENGTHENED BY TELEGRAM STRESSING NEED ACTION THIS SESSION MOST IMPORTANT YOU WIRE HIM DIRECT TO THIS EFFECT1?8 Finally Spry sent a third series of telegrams to sixteen newspapers which received the earlier communica tion.'*"^ The message read: SERIOUS DANGER BEATTY MANUFACTURERS LOBBY MAY EFFECT POSTPONEMENT LEGISLATION UNTIL NEXT SESSION STOP SCORES TELEGRAMS POURING FROM ONTARIO QUEBEC DIRECT PRIME MINISTER STOP CPR AND MANUFACTURERS ALL OUT FOR DELAY IMPERATIVE TELEGRAMS ASKING LEGISLATION THIS SESSION POUR 197 Ibid., Telegrams from Graham Spry to names listed, May 11, 1932. 1 Ibid. 1??Ibid., Telegrams from Graham Spry to Vancouver Province, Vancouver Sun, Edmonton Bulletin, Western Produca?, Winnipeg Tribune, Victoria Times, Lethbridge rferald. Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Manitoba Free Press, Calgary Herald, Prince Albert Herald, Regina Star, Toronto Star, U. F. A., Moose Jaw Herald and Times, Toronto Mail & Empire, May 11, 1932. 301 IN DIRECT BENNETT PLEASE MAKE APPEAL YOURSELF ON BEHALF YOUR PAPER AND THROUGH PAPER FOR TELEGRAMS FROM READERS CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE LEGISLATION STOP REALLY IMPERATIVE STOP BENNETT FIRM ON REPORT BUT DANGER IS CAUTION ARGUMENT MAY CONVINCE HIM DELAY WISE2°0 Spry made one more attempt to prevent the establish ment of a commission. He wrote to the Hon. W. D. Herridge, brother-in-law of the Prime Minister, offering seven reasons why a company was preferable by far to a commis sion: 1. With a company, it is possible to have a Board of outstanding directors representative of the best feeling in the country to act as a buffer between politics and the company officials. 2. The Board of Directors, subject to the approval of the Government, would be likely to appoint the best man they could find for the job of Managing Director and would be willing to pay him a salary adequate to attract the best type of man, such as Gladstone Murray. 3. The Commission would tend to take a judicial attitude and not be as energetic and active as a single executive. *+. The Commission would be unlikely to appoint the most capable executive because to do so would require that they pay him more than they themselves were getting. 5. An executive under a Commission would be more subject to the hampering influence of day to day contact and control with subsequent loss of initiative and little or no responsibility. 6. The employees of the Commission would be Gov ernment employees and there would be difficulty 200 Ibid. 302 with the Civil Service whether they were included or excluded. 7. In the control of a subject like radio, it is exceedingly valuable to have representa tive directors responsible for major ques tions of policy so as to protect the execu tive from unwarranted attacks by both Parliament and the public and yet at the same time to exercise control over the executive and to keep it moderately respon sive to public opinion. Difficult and often unpopular decisions would have to be made and an independent Board of Directors would be a useful_body on which to place the onus for these. His objections would be more than met, Spry con tinued, if the Government intended "to appoint Gladstone Murray or someone like him (if there is another), as Chief Commissioner"; while in Ottawa for the hearings of the Special Committee, Murray expressed the opinion in conver sations with Spry that the success of the BBC was attribut- 202 able in great part to its form of organization. At the insistence of Prime Minister Bennett the Radio Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on May 18, 1932; the opposing interests believed that it would be still-born and that "the revisions and checks" which they were able to devise in caucuses "would render it ?01 Ibid., Letter from Graham Spry to the Hon. W. D. Herridge, May 1*+, 1932. Twenty years after the event, C. A. Bowman stated in an interview that the country owed a great deal to Herridge "for working from the inside." 303 203 unworkableThe new Broadcasting Act, which will be discussed in the succeeding chapter, received its third and final reading on May 26, 1932. The major goals of the Radio League were achieved. Uncertain as to the future of the League, Plaunt prepared a financial statement which showed the total receipts and disbursements of the Radio League from the time of its inception.These data are in Table XIX on page 30^. He also recorded two new donations which were received after the League prepared on April 12, 1932 its "Analysis of Contributions to the Radio League" for use in the hear- 205 ings of the Parliamentary Committee. These data are in Table XX on page 305. On May 28, 1932, the Hon. N. W. Rowell donated $50.00 to the League and on May 31, 1932, the Hon. Vincent Massey sent his cheque to the amount of $*+00 which he owed the League in connection with the trip 206 of Gladstone Murray. ^^Hector Charlesworth, I’m Telling You (Toronto: Macmillan, 1937), p. 38* 20^ Plaunt Papers, Box 2 6. Statement of Income and Expenditure, the Canadian Radio League, May 28, 1932. 20 5 Ibid., Analysis of Receipts and Disbursements— The Canadian Radio League, December 13, 1930 - April 12, 1931. Although the closing date reads April 12, 1931, a comparison of the data with other financial statements of the League shows that the final date should read instead April 12, 1932. ^Ibid. The donation from Rowell on May 28, 1932 is listed in a separate set of accounts; for the donation from Vincent Massey vide p. 2 6 7. 3Ck TABLE XIX STATEMENT 0E RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE TO MAY 28, 1932a RECEIPTS Supporting organizations $ 30^.^1 Newspapers 1,275.00 Supporting individuals 1,231.65 Graham Spry 970.00 A. B. Plaunt 1.7+7.79 Total $5,529.75 DISBURSEMENTS General Office Expenses $1,2^3.78 Salaries— Part-time stenographers 1,083.50 Travelling 2,069.1 +0 Printing 1.050.9^ Total $5,^53.71 Balance in Bank; May 28, 1932 76. Total $5*529.75 aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 26, Statement of Receipts and Disburse ments of the Canadian Radio League, May 28, 1932. 305 TABLE XX ANALYSIS OP CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE PROM DECEMBER 13, 1930 TO APRIL 12, 1932a A. B. Plaunt &200.00 P. N. Southam 250.00 Joseph Atkinson 200.00 Russell Smart 25.00 Hector Mclnnis 25.00 Mrs. E. C. Grant 2.00 Trades and Labour Congress 25.00 W. C. Laidlaw 25.00 Evershed Heron 5.00 E. H. Blake 100.00 R. A. Laidlaw 25.00 L. M. Wood 25.00 W, P. Odium 3 .0 0 0. M. Biggar 15.00 P. I. Ker 100.00 A. H. Campbell 10.00 S. W. Graham 1.00 Mrs. N. Wilson 50.00 E, B. Patterson 5.00 Hon. N. W. Rowell 50.00 Strachan Johnston 25.00 Morris Wilson 25.00 A. E. Phipps 15.00 C. L. Burton 25.00 W. G. Watson 25.00 Victoria Listeners' Club 5.00 A. E. Ames 25.00 H. J. Crerar 2.00 Native Sons of Canada 15.00 Dr. Wm. Goldie 25.00 S. Temple Blackwood 25.00 United Church of Canada $ 25*00 United Farmers of Alta. 10.00 Lady Drummond 50.00 Mrs. A. J. Freiman 25.00 H. Sifton 100.00 P. X. Plaunt 100.00 Graham Spry *f21.00 Dr. Carleton Stanley 10.00 A. H. Campbell 10.00 Col. J. H. Price 25.00 C. S. Mclnnis 25.00 Trades and Labour Congress 25.00 K. G. Morrow 10.00 Canadian League S^.^+l A. B. Plaunt 55.59 A. 0. Gibbons 50.00 J. W. Dafoe 15.00 M. E. Nichols 25.00 P. E. Bronson ^fO.OO Col. K. R. Marshall 25.00 Thos. Bradshaw 25.00 Joseph Atkinson 250.00 Sir R. Falconer 5.00 Glyn Osier 25.00 H. Sifton 25.00 Col. Hugh Osier 15.00 Graham Spry 50.00 A. B. Plaunt 300.00 R. A. Laidlaw 25.00 306 TABLE XX (continued) C. E. Neill $ 25.00 Glyn Osier $ 1 2 .5 0 Graham Spry 50.00 C. H. Mercer 10.00 W. B. Matthews 25.00 A. B. Plaunt (for W. Fraser 1.00 Massey) ^00.00 A. B. Plaunt 100.00 Graham Spry ^ . 9 0 Mrs. J. A. Wilson 10.00 A. B. Plaunt 201.10 Norman Smith 20.00 N. B. Federation F. N. Southam 250.00 of Labour 15.00 W. F. Herman 100.00 Col. J. H. Woods E. H. Blake J?0-*00 and 0. L. Snencer 15.00 Total 1^,903.50 aUniversity of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 26. "Analysis of Receipts and Disburse ments— The Canadian Radio League, December 13, 1930 “ April 12, 1931." Although the closing date reads April 12, 1931, a comparison of the data with other financial state ments of the League shows that the final date should have read instead April 12, 1932. 307 At this time Plaunt wrote in his Notebook: It may prove to be an interesting coincidence that the Bill to create a unified Canadian system and another unit— the final link— in an all Empire Chain, was passed on Empire Bay, just before the Imperial Economic Conference, just before, it may be, the beginnings of "the Fourth British Empire." The CRBC may well be indeed one of the links, to quote Sir Wilfred Laurier, "light as air, yet strong as-bonds of steel" that will bind the new Empire.20' VIII. SUMMARY Anticipating an early decision of the Privy Council on radio jurisdiction, the League held a meeting on January 2 9, 1932. The purpose of the meeting was to reactivate the League, to obtain publicity for the League's program of radio legislation at the next session of Parlia ment, and to announce a delegation from the League to the Minister of Marine. The Minister received the delegation from the League on February 2; he promised that the Government would intro duce radio legislation as soon as the Privy Council decisicai was announced. The Privy Council rendered judgment on February 9> 1932, in favor of the Federal Government. One week later the Prime Minister informed the House of Commons 207 Ibid. Notebook of Alan Plaunt, pp. 1, 3» The Bill was passed two days after Empire Bay which falls on May 2b. 308 that a Parliamentary Committee on Radio would be named. Plaunt returned to Ottawa immediately from Toronto and set up League headquarters at his home. He wrote to organizations which were affiliated with the League; he requested them to plan to be represented before the Com mittee. Spry wrote to the Canadian Association of Broad casters, suggesting that the League and the Association might agree on three points in their presentations to the Committee. The Association showed no interest in his pro posal . The Committee was appointed on March 2, 1932. At the first session of the Committee Commander Edwards pre sented a technical report on Canadian broadcasting. Spry represented the League in making the first of two formal appearances before the Committee on March 15, 1932. He discussed the international aspects of broadcast ing, insisting that Canada should be represented at the Madrid Conference on wave lengths in the fall of 1932. This in turn required that Canada adopt a radio policy at the present session of Parliament. The League advocated that this policy be based upon the public ownership and operation of all broadcasting stations. The Committee directed numerous questions to Spry concerning the member ship of the Canadian Radio League. In his replies Spry presented an analysis of the support which the League 309 enjoyed from coast to coast, promising that each member of the Committee would receive a copy of the analysis. He announced that the League was prepared to import two expert witnesses at no expense to the Government, one from Great Britain and the other from the United States. The offer was accepted by the Committee. Spry and Plaunt discovered that the groups which opposed the recommendations of the Aird Commission and the proposals of the Radio League were organising a "popular" movement of letters and telegrams to prevent the adoption of these recommendations. To offset the possible bad effects of this campaign, a "popular" counteroffensive seemed essential. Plaunt raised almost one thousand dollars for the League’s campaign; Gladstone Murray and Dr. Joy Morgan testified before the Committee as the League’s expert wit nesses; Spry made a hurried trip through western Canada, explaining in each major center the need for a popular demonstration by means of letters, telegrams, and resolu tions. Plaunt remained in Ottawa and attempted to start a "popular" demonstration in Ontario, Quebec, and the Mari time s. He prepared a pamphlet which contained the main points of Spry’s evidence before the Committee. He wrote to the "friendly newspapers," requesting their active sup port in the promotion of the stream of telegrams and 310 letters. He enlisted the assistance of the Manager of the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association who wrote to all the "friendly newspapers" with the same request. Plaunt next wrote to the affiliated organizations of the League, requesting that they appeal to "their local bodies for popular demonstrations of support." The response to the appeal was "simply magnificent"; letters, telegrams, and resolutions were sent to the Com mittee. In addition to submitting resolutions and cooper ating in the popular campaign, four major affiliated organ izations, the All Canadian Congress of Labour, the Trades and Labor Congress, the National Council of Women, and the Canadian Legion testified before the Committee. As the Committee Hearings wore on, three major positions emerged: one group wished to retain the status quo, a second group desired a private monopoly, and a third group, of which the Radio League was the main exponent, advocated a public monopoly. On April 18, 1932, Spiy completed his testimony before the Committee. After establishing the authenticity of the League, he stated six reasons why the League advo cated the public ownership of radio broadcasting stations. The League proposed that this objective be accomplished in three stages over a period of from three to seven years. Spry then presented the proposals which were advocated by 311 the League almost since its inception. For the first time he offered definitions of "direct" and "indirect" advertis ing; he pointed out that the League’s definition of indirect advertising was similar to that of the Radio Manufacturers' Association and of "numerous private witnesses." He clari fied the League's position on low-powered stations and sug gested that in Eastern Canada they could he joined to the national system at specified times in order to provide a French-speaking network. When questioned by the Committee on his objections to a commission, Spry replied that the role of a commission would be primarily negative and that it would be unable to attract outstanding personnel. More over the establishment of a commission would not solve the problem of financing broadcasting in Canada. Throughout the hearings the members of the Committee showed marked concern for the role of low-powered stations in a national system; they sought detailed information on the government subsidies and on the type of commission which the private broadcasters were advocating. The House of Commons received the unanimous report of the Committee on May 9> 1932. It recommended the estab lishment of a three-man commission which would own and operate all stations and carry on the business of broad casting in Canada. Although rejecting the recommendations of the Aird Commission and of the Radio League for a public 312 company and for the establishment of a $3 license fee, the Committee incorporated the remaining major proposals of the Radio League in its report. Spry obtained information that delaying tactics would be employed to prevent the enactment of a broadcast ing Act. He telegraphed this information to newspapers and to prominent members of the Radio League; he requested that they instigate a flow of telegrams to the Prime Minister and seek to have radio legislation enacted immediately. He wrote also to the Hon. W. L. Herridge, listing seven reasons why he believed that a company was preferable by far to a commission. His objections would be more than met if the Government were considering the appointment of Gladstone Murray or someone like him for the office of Chief Commissioner. At the insistence of the Prime Minister, the Radio Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on May 18, 1932, receiving its third and final reading on May 26. The Radio League achieved its major objective of a national broadcasting system. In anticipation of bringing its activities to an end, Plaunt prepared a final financial statement which was dated May 28, 1932. CHAPTER VII PROGRAM OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE: 1932-1936 The recommendations of the Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting which were discussed in the preceding chapter provided the outline for the Radio Bill which was enacted on May 2 6, 1932.1 While adhering to the major recommendations of the Committee, the Act introduced restrictions which in effect made the Canadian Radio 2 Broadcasting Commission a department of government. I. THE CANADIAN RADIO BROADCASTING ACT, 1932 The Act reserved to the Minister of Marine the power to license stations hut stipulated that the Commission might "make recommendations to the Minister . . . with regard to the issue, suspension or cancellation of private broadcasting licenses"; subject to the approval of the Minister, the Commission could "assist and encourage the construction of small private stations.The purchase of 1Vide pp. 293-296. ^Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1936), p. *+1. ^Canada, 22-23, George V, Chapter 51, PP. 3-^. 313 33> existing stations or the construction of new stations required the approval of Parliament, as did the nationali- k zation of all broadcasting in Canada. The annual parlia mentary grant to the Commission was not to exceed "the estimated revenue from receiving licenses, commercial broadcasting licenses and amateur broadcasting licenses 5 and from the business of the Commission under this Act." If the actual revenues should exceed the estimated revenue, Parliament could appropriate this additional money for the use of the Commission.^ The Commission was subject to the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act of 7 1931. All employees were to be appointed in conformity 8 with the Civil Service Act. With the exception of these restrictive clauses the Radio Bill was an enactment of the Committee’s recommenda- 9 tions. II. LEAGUE ACTIVITY: JUNE, 1932-DECEMBER, 193*+ In June Plaunt wrote to organizations and individ uals that supported the League, thanking them for their cooperation and suggesting that the League would remain in ^Ibid.. pp. k-5. ^Ibid.« p. 6. ^Ibid. 7Ibid. ^Ibjd.. p. 2. ^Vide pp. 293-295. 315 existence as "a critic of the new system until its working success is assured.However nothing more was heard from the Canadian Radio League until April, 1931 + .11 Graham Spry severed his connection with the Associa tion of Canadian Clubs and in 1933 be entered politics, becoming one of the early organizers of the Cooperative 12 Commonwealth Federation (CCF) party. Plaunt returned to Toronto where he devoted his time to business and to the 13 Canadian Institute of International Affairs. His inter est in radio remained strong as he followed the attempts to l1 * organize the Radio Commission. In early August Plaunt was informed by Gladstone Murray of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that Lt. Col. Steel was the only Commissioner who was definitely appointed; Murray himself was being considered for the University of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box *+. Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Trades and Labor Congress, June 2, 1932; Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Native Sons of Canada, June 2, 1932; Letter from Alan Plaunt to Gladstone Murray, June 2, 1932. -^Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission, op. cit.. pp. 376-377. • ^Who’s Who (London: Macmillan, I960), p. 28b6. ■^Plaunt Papers, Box 6. Telegram from Alan Plaunt to the Private Secretary, Minister of Railways, Septem ber 10, 1936. ^ Ibid., Box k. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Gladstone Murray, July 20, 1932. 316 office of chairman. It was expected that the Commission would begin operations after the close of the Madrid Con- 15 ference, As the year drew to an end Murray reported that he • ’ had several characteristically fantastic interviews with R. B, [Bennett],"1^ The Prime Minister "admitted that the appointment [of one of the commissioners] was a bad one for the purpose; he said it had been made against his own better 17 judgment but for important political reasons." ' Bennett requested Murray to come to Canada "to put the Commission on its feet"; in reply Murray stated that he would want "a cast iron assurance of fresh legislation to get the thing 1 fi properly founded." In Murray’s opinion Bennett was obviously in amuddle [sic]. He appears to admit a mistake in the constitution as well as a mis take in the appointments. Curiously enough, however, he does not admit that he went wrong in trying to combine the functions of chairman and chief executive.1° Bennett arranged for Murray to obtain leave from the BBC in the spring of 1933; from April until June he toured 15 Ibid., Letter from Gladstone Murray to Alan Plaunt, July 31, 1932. 1 A Ibid., Box 12. Letter from Gladstone Murray to Brooke Claxton, December 2 8, 1932. Copies of this letter were sent to Plaunt and Spry. 17Ibid. l8Ibid. ^Ibid. 317 20 Canada and then submitted his report. Dealing with matters of policy and procedure, it "proved of much value 21 to the Commission." As a result of Murray's recommenda tions the Prime Minister himself drafted a short amending Act which placed only clerks and minor employees of the Commission under the provisions of the Civil Service Act and which "enabled the administration of the day by order in council to authorize the Commission to build and acquire 22 [and especially to lease] stations." The League and the Parliamentary Committee of 193*+. A Special Committee was appointed by the Government in 193*+- to review the operations of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting 23 Commission. Early in the proceedings a member of Parlia ment requested "information concerning the Canadian Radio League, and the part it played in bringing about nationali- 2b zation of radio in Canada." Plaunt decided to prepare a 20 Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, Interim Report for the Calendar Year 1933 (Ottawa: King’s Printer, 193*0, P. 5. 21Ibid. 22Canada, 23“21 *, George V, Chapter 35. Cf. Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission, op. cit.. pp. 18-19. ^Special Committee on the Operations of the Commis sion under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1932. Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King's Printer, 193*0. 2lfPlaunt Papers, Box 5. Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Dr. Raymond Morand, April 25, 193**• 318 rdsum^ of what the League advocated in 1932 and to send it and a list of the League’s supporters in 1932 to the Chair- 25 man of the Special Committee. In a covering letter he stated: We feel that it is important that this be done, not only as a matter of public interest but because the actual proposals made by the League have been subject to considerable misrepresenta tion.26 Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada and a charter member of the League's Executive Committee, testified before the Committee in the latter 27 part of April. In his submission he took pains to stress 28 that the Congress participated actively in the League. He informed Plaunt that he did this "purposely to offset the earlier remarks of some of the Committee that the Radio po League had never been of a representative character." 7 He approved Plaunt's decision to send to the Chairman of the Special Committee "a summary of the proposals pre- 30 viously made by the League." Plaunt decided to add one new paragraph to the 25 Ibid.; also Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Dr. Raymond Morand, May 3> 193*+. pA Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Dr. Raymond Morand, April 25, 193*+. 27 Ibid., Letter from Tom Moore to Alan Plaunt, April 30,T ^ . 28Ibid. 29Ibid. 80Ibid. 319 31 submission which he subsequently sent to the Committee. He stated that a fundamental defect is that the Commission has been charged with the double function of direction and operation involving both formulation and execution of policy— a situation fatal to the success of any enterprise which requires direction in the widest interests of the public together with efficient, unified management .3 2 A copy of the submission was sent to R. K. Finlayson, a charter member of the League's Executive Committee and at 33 that time a member of Prime Minister Bennett's staff. Plaunt requested Pinlayson to read the submission and to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister whatever sec- tions appeared to be relevant. He then expressed his views on radio reorganization: Speaking personally, I think you will agree that the time is ripe for re-organization and that the Prime Minister can greatly enhance his popularity.? throughout Canada by undertaking it at this time.3' Several weeks later Plaunt sent copies of the sub mission to the Hon. Ernest Lapointe, Mr. Vincent Massey, Mr. Ross Grey, and Mr. Mackenzie King, leader of the ^ Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Dr. Raymond Morand, May 3? 193^. 32Ibid. 33lbid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to R. K. Pinlayson, May 5, 193^. Vide p. 90. 3^Ibid. 3^Ibid. 320 opposition in the House of Commons. As in his letter to Pinlayson he declared that the "principle of the public system is being imperilled by the way that system was set up" and stressed that the original recommendations of the League on the organization of broadcasting were set out in the memorandum.^ Pinal Report of the 193^ Committee. The Committee presented its final Report to the House of Commons on O Q June 28, 193^. 1^ recommended that the Government should "consider the advisability of amending the Act" and that "radio broadcasting could best be conducted by a general •DQ manager." It recommended that the collection of license fees should be simplified, that the clauses respecting advertising should be interpreted more liberally, that a greater use of electrical transcriptions should be allowed, and that greater cooperation should be established between the privately-owned stations and the Commission until such I f 0 time as all stations might be nationalized. 3^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Ernest Lapointe, May 18, 193*+. Copies were sent to Vincent Massey, Ross Grey and Mackenzie King. 37lbid. 3®Special Committee on the Operations of the Commis sion under the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, loc. cit. 39Ibid. ^°Ibid. 321 On the same day Hector Charlesworth, Chairman of the Commission, issued a statement in which he advocated that the regulatory and operational functions of the Commission should he separated. The Government however took no up action on the recommendations. Difficulties of the Radio Commission. Problems continued to plague the Radio Commission. Its revenues were hopelessly inadequate to establish the system which the Aird Report and the Parliamentary Committee of 1932 recommended; administrative duties were divided between the Commissioners but this procedure continued to be cumber some and unsatisfactory; it lacked independence from the Government; and the hiring of qualified personnel was a source of continual friction. In testifying before the Parliamentary Committee of 1936 the Chairman of the Radio Commission presented a sum mary of what he said were its chief difficulties: I should like to see the question of our employees gone into. We have never been in a position to make any permanent appointments or to get a per manent set-up. . . . Then I think this committee L . 1 - “ •Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commis- sion, on. cit.« pp. 38-39. **2Ibid. 1+3 JD. B. Sumner, "The Canadian Broadcasting Corpora tion" (unpublished Master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, 19^9), p. 15. 322 should make some inquiry into the whole question of coverage in this country. We, with our limited resources, have tried to solve the problem to some extent, but we realize that we are not attaining the ends that were expected in the Aird Report, which demanded a large capital expenditure. . . . Generally speaking, I should like the Committee, for our own sakes, to find out just what the scope of our work is as a commission. It is much larger than anybody imagines.^ III. THE LEAGUE AND RADIO REORGANIZATION: JANUARY TO OCTOBER, 1935 As the months went by and the Government took no action on the Committee’s recommendations, Plaunt became convinced that the reorganization of Canadian radio was 5 inevitable. After discussing the matter with C, A. Bownan in January of 1935 Plaunt sent him a lengthy letter in which he outlined his views. In Plaunt1s opinion The Radio League should not be revived until after the general election because of the 1+7 danger of partisan considerations. He offered three reasons why radio reorganization should be handled through parliamentary debate rather than through a reorganized Radio League: 1+1+ Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission, op. cit.. pp. !+-5. l+c ^Plaunt Papers, Box 5. Letter from Alan Plaunt to C. A. Bowman, January 2*f, 1935. Ibid. ^Ibid. 323 1. Apart from its use as a partisan weapon, the present radio set-up cannot he made a popular issue at the present time. 2. On the other hand, however, I feel most strongly that a vigorous denunciation of the results that have flowed from the inadequate set-up of the Commission would serve both to illustrate Mr. King's [Leader of the Liberal opposition in the House] general contentions and to project the issue into practical politics. In any event, certain it is that an unworkable, clumsy organization was set up in the face of the protests of disinterested parties, that that organization has alienated the public, that it has been riddled with politics, and that if drastic steps are not taken it will have to be abolished. 3. The very fact, however, that the issue could only be revived by means of an attack by the [Liberal] Opposition, as above outlined, fur ther suggests the futility of attempting ±p reorganize the Radio League at this time He concluded with this statement: If the Liberals are going to attack the Tories on the record of the Commission, I think it is vastly important that the attack be made in such a way that our mutual advantage be secured. I don't see any reason why, should Mr. Massey and his colleagues be interested, they should not be privately supplied with the basic material for a vigorous and devastat ing condemnation of the radio set-up and administra tion, together with details and specifications for a reorganization based on the proposals of the Aird Commission and the Canadian Radio League. Then after the election, when the proposals are being incorpor ated into legislation, we can, if necessary rally public support as a counterpoise to the lobby which will undoubtedly be carried on both within and with out Parliament. ° ^+8 T- u • J Ibid. ^Ibid. 32k 50 A copy of the letter was sent to Vincent Massey. Several days later Plaunt was informed that Bowman would see Massey in Ottawa on January 28, 1935.^ He requested Bowman to impress upon Massey "the importance of finding out immediately what Mr. King's plans are, if any, with 52 respect to radio." Massey subsequently discussed Plaunt*s proposal with Mackenzie King and with W. D. Euler, Liberal Member from Kitchener who was a member of the Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting in 1932. He reported that both men were favorably disposed to the plan. Euler then wrote to Plaunt, suggesting that a meeting should be arranged in Ottawa with all the Liberal members of the Radio Com- 55 mittee. Plaunt replied that it might be preferable instead to "work through Mr. Euler and perhaps also Mr. Lapointe [as] the enthusiasm of some of the members ^ Ibid. For earlier reference to the Hon. Vincent Massey vide pp. *f6, 53» 230, 250, 267, 298. 91 'Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to C. A. Bowman, January 27, 1935. 52lbid. 53Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton February 1, 1935. fo-Ibid. ^Ibid., Letter from W. D. Euler, M.P., to Alan Plaunt, January 31? 1935. 32? 56 might be open to doubt." Massey thought that Plaunt should prepare "confiden tial memoranda criticizing the set-up and the results that have followed, and outlining in some detail the principles and methods that should be adopted." After the meeting these memoranda could be left with Euler for further 58 study. At a later date more detailed proposals could be submitted along with "recommendations regarding the actual individuals who might be secured for a voluntary Board, and a suitable Director-General."59 Plaunt confided to Brooke Claxton that they might be asked to help draft a new broadcasting Act after the elec- 60 tions. He sought Claxton's views concerning the suit ability of Gladstone Murray as a possible Director- 6l_ General. In reply Claxton stated that, although he believed Murray to be the best qualified person for the job, he had reservations about recommending him because of several incidents which occurred during Murray’s tour of Canada in 1933.^ 56Ibid.? Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Vincent Massey, January 31j 1935. 5^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, February 1, 1935. 58Ibid. 59ibid. 6oIbid. 61Ibid. 8^Ibid., Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, February 2, 1935. 326 Plaunt prepared the memoranda with the assistance of E, A. Weir, director of the Radio Department of the 63 Canadian National Railways. Copies were sent to W. D. Euler, M.P., J. L. Ilsley, M.P., and the Hon. Vincent Massey Plaunt*s proposals for radio reorganization. In a covering letter to Massey, Plaunt outlined the "five main aspects of a reorganization that should be borne in mind at the present time." y A new constitution was required, one similar to that of the British Broadcasting Corpora- 66 tion. He maintained that the Board [of Governors] should be regarded as a trustee, the guarantee to the nation that Broad casting will be administered in an impartial and business-like way, and that therefore men and women with general public qualifications should be selected, rather than persons with technical qualifications. ' The Board should consist of from five to seven mem- 68 bers; they should not receive a salary. Tenure should be regulated as in England where the first appointees held office for five years; thereafter one member retired each 69 year, being eligible for reappointment. 7 The method of 63Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Vincent Massey, January 31, 1935; also Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Vincent Massey, February 22, 1935. 6IfIbid. 6^Ibid. 66Ibid. 67Ibid. 68Ibid 69Ibid 327 appointing members to the Board should follow the practice in England where the Prime Minister, after consulting with 70 the other party leaders, made the appointments. The method of relating the proposed broadcasting corporation to Parliament was the second point that Plaunt 71 discussed. Almost since its inception the Radio League advocated that the corporation "should report to Parliament through a committee of the Privy Council, that is, a com mittee of ministers, of which the chairman should be the 72 spokesman" in the House of Commons. Only questions of major policy would be answered in the House, as was done 73 in England. The third point was the appointment of the "best 7 1+ available executive as Director-General." Gladstone Murray of the BBC appeared to be admirably qualified for 75 the position. Plaunt maintained that the new Board, not the Government, should make the appointment and that the salary should be fixed by the Board and not by Parliament. The Director-General should be responsible to the Board "and only indirectly through the Board to Parliament"; sub ject to the approval of the Board, he should have authority 70Ibid. 71Ibid. 72Ibid. 73Ibid. 7lfIbid. 75Ibid. 76Ibid. 328 to hire and fire employees; for obvious reasons of flexi bility he should not be subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act.77 The nucleus of a high-powered chain should be estab lished within as short a time as possible because the suc cess of the ’ ’ project of nationalization" depended almost 78 completely on this condition being fulfilled. The experi ence of the Commission indicated that revenue from licenses was sufficient to provide "a tolerably satisfactory opera tion"; however it was inadequate to provide for the aequisi- 79 tion or the extension of physical facilities. Therefore Plaunt recommended that revenue could be provided either through a subsidy from a public works appropriation or through a loan which the corporation could fund over a 80 ten-year period. After the public became convinced that a satisfactory service was being provided, the license fee could be raised to $3.00, thus guaranteeing that the system 8l could continue to improve and expand. All revenues of the corporation should be paid directly to the corporation and not into the "Consolidated Op Revenue Fund as at present." The present practice demanded an annual vote by Parliament to release the funds 77Ibid. 78Ibid. 79Ibid. 80Ibid. 81Ibid. 82Ibid. 329 which created "the notion in Parliament and the country that public funds are being devoted to broadcasting when such is not the c a s e ."88 Having the opportunity to bring his views, which were based on the proposals of the Radio League in 1932, to the attention of prominent members of the Liberal Party, Plaunt next turned his attention to promoting the candidacy 8b of Gladstone Murray as general manager of the corporation. He believed that the success of the reorganization proposal depended "on getting King committed in advance, before the election, and the person most likely to accomplish that improbable aim is V. M. [Vincent Massey]."8^ W. L. Euler and the Liberals launched their attack on the Radio Commission in the House of Commons on April 16, 1935, using the material which Plaunt supplied in his * 86 memorandum. Murray’s views on reorganization. After studying the proposals for reorganization which Plaunt sent him on 83lbid. QK Ibid., Letter from Gladstone Murray to Alan Plaunt, March 7, 1935, with copy of a letter from Murray to Vincent Massey# Box 12. Letter from Vincent Massey to Gladstone Murray, March 16, 1935. 8^Ibid., Box 5. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Gladstone Murray, April 21 *, 1935. 86Ibid. 330 February 22, 1935, Murray expressed his opinion on each of the five points.8' 7 He agreed that new legislation would be required and expressed satisfaction with the type of Board that oo Plaunt recommended. He suggested that the role of the provinces should receive some thought because "national broadcasting in Canada will never get a grip until it pays 89 due attention to the Provincial angle." The proposed method of relating broadcasting to Parliament through a committee of the Privy Council drew praise from Murray; he thought however that it would be still more effective if some way could be found of includ ing opposition representation.90 He then explained the difficulties which the BBC encountered in this area: This is a difficult problem and one which has not yet been solved satisfactorily in England. Lord Ullswater’s Committee, now sitting on the B.B.C.'s new Charter, is giving special attention to Parlia mentary representation of broadcasting. As things are, the P.M.G. [Postmaster-General] is the only spokesman the B.B.C. has in the Commons. But under the Charter and Licence, he is little more than "policeman of the ether." Unless things go seri ously wrong he has no say in programmes. There fore he declines to answer questions except on finance and major matters of policy. This reluc tance is a constant source of annoyance to private Members, and for two reasons. First, there is the feeling that Lapointe [Canadian Liberal Member of Parliament] had when I asked for more freedom for 87 'Ibid.« Letter from Gladstone Murray to Alan Plaunt, May 12, 1^157 88Ibid. 89Ibid. 90Ibid. 331 the [Canadian Broadcasting] Commission, that broadcasting was getting out of hand; secondly there is the embarassment in dealing with letters of complaint and criticism from con stituents. Private Members feel that Ministers are letting them down by declining to accept or answer questions about broadcasting. Of course there will be irritation of this kind in any Parliamentary assembly where authority is dele gated, and they must be put up with. If however there is confidence in the set-up and the per sonnel, the irritation will be localised. As to the necessary representation on big matters, Reith is dissatisfied with the P.M.G. and is asking the Ullswater Committee to recommend that while technical questions be left with the P.M.G. as ’ ’ ether policeman," the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, or the Chancellor of the Duchy be the policy spokesman of the B.B.C., in Parliament. It will be interesting to see if he gets away with this. I doubt if he will. They dislike splitting things up here, and they probably will see through the manoeuvre to secure a situation in which two Ministers can be played off against each other. Broadcasting is techni cal enough in any of its aspects even for those engaged in it; let alone the average lord Presi dent of the Council or Lord Privy S e a l l ' l Because of the continual advances in broadcasting science, Murray cautioned Plaunt that he should continue to emphasize the importance of effective national coverage without committing himself "in a hard and fast way to the 92 method of a multiplicity of high powered stations.’ ’7 He was ’ ’ apprehensive about raising the license fee."93 a guaranteed bank loan might be adequate; the amount of the loan would depend on the planning of the first Board of G o v e r n o r s .9^ Broadcasting revenues should 91Ibid. 93ibid. 92ibid 9^Ibid 332 95 be paid directly to the corporation. He informed Plaunt that he spent almost one hour with Prime Minister Bennett during his recent visit to England.98 He believed that Bennett wished to centralize wireless, telephones, and telegraphy in a new department of Communications.97 During the conversation Bennett com plained that his recent political broadcasts in Canada cost $15,000.98 When Murray replied that there should have been no charge and that other parties should have had an equal 99 opportunity, his answer was that "they would never agree." Murray countered by saying that he "could not see the fair ness in leaving the disposition of time for major politics to be decided by the methods of market place barter," but 100 to this Bennett made no reply. In May Plaunt was optimistic about reorganization of broadcasting because the people who will handle the reorganization will be King, Euler, Massey, Lapointe, possibly Ilsley, and I think they have all been reasonably well sold on the lines to be followed. Further, their criti cism in the House commits them to something non partisan.101 He stated to Murray that if they were successful in 95Ibid. 98Ibid. 97Ibid. 9 8Ibid. 99iPid. 100Ibid. 101Ibid.. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Gladstone Murray, May 16, 1935. 333 their attempts, he would probably ask Murray to consider a 102 place for him in the new adventure• Conference on Canadian-American Affairs, Plaunt learned that Graham Spry was to deliver a paper on radio at the Conference on Canadian-American Affairs which would be held from June 17-23, 1935, at St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York.1(^ Because Spry retired from an active role in the Canadian Radio League in 1932, Plaunt decided to send him a resume of current developments in radio IQlf reorganization. He suggested that Spry should speak as "founder of the League, ex-president or something like that?’ 105 in order to avoid the danger of partisan considerations. w Spry complied with the request, being listed in the Pro ceedings of the Conference as the Former President of the Canadian Radio League. Plaunt*s outline for a draft memorandum. Several months passed before Plaunt once again took up the matter 102Ibid. ^^^Ibid.« Letter from Alan Plaunt to Graham Spry, June l*f, 1935. 1QlfIbid. 1Q5ibid. 106Graham Spry, "Radio Broadcasting and Aspects of Canadian-American Relations," in W. W. McLaren, A. B. Corey, R. G. Trotter (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Canadian-American Affairs held at St, Lawrence tJniversity. June l?-22, 19^5 (tfew York: Ginn & Company, 193&) > PP• l06- 119. 33^ 107 of broadcasting with Vincent Massey. In August he sent Massey a revised memorandum, containing the basic sugges tions for reorganization of radio which he submitted on February 22, 1 9 3 He offered to submit after the elec tion a detailed memorandum reviewing the position as we see it, and offering detailed recommenda tions for a reorganization. To this end, I am having a technical plan prepared, financial details, lists of names of citizens suitable for both a national governing board and provincial advisory committees, and a draft outline of the necessary legislation, while I am myself making certain inquiries regarding the method of appoint ing the provincial committees. When these special researches are completed I propose to prepare the detailed memorandum I men tion above. The recommendations contained therein will be based upon the original recommendations of the Aird Commission, the Canadian Radio League, and the indications of recent experience here and in Great Britain. It will be an unofficial (or official, if you then deem it advisable) submis sion of the League, and will I trust be of some use to Mr. King and his associates in devising a satisfactory reorganization of broadcasting in Canada. Copies of the letter were sent to W. D. Euler, M.P., and J. W. Dafoe, editor of the Winnipeg Free Press. Plaunt also sent a copy of the memorandum to Brooke Claxton, ^Plaunt Papers, Box 5. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Vincent Massey, August 5, 1935. 108Ibid. Vide pp. 326-329. 1Q9ibid. llOibid. 33 5 asking whether Claxton believed it would be advantageous to draft a new Act or Charter immediately.'1 '^^ In his reply Claxton made no mention of a draft Act; instead he sug- 112 gested that the memorandum should be revised. It should state what the Commission was intended to do and how it had failed; it should then develop the points which were con- 113 tained in the memorandum of Gladstone Murray. E. A. Corbett also received a copy of the memo- lll+ randum. He wrote that the governing Board should 11 * 5 include one member from each province. The appointment to the Board should be made "by a parliamentary committee representing all parties in the House, the appointments to be made after consultation with educationists and leaders of public life in each provinceHe believed that this would help "to avoid the possibility of such appointments 117 becoming purely political in character." His opinion coincided with that of Claxton when he stated that the reorganization plans "should be referred to without l^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, August 6, 1935. 112jfrid Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, September 5, 1935. 113Ibid. ■^^Ibid.« Letter from E. A. Corbett to Alan Plaunt, August lh, 1935. H^Ibid. ll6Ibid. 117Ibid. 336 reference to the B.B.C. or the Canadian Radio League hut IT fi rather as a modification of the Aird Report." IV. POST-ELECTION ACTIVITY ON RADIO REORGANIZATION In the national elections of October, 1935» the Conservatives were defeated; the Liberals under the leader ship of W. L. Mackenzie King formed a new government Soon after the election C. A. Bowman informed Plaunt that King was impressed with the need for an early reorganiza- 120 tion of broadcasting. Murray received a letter from Plaunt in which he 121 described the new atmosphere in Ottawa. Three support ers of the reorganization plan, Euler, Ilsley, and Lapointe, were named to the Cabinet; Vincent Massey would be named Canadian High Commissioner to Great Britain; the Prime Minister reportedly was in favor of the reorganization plan and of Murray's appointment as general manager; John W. Dafoe, a very influential member of the Liberal Party, wished to see the plan adopted with Murray as general ll8Ibid. ■^^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Vincent Massey, October 17, 1935. 120Ibid. ^2^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Gladstone Murray, October 20, 1935. manager; Bowman submitted a short brief on radio reorgani zation and a slate of officers for the Board, among whom he 122 included Plaunt as the representative for Ontario. Plaunt declared that he would prefer to participate in the management if Murray thought he could do effective work, but he would probably accept a position on the Board if it were offered.123 In reply to a query from Murray he expressed doubt that Graham Spry could be useful in the reorganization of broadcasting because both Dafoe and Massey "were hostile to him" because of his political activities.12l+ Towards the end of October Plaunt discussed strategy 125 with Vincent Massey. It was arranged that Massey should explain the whole radio situation, and our part in it, to Mr. Howe [the new Minister who was respon sible for broadcasting], tell him that I have some detailed material in process of preparation, and advise him to invite me to Ottawa for a pre liminary discussion.12° The memorandum which Plaunt had in mind would com prise three sections: (a) a short history of Canadian broadcasting from 1929“1935; (b) recommendations for radio reorganization; and (c) an appendix which would inolude 122Ibid. 123Ibid. 12lfIbid. 12^Ibid.. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, October 29, 1935. 126Ibid. details of the Aird and Radio League proposals and a draft Act.127 Murray offered several general suggestions on the future of Canadian broadcasting and a few specific pro posals concerning the data for the memorandums (1) Toronto should be the headquarters of the corporation because it would be "the point of origination of most of the material of the programmes"; (2) if the Board would meet annually or bi-annually, provision should be made for a continuing sub committee; (3) an "absolutely authoritative ’signal strength’ survey for the whole of Canada" would be required before any recommendations could be made concerning high- powered stations; (*f) because existing transmission line charges were "grossly unfair," it would be necessary with government support to obtain a "non-profit arrangement with the lines [sic] companies, cost plus depreciation, books to be produced"; (5) at the outset all efforts in program ming should concentrate on creating the image of "Canada on the Air"; (6) after producing distinctly Canadian programs, the corporation could draw the "universal stuff from other parts of the world"; (7) existing orchestras should be encouraged if their standards of performance were accept able; and (8) efforts would be required immediately to 127Ibid. 339 improve the "short wave situation" in order that Canada might compete with other nations on the international In commenting upon the engineering problems which national coverage presented, Murray stated: I note that the number of private commercial stations has actually increased under the Com mission regime. This is absurd. I want [.sic] the Commission to treat the private stations fairly and to use them until their replacement could be contrived but I never imagined they were to go on indefinitely as part of the radio system for Canada. As long as there are a lot of private stations in existence there will be political intrigue and sabotage. Still we cannot withdraw private stations until we can provide at least as strong signal strength in replacement. Probably the solution of the engineering problem will call for a Five or Seven Years Pl5p» depending on the manner of capital finance.’*9 Activities of the American radio networks. With his comments on the memorandum Murray sent Plaunt information concerning the activities of the American networks in Canadian broadcasting.^^^ Martin Aylesworth of the National Broadcasting Company sent Reginald Brophy, former sales manager of Marconi in Montreal, to see Mackenzie King before the election "with some fantastic proposal to take over Canadian broadcasting for the NBC. "-*-31 When the -^-^Ibid. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, November l3> 1935, with copy of a report from Gladstone Murray. ^•^Ibid. 13°Ibid. ^^Ibid. 3*+0 Columbia Broadcasting System heard of this, its president communicated with Murray in London to propose that Murray should use his influence to secure the concession for 132 CBS. As a result hidden resistance to the reorganiza- 133 tion plans could be expected from both American networks. Campaign of the private commercial stations. The lobby of the private commercial broadcasters also was at work. A campaign was begun behind the scenes to have Harry Sedgewick, President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, appointed as general manager of the Commis sion or its successor and Arthur Slaght, K.C., appointed as 131+ chairman, Plaunt described this as an equally "fantas tic idea" because Arthur Slaght was "far from persona grata 13 * 5 with the boys in control." Claxton'3 views on the memorandum. Plaunt completed the first draft of the detailed memorandum in early Decem ber and invited comments upon it from Brooke Claxton. ^-36 Claxton thought the memorandum should stress "that an 132Ibid. 133lbid. ^3^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Gladstone Murray, November 22, 1935; also Letter from E. A. Corbett to Alan Plaunt, October 29, 1935. 135ibjd. ^3^Ibid.. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, December 10, 1935. unsatisfactory result was inevitable from the form in which the [Radio] Commission was set up."^3* ' 7 The new corporation should have "independence from immediate political influ ence" and ultimate responsibility to Parliament.^® The corporation should not be a direct agency of Parliament or 1^9 of the Government. The Governors of the Corporation should be nine in number, appointed for terms of five years; they should receive a small salary. They should be persons who can command the confi dence of the country and accept the immediate respon sibility for the policy of the corporation and be accountable to the government for that. They must be responsive to public opinion but must be autono mous and free from day-to-day control by the Minis ter. It is important that they be not appointed in any representative capacity and that after appointment they act, as a Board having a view to national interests.1^ The relationship of the private commercial stations to the corporation should be clearly enunciated in the statute creating the corporation; a clear statement of policy should be included on political broadcasts and on the arrangements for allotting time between the political parties. The possibilities of increasing tourist traffic from the United States and of increasing the sale of Canadian 137Ikid* 138lbid. 139 ibid. l^Qlbid. l^Ibid. ^^Ibid. 3^2 goods abroad should be stressed. If as a result of really good radio broadcast [sic] through the United States, we could increase tour ist traffic by 2 % a year, it would pay us to invest about three or four million dollars a year on that account alone. . . .14-3 Although agreeing that the net revenues from licenses should be paid to the corporation, Claxton did not ILL think they should be paid directly to the corporation. Because of the uncertainty of whether the corporation would be able "to get along without capital expenditure and borrowing money," he thought "it might be just as well to lb 5 set it up without power to borrow." Plaunt's views differed from those of Claxton on two points: (1) the payment of revenues directly to the cor poration and (2) the power of the corporation to borrow money.With the exception of these two items, he incor porated the remainder of Claxton's suggestions in the memo i r randum. Consultation with the Hon. C. D. Howe. The meeting between Plaunt and Howe which was arranged by Vincent 1 UQ Massey took place on December 27, 1935. Plaunt ll+3ibid. lMfIbid. llf5lbid. ll+6Vide pp. 326-329. lLf^Plaunt Papers, Box 17. "Memorandum re Canadian Broadcasting Reorganization," December, 1935. i U - f t Ibid., Box 5. Letter from the Hon. C. D. Howe presented a copy of his revised memorandum to the Minister; twenty-seven pages in length, it contained a review of the events which preceded the establishment of the Canadian Hadio Broadcasting Commission, a criticism of the Commis- sion, and Plaunt's proposals for reorganization of radio. Almost the same proposals which Plaunt submitted to Massey on February 22, 1935, they were modified to include the suggestion of Gladstone Murray for provincial advisory committees and the suggestion of Brooke Claxton for a Board 150 of nine members who should receive a small salary. The memorandum recommended the retention of the license fee principle and suggested that political broadcasting should be governed by the recommendations of the Aird Commis sion. 1 ^1 Howe was "exceedingly pleased" with the memoran He stated: "We will base our reorganization on this mate rial."1^ He studied the memorandum privately and at a to Alan Plaunt, November 13, 1935; also Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, December 29, 1935. llf9lbid. 15°Ibid., Box 17. "Memorandum re Canadian Broad casting Reorganization," pp. 17-21. 1^ 1Ibid., p. 2 1. l52Ibid., Box 5. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, December 29, 1935. l53ibid. 3 ^ second meeting with Plaunt on December 29, 1935, he approved in principle the slate of officers for the cor poration which Plaunt submitted "as being the sort of people we want for a Board of this kind."^^" These data are in Table XXI bn page 3*+5» Plaunt was offered a place in the Board with the understanding that later he would have "the job of 'selling* the proposition to the persons 155 selected•" Howe requested Plaunt to have Claxton pro ceed with a draft Act which it was hoped would be completed 156 within a week or ten days. He desired that the corpora tion should be made as free of civil service interference and overlapping as possible, and that the Act should contain a very clear definition of the principles upon which the broadcasting authority is to func tion. ... He agreed that the measure of minis terial and Parliamentary control should be clearly defined in some such way as you [Claxton] suggest. He doesn't want a large measure of control, except over finance, and expresses himself as wanting to be entirely rid of the details and responsibil ity of management. Howe agreed that Gladstone Murray was the man for general manager of the corporation and informed Plaunt that ^Ibid. No record was discovered of the slate which Plaunt submitted to Howe. However it may be inferred that it was substantially the same list that he submitted to Vincent Massey in October. 1935. Cf. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, October 29, 1935, with copy of the slate that was submitted to Massey. ^Ibid. 156 Ibid. 15?ibid. 3*+5 TABLE XXI SLATE OF PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUBMITTED TO VINCENT MASSEY BY ALAN PLAUNT, OCTOBER, 1935s The following is a list of persons who might be qualified to act on an unpaid Board. The names listed are taken from the National committees of the Radio League, and other sources. B.C. General Victor Odium Alta. --- Principal Wallace, Mrs. Irene Parlby, E. A. Corbett (Extension Department U. of A.), E. J. Garland. Sask. Waldron of the Western Producer (?) Brockington. Man. E. J. Tarr, J. W. Dafoe. Ont. R. A. Laldlaw, E. H. Blake, Charles Cowan, Russell Smart, K.C., X. A. Greene, B. K. Saictoel], Hon. N. W. Rowell, Miss Winnifred Kydd, Tom Moore, Sir Robert Falconer. Que. --- Augustin Frigon (member, Aird Commission), Georges Pelletier (editor, Le Devoir), Louis St. Laurent, K.C., Brooke Claxton, Mrs. Pierre Casgrain. N. S. --- C. J. Burchell, Hector Mclnnes, K.C., Dr. Munro, P.E.I. --- Cyrus MacMillan If a Board of 12 - 3 representing more particularly the Dominion as a whole, and 9 more particularly the provinces, were contemplated, the Dominion members could form an execur tive committee of the Board and would therefore preferably reside in the east. Such men as Brooke Claxton, Augustin Frigon, Tom Moore, E. H. Blake, would I think be admirable appointments. AP. University of British Columbia Library: Alan Plaunt Papers, Box 5. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, October 29* 1935, with copies of memorandum and slate of officers submitted to the Hon. Vincent Massey. 3*+6 he would write to Vincent Massey, asking him "to sound Murray out, both as to availability and salary.' The Minister also told Plaunt that he was being deluged with submissions from other groups and that during the first week of January he would meet with delegations from the Bell Telephone System, the Canadian National Rail ways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, the Canadian Press, and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. 1 '* 9 Claxton prepares a draft Act. Plaunt received a copy of a draft Bill from Claxton in the second week of January, 1936."^^ In a covering letter Claxton listed the sections of the Bill which he believed were controversial: ( 1) the name of the company; (2) the term of office for members of the Board; (3) the remuneration which they should receive; C1 *) the method by which the corporation should regulate the programs of the private stations; (5) the stipulation that the Civil Service Act would apply only to clerks and other similar employees; ( 6) the 1 * 1 8 Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Vincent Massey, January *f, 19^6. l59Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, December 29, 1935. ^^Ibid., Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, January 8, 1936. 3*+7 provision that the corporation should receive a grant or that it should he empowered to borrow money; and (7) the provision that the accounts of the corporation should be l6l audited by an independent auditor. After studying the material Plaunt made these com- ments. ‘ The best name for the company was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.1^ Tenure for the Board should be less than five years; employees of the corporation "should be completely out of the Civil Service"; revenues should be paid directly to the Corporation instead of retaining the practice, which Claxton proposed, of paying them into the Consolidated Revenue Fund; provision for a loan instead of a subsidy should be incorporated in the Act; and the accounts should be audited by a separate auditor. He thought that limitations on advertising should be deleted from the Act; the corporation should be "free to make by-laws or regulations on this matter, if 16 5 necessary." ' Claxton revised the draft Act to include Plaunt’s suggestions.1^ He advised Plaunt to give a copy of the l6lIbid. 1A o AW*Ibid.. letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, January l1 *, 1^3o. l63lbid. l61fIbid. l6^Ibid. 166 Ibid.. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, January l6 , 1^3o. 3*+8 revised Act to the Minister and to discuss it with him. If after discussion we agree on changes we can make a redraft for him [Howe], including our own and Murray's suggestions, but I think it would be a waste of time for us to spend a good deal of work polishing something that may be on the wrong track. 157 At Howe's request a copy of the draft Act was sent to C. P. Edwards, Director of Radio in the Department of Marine, who then discussed it with Claxton on January 20, - 1 £ Q 1 9 3 6. Edwards expressed the view that most of the ideas in the draft Act would be incorporated in the final legis lation, with one major exception. It has not been felt that the Corporation should have any administrative control outside its own broadcasting function, and to this end it is proposed that all private stations should be placed under the control of the Minister and not under the control of the Corporation. One— and I think the main complaint of the pri vate stations before the last committee— was that they were regulated by, and, at the same time competed with the Radio Commission. 170 Plaunt saw Howe on January 2b and afterwards reported 1 71 the highlights of the conversation to Claxton. Howe did ^ 7Ibid*» Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, January 17, 193°. l5 5Ibid.. Letter from Alan Plaunt to C. P. Edwards, January 18, 193o; Letter from C. P. Edwards to Alan Plaunt, January 20, 1938. l6 9Ibid. 1 7 0Ibid. 1 7 1Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, January 2b, 193©. not subscribe to the idea of an "ultimate monopoly of broadcasting stations in Canada" and he believed that his 172 plan would give "the public company a virtual monopoly." ' He intended to lease twelve or fourteen stations and trans mission wires for twelve or sixteen hours daily.'*'73 He desired that "the powers of regulation and control should revert to the department, and I wasn’t able to dissuade him 17if from this view." He thought that Murray should be named general manager but cabinet approval would be required before he could proceed further.■*'7^ Tenure of members of the Board should be "at pleasure." Finally he informed Plaunt that fixed government policy required that "a select parliamentary committee [should be appointed] to re-examine 177 the situation and make recommendations." Both Plaunt and Claxton were far "from jubilant" about the appointment of a parliamentary committee; Plaunt maintained that a committee would be "more likely to con- 178 fuse than to improve the issue." Departmental draft Act. Late in January Claxton received from Howe a copy of a draft Bill which was prepared 172Ibid. 173Ibid. 17* fIbid. 17^Ibid. 176Ibid. i^Ibid. 178Ibid. 350 by C. P. Edwards of the Department of MarineActing on Howe’s invitation Claxton submitted a lengthy critique of were suggested for the Board would not be likely to accept an invitation to become directors during pleasure at $10 a day of a corporation having powers so severely limited as to leave room for doubt as to whether it can adequately perform the great work expected of it. The term "Governor” better describes both the quality of the people you want and their func tion. They should correspond and regard them selves as corresponding to the governors or trustees of a university, though they should, of course, exercise the functions of a board of directors.1“1 He objected strongly to the clause which stated that the Board should hold office "during pleasure," maintaining that it would remove at once "any suggestion that the Board 1 o p is to be independent of the Government of the day." The members of the Board should be nine rather than the seven which the Bill stipulated and they should not be appointed 183 to represent sectional interests. Each member of the l8lf Board should receive a fee of $50 per meeting. Then he commented on the section of the Bill which seemed to him crucial: 179ibid. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, January 31» 193o, with copy of a letter to the Hon. C. D. Howe, January 30, 1936. Edward's Bill. 180 He objected that men of the type who l82Ibid. 351 Section 7 raises the very fundamental question as to the main purpose and powers of the Corporation. The bill you have sent me puts the Corporation on an equal footing with any private person operating stations. Both are completely under the control of the Minister. It seems to me that this com pletely ignores the proposed aim of such a Corpora tion which is not only to broadcast a few programmes over a few stations but immediately to Influence and control and ultimately operate and own all broad casting in Canada. Broadcasting is either a national monopoly and a national service, or it is not. Here, by reason of the fact that private stations have been established and further by reason of the incompetence of the present Commission, there is a compromise system where there are more private stations than there are public, but that was regarded by the Aird Commission and, I think, by everyone else who has seriously considered the question as being a state of compromise which might last a longer or shorter time but which ultimately would be resolved in favour of a really first-class national system. I quite see that the day of bringing that about is relatively far off but I do not think that we should give up the principle of ultimate public ownership and immediate public control now. Further, to place so many powers in the hands of the Minister will subject the Minister to an amount of annoyance and efforts at interference which you, no doubt, will resist successfully, but which will give you bother which should be taken by someone else or which some future Minister may not success fully resist. We are trying now, as I understand it, to establish a system free from all improper influences. If the Corporation has to fight private interests at every turn and over every arrangement and if the Minister is going to have to intervene to iron out difficulties and make decisions, there will be ample opportunity for the exercise of influ ence and the efforts of those occupied with broad casting in Canada will be wasted in fighting each^ other rather than in building a better service,i»5 Claxton agreed with Howe’s statement on the desir ability of having the Minister or the Department of Marine l8^Ibid. 352 186 exercise control over wave lengths. Section 8 which stated that the Minister’s consent was required for transactions involving more than $25,000 was much too restrictive for a Corporation supposedly * i On independent of the Government. The Corporation should have the power to borrow with the approval of the Governor 188 in Council. It should also have the power to modify existing wire contracts in which rates were prohibitive,^8^ In mid-February Plaunt discussed the "radio issue" with Prime Minister King in a personal interview. ^ O Dur ing the conversation King invited Plaunt to become his 191 private secretary. 7 Plaunt regretfully declined the offer, stating that he thought it his "duty and obligation to see that the public point of view was adequately pre- 192 sented at the forthcoming Parliamentary Committee." ' Meanwhile, after their consultations in London, Massey and Murray sent a long cablegram to C. D. Howe in support of Claxton*s objections to the departmental draft l86Ibid. l87Ibid. 188Ibid. l89lbid. 190ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Gladstone Murray, February 25, 1936. 191lbid. •^^ibid.; cf. Letter from W. L. Mackenzie King to Alan Plaunt, February 22, 1936. 353 Bill,19^ The result was that Howe requested Claxton to revise the draft accordingly and to forward it to him personally.1^ If the revised draft met with his approval he intended to use it "as the hasis of the parliamentary committee’s discussions."19^ Plaunt*s preparations for the Parliamentary Com mittee . In preparation for the League's appearance before the Parliamentary Committee, Plaunt wrote to five members of the League’s executive committee and to the news- 196 papers. With each letter he enclosed a summary of the League's proposals to the Special Committee of 1932 and a 197 r^sumd of the current issues in Canadian broadcasting. He requested that each recipient comment on the memorandum "so that any representations which are made to the Parlia mentary Committee may accord with your views."19® Saturday 193lbid.« Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, February 26, 1936. 1^ lbid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. C. D. Howe, February 2*f, 1936. 195ibid. 19®Ibid.« Letters from Alan Plaunt to E. A. Corbett, J. A. Mclsaac, Norman Smith, Father St. Denis, and Georges Pelletier, March **, 1936; form letter to newspapers, March 6, 1936. 197Ibid. 19®Alan B. Plaunt, "Canadian Radio," Saturday Night. 51:11, April *f, 1936. 35^ Night featured an article by Plaunt on "Canadian Radio" in ita issue of April *+, 1936.199 In the article he maintained that the principle of unified national control should be reaffirmed, that any reorganization of broadcasting should attempt to improve the method of obtaining this objective, that divided control would render the system unworkable, and that the government and the country should be willing to "pay the cost if we wish to build a nation east-to- west."200 Plaunt suggested to C. D. Howe that it would be in the public interest to invite the Canadian Legion, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the National Council of Women, the Universities' Conference, and the Royal 201 Society of Canada to appear before the Committee. He suggested also that Dr. Edouard Montpetit, Dr. E. A. Corbet^ Sir Ernest MacMillan, C. A. Bowman and Augustin Prigon 202 should be invited to appear as individual witnesses. The Parliamentary Committee was appointed near the end of March, 1936.20^ Howe decided that the original 199Ibid. 2Q0Ibid. 2^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. C. D. Howe, March 21, 1936. 2Q2Ibid. 2^3lbid., Box 6. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, April 2, 1936. 355 departmental draft Bill should provide a basis for discus- 20if sion in the meetings of the Agenda Sub-Committee. The contents of the Bill became known while it was still in 205 committee and it was withdrawn. y Plaunt believed that this premature disclosure was fortuitous "because [the Act] provides something very vulnerable to shoot at." The Committee decided to use instead a "Synopsis of a Draft Broadcasting Act" which was prepared by 207 C. P. Edwards at the request of C. D. Howe. Plaunt received a copy of the Synopsis from Edwards; he expressed satisfaction with the Synopsis "inasmuch as it brings out the alternative proposals that have been made in your ocs ft draft and ours respectively." He was informed by Howe that a draft Bill would be placed before the Committee; whether it would be the departmental draft or the draft as amended by the Radio League would depend on the decision of the Program Com- 209 mittee. Howe added that "in any event your amendments will be brought to the attention of the Parliamentary 2QlfIbid. 20?Ibid. 206 Ibid. 2^Ibid.. Letter from Alan Plaunt to C. P. Edwards, April 6, 19557 208Ibid. 2Q9lbid.. Letter from the Hon. C. D. Howe to Alan Plaunt, April 20, 1936. Committee when the hill is being discussed section by sec tion."210 Plaunt prepared his brief for the Parliamentary Com- 211 mittee in collaboration with Brooke Claxton. Several attempts were made to hold a meeting of the League's executive committee; finally a meeting was held on May 2, 1936, but the minutes did not identify by name those who 212 were present. V. SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE * , CANADIAN RADIO COMMISSION The Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commis sion began hearings on March 2*+, 1936; it held twenty-five 213 meetings and heard thirty-seven witnesses. The proceedings began with a review of the recom mendations of the previous committees of 1932 and 193^; Commissioner Hector Charlesworth and Commissioner W. Arthur Steel testified concerning the operations of the 21QIbid. O ' ! " I Ibid.. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, April 29, 1936; Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, May 5, 1936. 2X2 Ibid., Box 16. Meeting of Executive Committee, May 2, 1935T 213« •^Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commis sion, Minutes of Evidence (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1936), passim. 357 Commission and were questioned at length on different 2iU occasions by members of the Committee. Evidence was heard concerning the contracts for the rental of transmis sion wires, the arrangements for the political broadcasts which preceded the election in October of 1935, and the 215 sponsorship of news broadcasts. Brief of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters in conjunction with the Canadian Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of Canadian Advertisers submitted a brief in which they stated that government participation in 216 broadcasting should be continued. They advocated: (1) that the Commission or its successor should produce and distribute better programs and that all expenditures of the Commission should be limited to this purpose; (2) that the operational functions of the present Commission should be assigned to this new body which would neither own nor operate any commercial station in Canada; (3) that the regulatory functions of the Commission should be transferred to the Department of Transport; and (*+) that a general 217 manager should be hired. ' They advocated further that the Commission or its successor should not compete with 211fIbid. 2l6Ibid.. p. 552. 2l5Ibid. 21?rbid., pp. 552-55*+. 358 private stations for commercial business, that transmission lines should he subsidized by the Commission, that the new Board should be composed of members who were "intimately interested in the problems of broadcasting," and that com petition should be avoided by scheduling commercial and 01 f t sustaining programs at different times. The Committee was presented with a summary of the three principal aims which allegedly governed the prepara tion of the joint submission: 1. To simplify the duties of the Commission so that it can concentrate on producing and dis tributing better programs. 2. By co-operation with commercial interests, to develop more widespread distribution of better commercial broadcasts. 3. To make the listener the fihgl judge of quality in all regular broadcasts.219 Brief of the Canadian Radio League. The Radio League, which was represented by Plaunt, Claxton, and Father St. Denis, testified before the Committee on May 7, 1936.22<^ The brief of the League was divided into six 221 sections. It included a summary of former proposals, support for the League's recommendations, considerations which should guide the reorganization of broadcasting, the League's plan for reorganization, a critique of proposals 2l8Ibid., pp. 553-559 220Ibid., pp. 3^6-377 219Ibid.. p. 587. 221Ibid.. p. 3V7. 359 which were offered by other interests in former years, and 222 a summary of the League’s proposals. It included two appendices, one listing "Excerpts from Recent Editorials" and the other listing statements in favor of the League’s proposals from The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Universities’ Conference, the United Farmers of Alberta, the United Farmers of Canada, and the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League.^23 The League also stated that letters were received from thirty promi nent Canadians who requested the League to present their ppL». views on radio to the Committee. During the proceedings the Committee requested Plaunt to list the names of the Executive and any subcommittees which the League had; Plaunt did so; subsequently he sent a complete list of all 225 subcommittees of the League to the Committee. 222Ibid. 223ibid. 22l+Ibid., pp. 3l *8-31 +9. 22^Ibid., pp. 375-376. Cf. Plaunt Papers, Box 6, Letter from Alan Plaunt to A. L. Beaubien, M.P., May 1*+, 1936. "The Executive sub-Committee of the League consists, as I think I stated to the Committee, of Messrs. Corbett, Edmonton; E. H. Blake, Toronto; Brooke Claxton, Montreal; and myself. The larger national committee which as I said consists chiefly of the nuclei of local committees, together with some prominent citizens who have taken a special interest in our work includes— Hon. N. W. Rowell, K.C,, Toronto; Louis St. Laurent, K.C., Quebec; General Victor Odium, Vancouver; E. A. Corbett, Edmonton; Dr. A. E. Grauer, Vancouver; Brooke Claxton, Montreal; Robert A. Laidlaw, Toronto; Rev. Father Marchand (Provinciale 0. M. I.); President Carleton Stanley (Dalhousie University) Halifax; Hector Mclnnes, K.C., Halifax; Edward Hume Blake, Toronto; President W. C. Murray 360 The proposals of the League were based upon the original recommendations of Plaunt to the Hon. C. D. Howe, modified to include the material which Claxton incorporated in his draft Act. The League advocated a Board of nine governors; the general manager was to be appointed by the 227 Board with the approval of the Governor in Council. The League no longer suggested that the Corporation should be responsible to Parliament through a subcommittee of the Privy Council, nor that advertising should be limited to a pnQ specified percentage of program time. The recommenda tion that the license fee should be raised immediately to $3 was omitted; the recommendation was made instead that (University of Saskatchewan) Saskatoon; President C. C. Jones, Fredericton; Russell Smart, K.C., Ottawa; Paul Nanton, Winnipeg; Graham Spry, Toronto; J. F. Garrett, Saskatoon; E. J. Tarr, K.C., Winnipeg; Monseigneur Camille Roy, Quebec; President Wallace (University of Alberta) Edmonton; Sir Robert Falconer, Toronto; President J. G. Trueman, Sackville; Father St. Denis, Ottawa; Miss Odette Lapointe, Ottawa; Alan B. Plaunt. There is also a long list of prominent citizens from all parts of Canada who have lent the League the support of their names. These include many prominent business men, the heads of most of our universities, the heads of public organizations, and so on. They are substantially those listed in the appen dix to No. 13 of the Minutes of the 1932 Committee." 226Cf. pp. 3*+ 2-3*0, 3^6, 3^9-351. 227 Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commis- sion, op. cit.. pp. k-06~b07. 228Ibid., pp. 1*07-^08 361 the Corporation should receive license revenue directly and that it should have the power to borrow money in a regular commercial way or that it should receive a grant 229 from the public works appropriation. The recommendation was made also that new wire contracts should give to the Corporation "the right to sublet to commercial sponsors 230 and retain the revenue thus secured." The brief had one paragraph on political broadcasts which was a restatement of the recommendation in the Aird Report and in the first 231 pamphlet which the League issued. Many questions were asked by the Committee in an attempt to obtain a clear understanding of the relationship which the League proposed between Parliament and the Cor- 232 poration. C. H. Cahan, member of the Cabinet in the preceding administration, objected that the League was advocating a board which would be independent of govern- 233 mental direction and control. Claxton denied the allegation, stating: What is suggested is that the board be constituted not as the servant of the government, not as per manent employees of the government and responsible to a government department for day-to-day operation, but that they be constituted as trustees for a great 22^Ibid., pp. ^08-^09. 23^Ibid.. p. ^08. 231 Ibid.. p. »+07. 232Ibid., pp. 357, 358, 359, 361-368. 233Ibid., p. 362. 362 national activity, in the same sense as, say, the trustees of the National Gallery, or, in the commercial sphere, the Canadian National Railways. . . . [The Board] would not only have to furnish an annual report, which would be subject to annual examination, but also I should think that any broadcasting authority would have to come before some committee of parliament and give an account of itself each year when either the estimates or its report or some other question came up which would give that opportunity. That is exactly what happens in Great Britain; we copy it because it has worked and it has worked admirably. We believe that with this board of nine, not salaried employees of the government, but men who would receive perhaps a slight honorarium, it would be possible for the executive to carry on far more freely than the present commission has done, reading betweenp±he lines of the evidence which has been given.^3*+ In reply to numerous questions on the powers of the Board, Claxton reiterated that Parliament would retain ultimate control over general policy but that the Board would be responsible for day-to-day operations of the cor poration; the Board would be expected to take the initia tive for the future development of the Corporation in con- 235 formity with the stipulations of the Act. ^ The Committee presented its final report to Parlia- ? 36 ment on May 2 6, 1936. It stated that ample demonstra tion was given "that a commission of three cannot be moulded into a unit that can formulate and execute policies 2^ Ibid., p. 363. . pp# 363-368. 236Ibid., pp. 783-786. 363 237 successfully." After recommending that the Broadcasting Act of 1932 be repealed, it stated that a new Act should place the direction of broadcasting in the hands of a corporation with an honorary board of nine governors chosen to give representation to all parts of Canada, this board to operate through a general manager and an assistant general manager, who will be responsible to the board forpthe con duct of all business of the corporation. 30 It recommended that the Corporation should be given substantially the powers now enjoyed by the British Broadcasting Corporation. ... and, in addition, that it be given exclusive control over:- (i) the character of all programs, political and otherwise, broadcast by private sta tions, and the advertising content thereof; (ii) all wire line networks used for carrying broadcast programs.239 Technical control of stations, which would include licensing and the allocation of wave lengths, should be the responsibility of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; however before taking action on any request the Minister should consult with and obtain the recommendation of the corporation to the end that if and when it is decided to extend the national system, the location and organization of private stations will be such as to permit of the efficient absorp tion of any or all of them into the national sys tem .2^ 237Ibid., p. 78**. 238Ibid. 239Ibid. 2l+QIbid.. pp. 78>+-785 36^ The report recommended that national coverage should be obtained as soon as possible, that the corporation should have the fullest freedom in hiring employees, that it should be authorized to borrow from the government "sums not exceeding $500,000." Concerning political broadcasting the report recommendeds (i) That dramatized political broadcasts be pro hibited. (ii) That full sponsorship of all political broad casts be required. (iii) That the limitation and distribution of time for political broadcasts be under the com plete control of the corporation, whose duty it shall be to assign time on an equitable basis between all parties and rival candi dates. (iv) That no political broadcasts be allowed on an election day or during two days immedi ately preceding same. 1 It also contained a paragraph which reaffirmed the princi ple of complete nationalization of broadcasting in 2k 2 Canada. Plaunt and Claxton were gratified by the report of the Committee, Claxton terming it a "ninety percent vic- 2*+3 tory." In a letter to C. L. Howe Plaunt expressed the satisfaction of the League with the outcome of the Com mittee's deliberations and requested that Claxton be allowed to see the proposed legislation when it was 2lflIbid.. pp. 785-786 . 2* + 2Ibid.. p. 785. 2lf^Plaunt Papers, Box 6. Telegram from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, May 2 6, 1936. 365 2 * + *+ drafted. A copy of the proposed Bill was sent to Claxton on June 19? 1936; he informed Plaunt that Hthe Bill seems to be better than anything we could have hoped for. In fact, they have given us practically everything covered 2i+5 in my draft," VI. THE CAMPAIGN TO HAVE GLADSTONE MURRAY NAMED GENERAL MANAGER After testifying before the Special Committee Plaunt immediately intensified his campaign to have Gladstone Murray of the British Broadcasting Corporation appointed pl±A the general manager of the new corporation. He learned that the commercial interests were promoting the candidacy of Reginald Brophy, formerly sales manager of the Marconi Company in Montreal and at that time director of station relations of the National Broadcasting Company in 2k 7 New York. Plaunt wrote to the Hon. Vincent Massey on Murray's 2^ Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. C. D. Howe, May 23, 1936. 2^Ibid., Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, June 19, 1936. Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to C. A. Bowman, May 11, 1936. ^^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, May 12, 19WT 366 behalf; he also arranged meetings with J. W. Dafoe, Paul p l f f t Martin, and several members of Parliament. To each he explained "how vitally important it is not only for radio but for the country as a whole that someone is appointed who really can appreciate what a wide use of radio could do for Canada."2^ By mid-June at least two members of the Cabinet, Howe and Dunning, supported the candidacy of Brophy and all members of Parliament received letters from the private stations in which they endorsed Brophy as general manager; as the campaign developed the private stations, under the leadership of Stations CFRB (Toronto) and CKAC (Montreal), brought "pressure to bear in every conceivable direction," through an insistent and concerted personal lobby of mem bers of Parliament, government officials, and Cabinet Minis ters.2^0 Plaunt and Claxton decided to restrict their major activity on behalf of Murray's candidacy to convincing the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet that he was Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Vincent Massey, May 13, 1936. ^^Ibid.. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, June 1 6, 1936. 2^0 'Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, June 12, 1936. Cf. Box 22, "A Sinister Lobby," July 2, 1936. 367 251 the best qualified man for the position. Claxton wrote to the Hon. Norman Rogers, Minister of Labour, suggesting that if Mr. Howe is really sold on Brophy, I would think that quite a considerable number of the Cabinet would have been influenced by representations made on Brophy*s behalf and that to block this there would be only a few people like the Prime Minister and yourself with whom the matter ultimately rests .2' ?2 He argued that far more was involved in the appoint ment than the question of who was to run radio in Canadas Brophy is a Marconi production who has always opposed national radio in Canada, having worked tooth and nail against it at the time when Murray was out here before. He has the commercial point of view. He could not help unconsciously repre senting and taking the side of the private inter ests. He would come as the immediate ex-employee of the N. B. C. His associations are all with pri vate stations and American Chains. No one knows anything much about his real ability to handle a big job. No one has suggested that he has any idea that it [the corporation] will be used for purposes of strengthening national unity and healing the rapidly widening gap between the races and sections of Canada. Murray, on the other hand, I believe sees this completely. But he appreciates that if public radio is to succeed in Canada, it can only do so with popular support. When he was out here, he showed that he knew far more about the business of broadcasting entertain ment as well as other programmes than anyone else I have ever talked to on this side, and he was quite sensitive to Canadian opinion. . . . 251 Ibid., Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, June 1 6, 1936, with copy of a letter to the Hon. Norman Rogers. 2^2Ibid. 368 As I have suggested, I see far more in this than one type of man having a certain background as against another. Despite any qualities of dis interestedness and ability that Brophy may have, I would see in the appointment the possibility of a "sell-out" to the private and predominantly American interests.2?3 In a letter dated June 25, 1936, Plaunt reported to Vincent Massey that "the Brophy forces have been conducting a terrific lobby which includes the circulation of rumors 25U damaging to Murray." Although the Prime Minister real ized that Murray had all the qualifications for the position he feared that Murray "might be proved to be 'unrelia- ble.*" Plaunt stated his intention to see Mr. King "within the next fortnight and to show him Bob Bowman’s cable showing that Murray has neither drank nor smoked for 256 two years." Plaunt prepared a short memorandum for the Prime 257 Minister which he submitted on June 29, 1936. In it he described the campaign of the Canadian radio and associated interests "first to block the national radio project and now to neutralize the intent of the new legislation by 253 Ibid. ^^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Hon. Vincent Massey, June 25, 1936. 2^Ibid. 256 ^id. 2^Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to the Rt. Hon. W. 1. Mackenzie King, July 3, 1936. 369 q CTQ influencing the key appointments." Four days later he wrote again to Mr. King, stating that it was the function of the League to support the establishment of a national broad casting system, and to indicate the conditions it considers essential to the success of such a sys tem. We do not, therefore, presume to suggest or influence the appointment of one individual as against another.2?9 Plaunt took advantage of the occasion to state that, to his knowledge, all the rumors concerning Murray were 260 without foundation. Meanwhile Murray deferred action on several European offers in the hope that he would be named general manager of the corporation before the end of the summer. In late July the Prime Minister intervened directly, cabling Massey that it was imperative the best man be got, that he believed Murray was the best man, and that he wanted all the Ministers abroad [Dunning, Euler, Mackenzie, and Lapointe] to see Murray before returning with a view to dispelling any prejudices they might have about him. 2 In conjunction with the promotion of Murray’s can didacy Plaunt prepared a news release which he entitled 258Ibid. 2^9Ibid. 260Ibid. pZ I Ibid.. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, July 13, 19357 282Ibid., Letters from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, July 27 and August 7, 1936. 370 "A Sinister L o b b y . in it he stated that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Association of Canadian Advertisers advocated "the abandonment of the project of a publically owned chain" before the Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission; it was now the purpose of this commercial lobby "to influence the key appointments in whatever organization took the place of the Radio Commis- He stated: What is involved is a threat to the commercial hegemony of the great American chains, and the radio-electrical-power interests which stand behind them. The issue of who shall run the new Canadian set-up far transcends, therefore, the mere matter of rival personalities. It is sig nificant that the spearhead of the Canadian lobby today, as in the past, are the relay stations of Columbia and N. B. C. For this reason the Canadian lobby must be regarded as sinister in its implications, if not, in its intentions {.'italics in the original].^? A statement of the former Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. R. B. Bennett, in the House of Commons on June 15, 1936, was then cited: The private interests have been very vigilant. They have been watchful of their own interests and have determined that if it is within their power, this facility is not to function as a public enterprise. They have determined . . . to destroy this publicly owned facility. . . . 2^Ibid., Box 22. "A Sinister Lobby," July 2, 1936 26IfIbid.. p. 1 . 26^Ibid.. p. 2. 371 The two or three great enterprises aorosa the line t in the United States 1 have watched with increasing anxiety the operations of this pub- licly owned facility [italics in the original]. The news release maintained that the freedom of 267 public opinion in Canada was at stake. Plaunt concluded the statement with this paragraph: It is obvious that if Canada seriously intends to proceed with this vital project she must place in charge someone who, by experience and aim, is calculated to make public service broad casting a success. There is no doubt that responsible opinion would entertain the most lively misgivings if someone were chosen whose whole association hitherto had been with one branch or other of the dominant commercial group of this continent The Vancouver Province, the Lethbridge Herald, the Toronto Mail and Empire, the Winnipeg Free Press, the Ottawa Citizen, "and a number of other papers" used the material in the release; the better editorials were brought 269 to the attention of the Prime Minister. VII. THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION Plaunt was informed by Prime Minister King on September 10, 1936, of his appointment to the Board of the 270 new Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The remaining 266Ibid.. p. 3. 267Ibid. 268Ibid. 289ibjd Box 6. Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, July 27', 1936. 2^Ibid., Telegram from the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King to Alan Plaunt, September 10, 1936. 372 members of the Board of Governors were Leonard Brockington, K.C., Winnipeg (Chairman); Rene Morin, Montreal (Vice Chairman); Mrs, Nellie McClung, Victoria; J. Wilfred Godfrey, Halifax; Rev. Alexandre Vachon, Quebec; Colonel Wilfred Bovey, Montreal; N. L. Nathanson, Toronto; 271 and General Victor Odium, Vancouver. On the day following the appointments, Plaunt was asked by Claxton to promote his candidacy as the lawyer 27? for the Corporation. Claxton believed that his request was reasonable "because of my interest in and knowledge of the subject, as well as my actual services in connection 27^ with the present Bill." J Plaunt's efforts on behalf of Claxton were unavailing because the Corporation did not 27h hire a lawyer. The new Broadcasting Act followed "practically word for word" the draft Bill which Claxton submitted to Howe in 275 January of 1936. The sections which Plaunt and Claxton ‘ ^Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Report of November 2. 1936 to March 31. 1937 (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1938)> p. 7. ^^Plaunt Papers, Box 7. Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, September 11, 1936. 273ibid. 27L . Ibid., Letter from Alan Plaunt to Brooke Claxton, September l5, 1936. 275 Ibid., Letter from Brooke Claxton to Alan Plaunt, September 16, 1936, with copy of a draft letter to the Hon, C. D. Howe. 373 believed to be crucial were incorporated in the Act with the result that the Corporation would regulate and control 276 all commercial radio stations in Canada. Although the Corporation would not have legal existence until November 2, 1936, the Board of Governors 277 held a preliminary meeting on September 26-27. For the office of general manager it recommended Gladstone Murray and for that of assistant general manager Augustin Frigon. ' The nominations having been approved by the Governor in Council, both men were requested to be in Ottawa for ser- 279 vice not later than November 2, 1936. On that date the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 280 became a reality. The Chairman of the Board of Governors was recommended by Plaunt, two of the Governors were strong supporters of the League, and the general mana ger and the assistant general manager were in complete 2Q-j _ agreement with the objectives of the Radio League. ^^Canada, I Edward VIII, Chapter 2*f. 277 ''Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, loc. cit. 2^8Plaunt Papers, Box 13. Draft Letter from the Board of Governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the Hon. C. D. Howe, September 22, 1936. ^^Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, loc. cit. 2 8 0Ibid. ^8- Wide p. 3 1 4- 5. 37*f At this time Plaunt received a letter, a paragraph of which seemed to present in capsule form a summary of events which led to the establishment of the Canadian pfto Broadcasting Corporation. * It read in part: Some day, people may know what you’ve already accomplished toward getting a new attitude toward broadcasting in Canada, and your position on the Board gives you a chance of defending what you have so far won. They couldn’t have made a better move. It is the first encouraging sign that the Government really want to make a suc cess of the Public Service principle— t]Wt they mean it and not only say they mean it. * After six years the essential elements of the League’s program were finally incorporated in legislation. The new Broadcasting Act would provide Canada with a pub licly owned national broadcasting system which would operate primarily as "public service." No attempt was made to keep the League in existence; its last public act was its appearance before the Parliamentary Committee on May 7, 1936. VIII. SUBSEQUENT EFFORTS TO REVIVE THE LEAGUE Both the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and the private stations prospered in the years that followed 232 Plaunt Papers, Box 7. Letter from Felix Greene to Alan Plaunt, September 18, 1936. 283Ibid. 375 OgL. the passage of the Broadcasting Act of 1936. In 19^9 the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) submitted a brief to the "Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences" in which it urged that a new Board should be created to regulate and control both the CBC and the private stations.28 ^ The Association main tained that two systems of broadcasting existed in Canada and that the CBC, which regulated the private stations, 286 competed with them for advertising and audience. The brief stated in part: Radio Broadcasting in Canada today is a business— a business in which private enterprise is engaged in competition with a publicly owned and largely publicly-financed company.20' In the same brief the CAB requested that private enterprise should be authorized to begin commercial tele vision broadcasting immediately and that the CBC should be 288 prevented from doing so. The Royal Commission did not accept the view of the private broadcasters that radio broadcasting was a business ofik Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, Report (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1951), p. 281. o ax '^-'Public Archives of Canada, Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, Submission of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, September, 19^9> p. 2^. 286Ibid., p. if. 287Ibid., p. 22. 288Ibid., p. 25. 376 and that two broadcasting systems existed in Canada: The principal grievance of the private broadcast- ers is based, it seems to us, on a false assump tion that broadcasting in Canada is an industry. Broadcasting in Canada, in our view, is a public service directed and controlled in the public interest by a body responsible to Parliament. We believe that Canadian radio broadcasting legislation contemplates and effectively provides for one national system; that the private sta tions have been licensed only because they can play a useful part within that system; and that the C.B.C. control of network broadcasting, of the issue and renewal of licenses, of advertis ing and of other matters related to radio broad casting, is a proper expression of the power of the C.B.C. to exercise control over all radio 2qq broadcasting policies and programmes in Canada. ' The Canadian Radio and Television League. 1955-1956. The idea of founding the Canadian Radio and Television League, one that would be comparable to the old Canadian Radio League, grew out of a conversation in 195*+ between the Hon. Vincent Massey, at that time President of the University of Toronto, and E. A. Corbett at the York Club 290 in Toronto. The opinion was expressed that an organiza tion of commercially disinterested citizens was needed to counterbalance the propaganda of the commercial broadcast ing lobby,it was suggested that $50,000 would be oQq 7Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, op. cit.. p. 283. ^^Statement by E. A. Corbett to the writer. September 11, 1962, at the office of the Canadian Associa tion for Adult Education, Toronto. 377 required to present a vigorous defense of the national 292 broadcasting system. Corbett, who had been a prominent member of the old Canadian Radio League, undertook to organize a new League which he named the Canadian Radio and 293 Television League. Despite the inability of the new League to obtain adequate financial support, it recruited more than one hundred members, held several meetings in preparation for the hearings of the Royal Commission on Broadcasting, distributed a small bulletin, and forwarded a written submission to the Royal Commission on April 15, 29L . 1956. The submission was prepared by Professor A. R. M. Lower of Queen's University, a Vice President of the League. Because the officers of the League realized that it "really didn't stand for anything or anyone," it was decided that at a later date Professor Lower should present an expanded version of the same brief to the Royal Commission as an 29*5 individual citizen. 292Ibid. 2?3ibid. 29^Public Archives of Canada, Royal Commission on Broadcasting. Brief Number 92, Canadian Radio and Tele vision League. The brief listed the following officers of the League: President, Dr. E. A. Corbett; Vice Presidents, Geoffrey Andrew (Vancouver), Senator David Croll (Toronto), Professor A. R. M. Lower (Kingston), Roy Grant (Moncton); Secretary, Mrs. Edith Powke (Toronto); Treasurer, Albert A. Shea (Toronto). 29^Statement by E. A. Corbett, op. cit. Cf. Public Archives of Canada, Royal Commission on Broadcasting. Brief Number 171, Dr. A. M. Lower. 378 The Canadian Radio and Television League was in existence approximately thirteen months— January, 1955 to ^ 296 April, 1956. The Canadian Broadcasting League. 1958-1962. The Report of the Royal Commission on Broadcasting . . . was 297 submitted to the Government on March 15, 1957. It advocated, among other changes in the Broadcasting Act, the creation of a new Board of Broadcast Governors "which would have the responsibility for all elements in Canadian broad casting."^® This new Board would control and regulate "the public and private elements in the single Canadian 299 broadcasting system." A Conservative Government under the leadership of John Diefenbaker was elected in the spring of 1957; it was expected that the new Government would act upon the recom mendations of the Royal Commission on Broadcasting.8^* Early in 1958 Graham Spry, who retired from an active role with the Canadian Radio League in 1932, believed that a new league was needed to counteract the 298Statement by E. A. Corbett, op. cit. 29<^Royal Commission on Broadcasting, Report (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, March 15, 1957). 2 98Ibid.. p. 9 1. 299Ibid. B^Piles of the Canadian Broadcasting League: Office of the Chairman, Ottawa Executive, Canadian Broad casting League, 111 Sparks St., Ottawa, Canada. 379 pressures of the commercial broadcasting lobbyHe began sounding Canadian opinion and soon organized the 302 nucleus of a new league. The services of E. L. R. Williamson as Honorary Secretary were secured and the first form letter from the new league was issued on April 8, 1958.^^ It stated in part: We believe that the action soon to be taken by Parliament will determine the character and course of broadcasting for at least another two decades. In the words of the [Royal] Commission: ’ ’ This is a matter of concern to every Canadian. It cannot be left to the experts, or to those with special interests, or even to the legislators alone. It is important to each one of us."^c" The letter extended an invitation to join what would 305 be known as the Canadian Broadcasting League. The League intended to strive for "National agreement on a National Broadcasting policy." To achieve this objec tive it advocated: 1. Support the CBC— vital instrument of Canadian unity 2. Private operation of private stations 3. Regulation of CBC and private stations as one system *+, A Board of Governors responsible to Parliament 301Ibid. 3Q2Ibid. 3^3Ibid., Memorandum on Broadcasting in Canada. April 8, 19557 3QlfIbid. 3°5lbid. 3^ Ibid.. Series of throw-away cards which contained synopsis of League's program. 380 5. Adequate long-term finance for the CBC 6. High programme standards— Canadian and Imported^*/^ The first major activity of the Broadcasting League was a delegation to the Prime Minister on July 18, 1958.3^® The leader of the delegation was the distinguished Canadian historian, Professor Donald G. Creighton of the University 309 of Toronto. Of the twenty-seven members of the delega tion, two were members of the old Canadian Radio League— Craham Spry and Father St. Denis.310 These data are in Table XXII on page 381. Seventeen other members of the 311 new League were unable to be present. These data are in Table XXIII on page 383* In his statement Professor Creighton declared that broadcasting was supremely important for one fundamental reason. Broadcasting, by radio or television, provides one of the greatest media ever invented for the self- expression, the self-knowledge, the self-determination of a people. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of broadcasting in our Canadian national life. . . . It is unquestionably one of the most decisive influences on the opinions, tastes, language, and customs of Canada. It can give 307Ibid. 3°®Ibid*, "Delegation of the Canadian Broadcasting League to meet the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons, 12 Noon, July 18, 1958." 3°9Ibid. 310Ibid. 311Ibid. 381 TABLE XXII DELEGATION OP THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING LEAGUE TO MEET THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JOHN DIEFENBAKER, PRIME MINISTER OP CANADA, HOUSE OP COMMONS, OTTAWA, 12 NOON, JULY 18, 1958a Chairman of the Delegation and of the National Council of the League: Profeasor Donald G. Creighton MEMBERS Very Reverend Dean John Anderson, M.C., D.D., Christ Church Cathedral, Ottawa. Representing Past National President Canadian Legion and personal representative of D. L. Burgess, National President, Canadian Legion: also representing the Anglican Church of Canada. Doctor Marius Barbeau, author and musician, Laval Univer sity, Quebec and Ottawa. Reverend W. A. Beecroft, representing the Board of Evange lism and Social Service, United Church, Toronto. Professor Donald G. Creighton, historian, author of the life of Sir John A. Macdonald, Toronto. Mrs. H. M. Ellard, First Vice-President, Representing Federated Women's Institutes of Canada and also repre senting Quebec Women's Institutes. Professor H. M. Estall, Secretary, representing Humanities Association of Canada; faculty group, Queen's University, Kingston. Mrs. G. D. Finlayson, Vice-President, representing National Council of Women, Ottawa. George Gordon-Lennox, student, Saskatoon. Mrs. Agnes Hay, national representative, Catholic Women's League of Canada, Ottawa. H. H. Hannam, President, representing Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ottawa. Claude Jodoin, President, representing Canadian Labour Congress. TABLE XXII (continued) 382 David Kirk, Secretary—Treasurer, representing Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ottawa. Alex Laidlaw, formerly St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, I T . S. Donald MacDonald, Secretaiy-Treasurer, representing Canadian Labour Congress, Ottawa. Mrs. Gladys Mussen, University (Columbia) researcher in broadcasting, Kingston. Mrs. A. F. W. Plumptre, representing Canadian Association of Consumers, Ottawa. Doctor John E. Robbins, Secretary, Humanities Research Counc il, Ottawa. Reverend Father St. Denis, O.M.I., Ottawa. Alan Simpson, Y. M. C. A., Ottawa. Graham Spry, former Chairman, Canadian Radio League, 1930- 3^, Regina, and London, England. Ralph Staples, President, representing Co-operative Union of Canada, Ottawa, and also representing Le Conseil Canadien de la Co-operation. Eldon Wilcox, Past President, and Vice-President, repre senting Council of Broadcasting Unions, Ottawa. E. L. R. Williamson, M.B.E., economist, honorary secretary, Canadian Broadcasting League, Ottawa. Major General F. F. Worthington, C.B., M.C., and Bar, M.M., company director, former G.O.C. ^-th Canadian Armoured Division, and Coordinator of Civil Defense, Ottawa. A. E. [sic 1 Weir, company director, organizer of the first radio historical dramas and one of the organizers of the Dominion and Trans-Canada networks. aFiles of the Canadian Broadcasting League: Office of the Chairman, Ottawa Executive, Canadian Broadcasting League, 111 Sparks St., Ottawa, Canada. 383 TABLE XXIII MEMBERS OP THE BROADCASTING LEAGUE WHO WERE UNABLE TO BE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTERa Mrs. Nancy Adams, Honorary and Past President, Federated Women's Institutes of Canada, Ethelton, Saskatchewan. G. C. Andrew, faculty group, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Mrs. C. T. Armstrong, President, Farm Women's Union of Alberta, Edmonton. Dr. E. A. Corbett, Canadian Association for Adult Educa tion, Toronto. Professor R. Daniels, faculty group, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Merrill Denison, industrial historian, dramatist, Montreal. Mrs. H. M. Detwiler, Past President and Chairman, National Brief Committee, Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire. Rev. Dr. W. S. Gallagher, General Secretary, Canadian Council of Churches. Alf. Cleave, President, Saskatchewan Farmers Union, Saskatoon. Professor A. R. M. Lower, Queen's University, Kingston. Professor W. L. Morton, faculty group, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. A. W. Platt, President, Farmer's Union of Alberta, Edmonton. 3 S U I TABLE XXIII (continued) Mrs. Keith Rand, President, Federated Women's Institutes of Canada, Port Williams, N. S. Professor E. Safarian, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. H. G, H. Smith, Q.C., barrister, Winnipeg. J. W. Wesson, C.B.E., President, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. aFiles of the Canadian Broadcasting League: Office of the Chairman, Ottawa Executive, Canadian Broadcasting League, 111 Sparks St., Ottawa, Canada. 385 expression to our national character; it can give voice to our distinctive Canadian spirit. It can help us tOpknow ourselves and to achieve our real destiny. He stated that the delegation, which was composed of members from all parts of Canada, endorsed a single system of Canadian broadcasting, supported the further development of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and appealed for sufficient revenues to enable the Corporation to distribute 313 live Canadian programs nationally. Graham Spry also made a statement. The Broadcasting League was profoundly concerned with broadcasting as an instrument of national unity. . . . The princi ples accepted by political parties, the country and the organizations in the Broadcasting League ares one single system of public and private broadcasting, a new Board responsible to Parlia ment for the control of all broadcasting, and the CBC continued and supported in part by federal appropriations, as the vital, central instrument of Canadian programming and national networks English and French. No large disagreement to these principles has emerged. Where then are the disagreements? There are two. First there is the complaint that the CBC is a competitor acting also as a judge and prosecutor. This complaint can be quickly ended by an administrative change only which separates regulation from the CBC and confers it exclusively upon a new Board. The second disagreement is with the private sta tions’ proposal of a small, five-man board of 3^Ibid., Statement by Professor Donald G. Creighton. July 18, 19557 -^^Ibid. 386 permanent officials not responsible to Parliament. We flatly reject such a Board for these reasons: First, from the Government’s own point of view such a Board would mean to the public direct operation by the Government. Thus, every criti cism, every controversy would be directed against the Government either by the public or by the opposition. Canada experimented from 1932-1936 with a not dissimilar Commission of three members. It was vigorously accused by the Opposition of being the political instrument of the party in power. Second, nothing in the operation of the American FCC should recommend such a comparable broadcasting authority here either to the Govern ment or to the private stations. Finally, we reject this proposal of CARTB [Canadian Associa tion of Radio and Television Broadcasters] because their particular form of Board would have the power to weaken CBC network broadcasting and indeed decide without reference to Parliament whether or not the national service as we know it should continue.31^ With the exception of "adequate long-term finance for the CBC," the new Broadcasting Act which was assented to by Parliament on September 6, 1958, contained the safe- •515 guards which the Broadcasting League advocated. The League continued to maintain a shadowy existence for several years, at various times submitting statements to the CBC and to the Board of Broadcast Governors. 3^-^Ibid., Statement by Graham Spry, July 18, 1958. ^Canada, 7 Elizabeth II, Chapter 22. 3l6piies 0f -the Canadian Broadcasting League, op. cit.; "Statement of the Canadian Broadcasting League to the Board of Directors of the CBC," June 2M-, 1959; also "Brief of the Canadian Broadcasting League to the Board of Broadcast Governors on the proposed Television Regulations and Second Television Stations," November 2, 1959* 387 Several other Briefs were prepared but were never sub- 317 mitted. In the several years following the enactment of the new Broadcasting Act, the ever-growing complexity of Canadian broadcasting forced the executive officers of the Broadcasting League and its chairman, David Kirk, to adopt 3l8 new measures. The executive committee admitted in early 1962 that the present loose form of organization of the League and an almost total absence of financial resources make it impossible for the League to undertake either to: a) Effectively keep itself informed, and act in connection with the many developments and issues of policy that arise from time to time, or b) Maintain the organization in sufficiently active form so that it could confidently feel it had a continuing mandate to speak for all, or even most, of the original League asso ciates .819 Consequently a one-day national meeting was arranged for March 3> 1962, "to provide for the reorganization and establishment on a more effective and permanent basis of 3 Ibid.; "Submission to the Board of Broadcast Governors on Conditions and Regulations respecting a pri vate television Network," August 8, i9 6 0; also "Brief pre pared by the Canadian Broadcasting League for submission to the Parliamentary Committee of 1959." 318Ibid., Announcement from the Canadian Broadcast ing League, January, 1962. 319lbid. 388 320 the Canadian Broadcasting League." The invitation was issued over the signature of David Kirk, Chairman of the Ottawa Executive of the Canadian Broadcasting League; co-sponsors of the meeting were the Canadian Association of Consumers, the Federated Women’s Institutes of Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Co-operative Union of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Asso ciation of Radio and Television Employees of Canada, r»21 Graham Spry, and Father St. Denis.At the meeting a provisional executive of the League was elected; a draft constitution, after discussion and amendment, was adopted; and a research report on "present issues and problems in broadcasting with special reference to television" was • < * 322 commissioned. A meeting of the provisional executive was held in Ottawa on August 20, 1962, to discuss the preliminary find- 323 ings of the research report. Albert A. Shea of CORE Research, Montreal, submitted a final draft of the Report 320 J Ibid., "An Invitation to Canadian National Asso ciations and Interested Individuals," 1962. 321Ibid. 322Ibid.. "Minutes of Meeting of Canadian Broadcast ing LeagueQueens'3 Hotel, Montreal, March 3» 1962. 323Ibid., "Notice of Meeting," August 16, 1962. 389 to the executive committee in the fall of 1 9 6 2.32lf Subse quently a meeting was held to elaborate a "Statement of Principles and Policy" which would then be submitted to all 325 member organizations for approval. Before this could be accomplished, the Grey Cup controversy broke out.328 The Board of Broadcast Governors ordered the CBC to broadcast the Grey Cup game "which was contracted for by the CTV [private commercial network] on an exclusive basis, and to require that advertising for this broadcast also be 327 carried by the CBC." The League took advantage of the occasion to issue a statement to the press on November 1*+, 1962.328 After stating that the order of the Board of Broad cast Governors was "wrong in principle and illustrates the undesirable uncertainty about the position of the CBC which has arisen," the release presented a major policy statement 329 of the League. 7 The League advocated "a mixed public- private system but with all national networks in either 32lfIbid., "Basic Issues in Broadcasting," A Report prepared for the Canadian Broadcasting League by Albert A. Shea, CORE Research, Montreal. 32^Ibid., "A Statement of Principles and Policy," November 6, 19&2. 32^Ibid., "Press Release of the Canadian Broadcast ing League," November l*f, 1 9 6 2. 327Ibid. 328Ibid. 329Ibid. 390 language operated by public authority, and the public interest in case of controversy overriding the commercial interest. "33^ Public funds for the CBC should be provided by statute so as to ensure greater independence for the Corporation; a standing Committee on broadcasting should be formed in Parliament; financial difficulties on the part of private broadcasters should not be accepted "as an excuse for failure to meet broadcasting responsibilities"; and finally, if two television stations of the same language were to be established in one locality, one of those sta- 331 tions should be operated by the CBC. As 1962 drew to an end the Canadian Broadcasting League was stronger and better organized than at any time since its establishment. It had a constitution, an active executive committee, the support of twenty-one national and provincial organizations, the results of a study on "present issues and problems in broadcasting," and a State ment of Principles and Policy which required ratification by organizations and individuals of which the League was the "clearing house." It remained to be seen whether the League would be able to exert substantial influence upon the future of Canadian broadcasting policy. 33°Ibid. 33lIbid. IX. SUMMARY 391 The Government accepted the major recommendations of the parliamentary committee of 1932 and the Broadcasting Act became law on May 26, 1932. The Act contained so many restrictive clauses that the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission was merely one among many departments of govern ment . Prime Minister Bennett soon realized that the Act was unsat isfactoiy. He requested Gladstone Murray of the British Broadcasting Corporation to come to Canada and "put the Commission on its feet." After visiting all parts of Canada in the spring of 1933> Murray submitted a report on the policy and procedures of the Commission. As a result Bennett himself drafted an amending Act which placed only clerks and minor employees of the Commission under the provisions of the Civil Service Act and permitted the Governor in Council "to authorize the Commission to build and acquire [and especially to lease] stations." A Special Committee on the Operations of the Canadian Radio Commission was appointed by the Government in 1931 *. One of its members requested information on the Canadian Radio League "and the part it played in bringing about the nationalization of radio in Canada." Although the League was inactive since 1932, Plaunt decided to prepare a short memorandum for the Committee, listing the 392 proposals of the League in 1932 and providing the names of its supporters. In addition he included one paragraph which stated that the fundamental defect of the Commission was that it was charged both with the formulation and the execution of policy. The Government took no action upon the report of the Committee. Financial and administrative difficulties con tinued to plague the Commission. Believing that radio reorganization was inevitable, Plaunt maintained that it should be accomplished through parliamentary debate rather than through a revival of the Radio League. Vincent Massey, one of Mackenzie King’s closest advisers, agreed. At the suggestion of Massey Plaunt prepared "confidential memoranda criticizing the set-up and the results that have followed, and outlining in some detail the principles and methods which should be adopted." He maintained that in any reorganization five main goals should be achieved: (1) a new constitution, similar to that of the British Broadcasting Corporation, was required; (2) the proposed corporation should report to Parliament through a committee of the Privy Council; (3) the best available executive should be hired as general manager; (^) the nucleus of a high powered chain should be established as soon as possible by means of a subsidy or loan from the Government; and (5) all revenues of the 393 corporation should be paid directly to the corporation and not into the "Consolidated Revenue Fund as at present." W. D. Euler and the Liberals launched their attack in Parliament on the Radio Commission on April 16, 1935» using the material which Plaunt supplied in his memorandum. Gladstone Murray also received a copy of the memo randum. After expressing agreement with the plan, he sug gested that the role of the provinces in any reorganiza tion scheme should be carefully considered. After a lapse of several months Plaunt once more communicated with Massey on radio reorganization. He volunteered to submit after the election detailed plans which would include a technical scheme, financial details of the scheme, a suggested slate of officers for the cor poration, and a draft outline of the legislation which would be required. The Liberals under the leadership of Mackenzie King defeated the Government of R. B. Bennett in the national election of October, 1935. Massey arranged for the Hon. C. D. Howe to invite Plaunt to Ottawa for a discussion on radio reorganization. The meetings took place on December 27 and 29j 1935. Plaunt presented his memorandum, which was prepared in collaboration with Brooke Claxton. Howe was "exceedingly pleased" with the memorandum. He maintained that radio reorganization would be based on 39*+ Plaunt13 material. He offered Plaunt a place in the Board of Governors, requested him to have Brooke Claxton prepare a draft Act, and declared that Gladstone Murray should be the general manager of the new corporation. Meanwhile two American radio networks began to seek a Canadian broadcasting franchise. The National Broadcast ing Company was said to have communicated with Mackenzie King before the election "with some fantastic proposal to take over Canadian broadcasting for the NBC." The Columbia System, hearing of this maneuver^ sought to have Gladstone Murray use his influence to secure the concession for CBS. Nor were Canadian radio interests idle. They were promoting the candidacy of Harry Sedgewick as general manager and Arthur Slaght as chairman of the Commission or its successor. During the first week of January Howe met with delegations from the Bell Telephone System, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, the Canadian Press, and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Claxton completed the draft Act in the second week of January; he then revised it to incorporate several of Plaunt's suggestions. On Januaiy 20, 1936, he discussed the draft with C. P. Edwards, Director of Radio in the Department of Marine. While agreeing that most of the ideas in the draft Act would be incorporated in the final 395 legislation, Edwards stated that it was the intention of the Department to place all private stations in the con trol of the Minister. At this time Howe informed Plaunt that he wished tenure in the Board of Governors to he "at pleasure" and that a select parliamentary committee would be appointed to re-examine the situation and make recommen dations . Claxton was asked subsequently by Howe to criticize a departmental draft which was prepared by C. P. Edwards. In fulfilling the request Claxton once again had occasion to stress the principles which governed the preparation of his own draft Act. In preparation for the Parliamentary Committee, Plaunt wrote to five members of the League’s executive committee and to the newspapers. He presented a r^sumd of the current issues in broadcasting, requesting that they forward their views to him so that any representations to the Committee from the Radio League would be authentic. He wrote an article for Saturday Night in which he main tained that the principle of unified national control should be reaffirmed, that any reorganization of broadcast ing should attempt to improve the method of attaining this objective, that divided control would render the system unworkable, and that the Government and the country should be willing "to pay the cost if we wish to build a nation 396 east-to-west." He vas informed by Howe that the League's amendments to the departmental draft Act would be brought to the attention of the Committee when the Bill was dis cussed section by section. The parliamentary committee began hearings on March 2*f, 1936. After investigating the letting of con tracts for the rental of transmission wires, the arrange ments for political broadcasts in the election of 1935, and the sponsorship of news broadcasts, the Committee heard general submissions. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters in conjunc tion with the Canadian Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of Canadian Advertisers advocated that the Commission or its successor should produce and dis tribute programs, that its operational functions should be assigned to the new body which would neither own nor oper ate stations in Canada, that its regulatory functions should be transferred to the Department of Marine, that competition for advertising and audience between the new body and the commercial stations should be avoided, that the new Board should be composed of members who were "intimately interested in the problems of broadcasting," and that transmission lines should be subsidized by the Commission or its successor. The Canadian Radio League appeared before the 397 Committee on May 7, 1936. After reviewing its earlier recommendations and a list of its supporters in 1932, the League presented its proposals for radio reorganization. These proposals incorporated the "five main aspects of reorganization" which Plaunt submitted to Massey in February, 1935, along with the recommendations of Claxton and Murray. The Committee asked numerous questions con cerning the relationship of the proposed corporation to Parliament. Claxton maintained that Parliament would retain ultimate control over general policy but that the Board of Governors would be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the corporation. The final report of the Committee represented, in Claxton's view, a "ninety percent victory" for the League. It differed from Claxton's proposals in that the Minister of Marine remained the licensing authority. With the establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation practically assured, Plaunt intensified his campaign to have Gladstone Murray appointed its general manager. He wrote to Vincent Massey on Murray's behalf and met with prominent Liberals such as J. W. Dafoe and Paul Martin. Meanwhile a campaign of the commercial radio lobby was under way to have Reginald Brophy appointed general manager. A former sales manager for the Marconi Company in Montreal, he was at that time director of station rela tions of the National Broadcasting Company in New York. Because Howe and several members of the Cabinet appeared to favor Brophy, Plaunt and Claxton undertook to convince the Prime Minister and uncommitted members of the Cabinet that Murray was the best qualified man for the position. Plaunt submitted a short memorandum to the Prime Minister on June 29, 1936, in which he described the efforts of Canadian radio and associated interests "first to block the national radio project and now to neutralize the intent of the new legislation by influencing the key appointments." He also stated that unfavorable rumors concerning Murray were untrue. During the summer of 1936 the Prime Minister instructed the members of the Cabinet who were in Europe to interview Murray "with a view to dispelling any preju dices they might have about him." In conjunction with Murray's candidacy, Plaunt issued a news release on the activities of the commercial radio lobby which was promoting Brophy. He stated that "the spearhead of the Canadian lobby today, as in the past, are the relay stations of Columbia and N.B.C." He main tained that freedom of opinion in Canada was at stake and that responsible people "would entertain the most lively misgivings if someone were chosen whose whole association 399 hitherto had been with one branch or another of the domi nant commercial group of this continent." On September 10, 1936, Plaunt was informed by the Prime Minister of his appointment to the Board of Governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One other member of the Board was an active supporter of the Radio League and the Chairman was recommended for the Board by Plaunt. The new Broadcasting Act followed "practically word for word" the draft Bill which Claxton submitted to the Hon. C. D. Howe in January of 1936. At a preliminary meeting of the Board of Governors on September 26-27, 1936, Gladstone Murray and Augustin Prigon were nominated for the positions of general manager and assistant general manager. The recommendations were subsequently approved by the Governor in Council. On November 2, 1936, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation became a legal entity. After six years the essential ele ments of the league's program were finally incorporated in legislation. No attempt was made to keep the League in existence; May 7, 1936, marked its last appearance on the Canadian scene. Eighteen years later, in 1951 *, E. A. Corbett attempted to found another league, one similar to the old Radio League. He believed it was needed to counterbalance the propaganda of the commercial broadcasting lobby. Eor IfOO a number of years commercial interests urged the creation of a new regulatory Board and the acceptance of the prin ciple that two distinct systems of broadcasting existed in Canada. The Canadian Radio and Television League, with Corbett as President, held several meetings, distributed a small bulletin, and submitted a brief to the Royal Com mission on Broadcasting. Unable to obtain adequate finan cial support, it was in existence approximately thirteen months. In 1958 Graham Spry, who retired from an active role in the old Radio League in 1932, believed the time had come to revive the Radio League. New broadcasting legislation was imminent which he thought might weaken or destroy the "public service" concept of broadcasting in Canada. With his impetus a new organization, the Canadian Broadcasting League, began to take shape. Its first major activity was a delegation to the Prime Minister on July 18, 1958. Professor Donald Creighton, leader of the delegation, stated that it was "almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of broadcasting in our Canadian national life." Spry also spoke and suggested that disagreement on the pro posed legislation narrowed to two points: the establish ment of a new regulatory Board and the powers which the Board should have. The delegation advocated a Board which >+01 would regulate both the CBC and the private stations as integral parts of one national system; it opposed the recommendations of the private broadcasters for a Board which would be independent of Parliament and modeled after the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. The Broadcasting League maintained a shadowy exist ence for several years. In 1962 David Kirk, Chairman of the Ottawa executive of the League, decided that the League should be established permanently. A one-day national meeting was held in Montreal on March 3, 1 9 6 2. A constitu tion was adopted at the meeting, a provisional executive was elected, and a research study was commissioned "on present issues and problems in broadcasting with special reference to television." The final draft of the research report was completed in the fall of 1962. On the basis of the Report the execu tive committee of the Broadcasting League prepared a "Statement of Principles and Policy" but before it could be ratified by member organizations the Grey Cup controversy began. In the midst of the controversy the League issued a statement to the press. The release maintained that the action of the Board of Broadcast Governors in ordering the CBC to broadcast the Grey Cup game was wrong in principle. The release also contained a major policy statement of the Leagu'er All national networks should be operated by public authority; public funds should be granted to the CBC by statute; a standing committee on broadcasting should be formed in Parliament; difficulties of private broadcasters should not be accepted as excuses for failure to meet responsibilities; and whenever two television stations were established in one locality, one of them should be a CBC station. As 1962 drew to an end the Canadian Broadcasting League was stronger and better organized than at any time since its inception. It remained to be seen whether the League would be able to exert substantial influence upon the future of Canadian broadcasting policy. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY I. SUMMARY As a help to the reader and for easy reference the summary is divided into sections which are introduced by paragraph subheadings. These subheadings correspond to the previous chapter titles. The Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, 1928- 1929. Broadcasting in Canada began as a commercial enter prise. During the decade after the first world war most stations were established in metropolitan areas; program ming consisted largely of American recordings; and commer cial announcements, many of which were in poor taste, were numerous. Stations in Montreal and Toronto affiliated with American radio networks. Interference from American and Mexican stations played havoc with Canadian receiving sets. The government received many complaints; but when an attempt was made to regulate broadcasting, charges were voiced that freedom of speech was being infringed. In 1928 the Minister of Marine refused to renew the license of the International Bible Students’ Association ^03 which operated four Canadian stations. A great uproar ensued hut the cancellation stood. The Minister of Marine convinced the members of the Cabinet that it was opportune to appoint a Royal Commission which would investigate radio conditions and make suitable recommendations. The Royal Commission was appointed on December 6, 1928, a time in Canadian history when the manifestations of the growth of national feeling were very pronounced. At the outset Commissioners Sir John Aird and Augustin Frigon favored a private enterprise system of broadcasting while Commissioner Charles A. Bowman believed that some type of public ownership was essential if Canada were to have a truly national broadcasting system. The three Commissioners visited broadcasting organi zations in America and Europe and held public sessions in twenty-five Canadian cities. After ten months of intensive investigation they submitted their report to the government on September 11, 1929. On the grounds of national policy, finance, and popular demand, the Report recommended the nationalization of all broadcasting in Canada and the establishment of one nationally owned and operated broad casting company. The Report was deliberately vague on the method of appointment to the Board of Directors and on the control of programs because of conflicting claims between the federal b05 and provincial governments; but the framers of the Report intended to "give the Dominion control in all but specifi cally [italics in the original] educational and provincial broadcasts." This was to be accomplished through a draft bill which was prepared under the direction of the Commis sioners. Reaction to the Report in the government, the press, and the public was with several notable exceptions favor able. Within weeks after the Report was made public the stock market collapsed, Funds which would have made possi ble the nationalization of broadcasting were no longer available. No action on the Report was initiated by the government. On July 30, 1930, the King Government was defeated at the polls and the Conservatives under the leadership of R. B. Bennett took office. Faced with the problems of the economic depression, the new government had little interest in radio. The Report of the Royal Commis sion [the Aird Commission], for the time being at least, was quietly forgotten. Canadian Radio League: organizational phase. In the fall of 1930, Graham Spry and Alan Plaunt decided to form a League which would enlist support for the adoption of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcast ing. The first objective of the League was to prevent any *+06 further issuing of licenses to private companies until the government adopted a policy on broadcasting. To that end Spry wrote to W. D. Herridge and to several other members of the Canadian delegation to the Imperial Conference in London, requesting that they interest Prime Minister Bennett in the condition of Canadian radio. In the week of October 27, 1930, Bennett cabled from London that "under no circumstances were any licenses to be granted at the present time." The League scored its first success. Meanwhile Plaunt gained access to the files of the Aird Commission and to the personal files of C. A. Bowman. He studied the arguments which were presented to the Com mission during the public hearings and compiled a list of organizations and newspapers which were on record as favoring one nationally owned and operated broadcasting system. Then he began work on a promotional pamphlet which advocated that radio should be used as "a potent instrument of national culture, entertainment, and education." The lamentable condition of Canadian broadcasting and its almost total dependence upon American radio interests were described. After stating six reasons why broadcasting should be a Canadian national institution, the pamphlet presented a summary of the recommendations of the Commis sion's Report. It concluded with a list of organizations and newspapers which favored a national system of kO 7 broadcasting on a "public service" basis. Organization of the League proceeded rapidly. An "active" executive of younger people was formed almost immediately, its members being recruited from the Canadian Institute and the Canadian Club movement. The Hon. N. W. Rowell, a personal friend of Plaunt, was active in recruit ing prominent Canadians in all sections of the country to serve as honorary members of the National Council of the League. Regional committees were established in French Canada, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, and Halifax. The Southam press, the Sifton press, and the Maclean Publishing Company rallied behind the League’s pro gram almost immediately. Spry and Plaunt believed that the reactions of these publishing groups "were primarily those of public spirited citizens willing to approve a good cause." At the same time it was admitted that the news papers were well aware that a government-owned company which would broadcast indirect advertising would be far more advantageous to the press than a private system in which competition for advertising dollars would be unrestricted. Before the existence of the League was announced, Spry and Plaunt modified their original position. Although they still favored the implementation of the recommenda tions in the Aird Report, they reserved the right to make 1*08 proposals at a later date concerning the appointment of personnel, the financing of the new company, and the role of local broadcasting stations in a national system. They planned a program which would continue for three months, culminating just before the opening of Parliament in a national campaign in the newspapers, on the radio, and through every other available means to show that "public opinion was overwhelmingly behind the principle of the Aird Report." The existence of the League was announced on December 8, 1930. In a press release the League stressed that broadcasting was unsatisfactory because it was operated primarily as a business. Because radio depended on advertising revenue, numerous stations of small power served the larger cities while few stations served the vast rural areas of the country. By contrast American stations were able to broadcast throughout the Dominion. Because of a lack of advertising revenue, Canadian stations broadcast few quality programs and tended to affiliate with American radio networks. Because of limited financial resources Canadian stations were not in a position to allow adequate time for broadcasting to educational authorities. Finally, Canadian public opinion was being influenced daily by American ideas and was at the mercy of American radio networks. If the government adopted the recommendations of i f 09 the Aird Report, all Canadians would be able to hear Canadian programming. Rational orchestras^.choirs, and dramatic groups would become a reality as they had through the national broadcasting systems of other countries. Educational programs would be assured and an exchange of the better Canadian programs with those of other nations could be inaugurated. The League proposed that radio should be used "primarily as an instrument for the culti vation of public opinion, of education, and of entertain ment." The news release concluded with the statement that twenty national organizations, forty-two newspapers, and forty-five prominent Canadians supported this program of the League. On December 9» 1930, copies of the news release were sent to the members of the Cabinet. They were informed that the League intended to promote discussion of radio in the market place and that at a later date the League weald send a delegation to the Prime Minister with specific pro posals on radio. The League begins operations. During December and January the League concentrated upon building a strong organization which would be truly national in scope. Regional groups were active in securing resolutions in favor of a nationally owned and operated broadcasting sys tem; news stories on the condition of radio and on the *tlO League's program were issued to the press every other day; a new booklet was prepared by Plaunt which stressed the need in Canada for a national system of broadcasting and the impossibility of obtaining such a system as long as radio remained in commercial hands. A French edition of the booklet was published in January. Eighty-four promi nent Canadians, forty-eight newspapers, and nineteen organizations, many of them national, endorsed the League’s program during this period. Opposition to the League soon appeared. The Canadian Pacific Railway and Station CKAC, Montreal, which opposed government ownership and operation of broadcasting in submissions to the Royal Commission, began acting against the Radio League. They were joined by the Toronto Telegram and Station CKGW, the Gooderham and Worts station which broadcast in the Toronto area. These groups lobbied members of Parliament and published or broadcast serious misrepresentations concerning the objectives and the pro gram of the League. E. W. Beatty, President of the Canadian Pacific Railway, attempted without success to have members of the League withdraw their support from the League. Meanwhile Spry arranged to bring the League's pro gram to the attention of Canadian educators through an article which appeared in the Winter number of the Queen's Ifll Quarterly, In the article Spiy denied that broadcasting was primarily a business; it was rather "primarily an instrument of education in its widest significance, ranging from play to learning, from recreation to the cultivation of public opinion," It was also "by nature a partial or complete monopoly," Hence it was irrelevant to argue for or against public ownership from a fixed position of doc trine , In Spry's opinion private enterprise failed to pro vide a regular service for the whole Canadian people, failed to provide a variety of programs, filled the air with advertising matter, and stultified the educational uses of broadcasting. After denying that conditions in Canada could be compared legitimately with those in the United States, he maintained that the government could allow the unsatisfactory stalemate to continue, could establish a private broadcasting monopoly, or could create an independent company with the powers of a private cor poration and the functions of a public utility. Of these three possibilities only the third guaranteed that "this most potent instrument for the forming of public opinion would not pass out of Canadian control." The article then offered concrete proposals for the creation of the new company and its directorate, for the manner in which it would be related to Parliament and to the directors of *fl2 education in each of the provinces, and for the financing of the company. As the publicity campaigns of the League began to have effect and discussion of radio became widespread, the editors of Saturday Night (Toronto) decided to feature a "debate" on broadcasting in the issue of January 2*+, 1931* R. W. Ashcroft, General Manager of the Trans-Canada Broad casting Company, presented the arguments against nationali zation. After stating that the British Broadcasting Cor poration was a lamentable failure, he maintained that nationalization in Canada was neither desirable nor feasi ble. In addition to capital expenditures of approximately $10,000,000, a yearly subsidy from the government of $15,000,000 would be required. Because the necessary talent was not available in Canada, most of this sum would be spent in importing talent from other countries. The strongest argument against nationalization was that it would open the way for the broadcast of political propa ganda in the interests of the party in power. After stat ing that there were twice as many stations in Canada as there should be, he suggested that two national systems should be established which would be operated by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway respectively. Spry presented the arguments for nationalization. At the cost of one cent a day to each person Canadians could establish a well-ordered national broadcasting sys tem, could eliminate direct advertising, could retain con trol of broadcasting in Canadian hands, and could provide two of five Canadians with their first regular Canadian programs. He then described the program and the policies of the Radio League. After denying the "pathetically exaggerated" statements of the League’s opponents, he con trasted one week of programming in the United States with one week in Britain. In his opinion British broadcasting without advertising was far superior in "programme variety, balance, and choice"to broadcasting with advertising. He argued that radio in the private enterprise system could not provide good Canadian programs consistently because of the lack of advertising revenue. In a national broadcast ing system which was financed by the revenue from license fees Canadian programs would be the regular fare. Luring the month of January the League carried on an intensive lobby in the Government and in Parliament. On January 2, 1931j all English-speaking members of Parlia ment received a letter which stated that Canadian broad casting was manifestly "unsatisfactory and menacing." The defects of broadcasting as private enterprise were then enumerated and the program of the Radio League was outlined in detail. The letter listed the individuals, orgaiizations, klk and newspapers which endorsed the League's program. One week later the Minister of Marine received a delegation from the League. The purpose of the delegation was to obtain publicity for the League and its objectives and to convince the government of widespread public support for broadcasting legislation in the next session of Parlia ment. The first objective was achieved immediately and the second after an interval of several weeks when the Prime Minister announced his intention of introducing radio legislation. On January 13, 1931» letters were sent to the mem bers of the Cabinet, stating that the establishment of a national broadcasting company by the Government was sup ported by fifty leading newspapers, leaders of women's organizations, national associations, labor and farm organ izations, twelve university presidents and other educa tional leaders, the leaders of the Anglican, Catholic, and United Churches, and prominent Canadian businessmen. The Prime Minister announced on January 22 that he would introduce radio legislation in the next session of Parliament. On the same day the Premier of Quebec declared that he would challenge federal jurisdiction of radio in the courts. Despite this setback the League planned to launch its major campaign in the first weeks of February. In a progress report to all members of the National Council hi 5 Plaunt stated that the League could reasonably claim to have made the question of broadcasting policy of such importance that immediate action became inevitable; to have excluded the present system from consideration and to have made tolerably certain that many of the League's contentions be accepted. Whatever Bill is brought down at the coming session of Parliament, it is likely to include provision for the elimination of direct advertising; for a greater measure of public control; for improved facilities for Canadian programmes. The League marks time. In anticipation of its projected major campaign before the opening of Parliament, the League held a second meeting in Ottawa on February 5, 1931* Reports of successful regional campaigns throughout Canada were read and a budget of $2200 was approved for the period of December, 1930 - May, 1931. Having financed the League temporarily Plaunt now received authorization to seek donations from members of the League. A report of the meeting was sent to the Minister of Marine with the information that three additional national organizations, one provincial organization, and nine newspapers recently endorsed the League's program. An unsuccessful attempt was made by opponents of the League during February to have members withdraw from the League. They received letters from R. W. Ashcroft in which he questioned whether they were "actually in favor of a government owned and operated system as public opinion seemed overwhelmingly opposed to it." Several members 1+16 became indecisive for a short period; after the Hon. N. W. Rowell intervened on behalf of the League, they remained in the National Council. Representatives of the American radio group were also active during this period, making claims concerning the overwhelming superiority of the American system over the British. A third source of opposition was the Canadian Pacific Railway which in conjunction with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters was fighting the nationaliza tion of broadcasting through newspapers and through radio papers which were distributed throughout Canada. Attempts were made to have Spry discharged as Secretary of the Canadian Clubs; "all sorts of most absurd motives" were imputed to him in some eastern newspapers. On February 20, 1931» the Government announced that questions concerning radio had been submitted to the Supreme Court for interpretation and decision. Uncertain as to what course it should pursue because of the legal complications, the League decided to continue its publicity campaigns until the jurisdictional dispute was settled. The League’s pamphlet was revised a second time to include a new list of League supporters. The forces of the opposition returned to the attack in March when an article by John Murray Gibbon, General Publicity Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, was i f 17 published in Canadian Forum. Gibbon maintained that the British system was far from successful and that the recom mendations of the Aird Report and of the Radio League were impractical. Huge subsidies for talent would be required if broadcasting were nationalized. He insisted that more and better programming was becoming available from coast to coast; for further improvement a realignment of wave lengths and stations was required. He endorsed the Ashcroft proposal for two national networks, one privately owned which would accept direct advertising, the other government owned which would have an audience approximately one tenth the size of the commercial network and would require a subsidy from the government. Spry received the galley proofs of the article before it was published. Immediately he prepared lengthy memoranda in which he showed that the attack on the BBC was unwarranted and untrue, that the Radio League was neither impractical nor highbrow, and that competition in radio stations would result in duplication of costs without pro viding the required national service. Friendly newspapers received copies of the memoranda; no sooner did Gibbon's article appear than it was "ridiculed and killed in edi torial columns from Halifax to Vancouver." The BBC received a copy of the article almost immediately; what threatened to become an international incident was averted blQ when the explanation was offered that Gibbon wrote the article in his capacity as Past President of the Canadian Authors' Association and not as an official of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The incident was used by the League to counteract much of the unfavorable publicity which the BBC was receiving in some Canadian newspapers. Spry rebutted the article in the April issue of Canadian Forum. He stated that the issue before the govern ment and the Canadian people was whether radio should be subordinated to advertising purposes or whether it should be developed to serve the broadest Canadian purposes. The proposals of the Radio League for a national system were then compared with the only other proposal before the Canadian people, that of a dual railway system. Spry main tained that the dual railway system in which the profits would go to the Canadian Pacific Railway while the taxpayer would be forced to pay for the public system would receive the approval of neither the Canadian National Railways nor the Canadian people. Although support in the press continued to grow Spiy and Plaunt were disappointed because discussion of the League's objectives was not "nearly so aggressive as we expected, from either point of view." Spry attended the convention of the Daily Newspaper Association in April, 1931. He distributed a pamphlet which contained statements 1+19 purporting that radio advertising was a menace to the news papers and cited statistics to demonstrate that radio advertising was encroaching upon newspaper advertising revenue. Several members of the League voiced objections to the pamphlet; Spry himself had misgivings; but a quick ening of interest in radio generally and in the League's dispatches was noticeable almost immediately. As the date of the hearings on radio jurisdiction approached, the League made arrangements to be represented. Spry and Claxton prepared the factum which argued that broadcasting was inevitably inter-provincial and inter national and that it required action for the whole country by the Federal Government because it was "the most powerful instrument ever devised for the development of public opinion and public taste." The presentation of the argu ments by Glaxton was described as "most impressive and use ful." The judgement of the Supreme Court favored the Dominion Government. Quebec appealed the decision to the Privy Council. Again the League planned to be represented in an attempt "to get the Privy Council to take a broader view of the general provisions of the B. N. A. Act . . . [and thus] to weaken the aggression of the provinces." Approximately $800 was raised to send Claxton to London where in December the Privy Council heard the appeal. The *f20 League was informed on excellent authority that Claxton's presentation "turned the scales" in favor of the Dominion. Spry read a paper in the Institute for Education by Radio in Columbus, Ohio, on June 18, 1931. He developed the points of his lecture from his earlier writings on radio. After describing radio broadcasting as private enterprise and the recommendations of the Aird Report, he explained the fear in Canada of American domination through radio. He maintained that the central problem between the League and its opponents was that of free public opinion. As long as the air remained the prerogative of commercial interests and subject to commercial control, no real respon sibility to the public will was possible. With the arrival of autumn the League found itself with a completed organization and nothing to do with it. Some members believed that the League should await the return of prosperity before continuing with its program. The League learned that the Canadian Pacific Railway was convinced that the government intended to establish a pri vate monopoly and that the future of broadcasting in Canada would be largely in the hands of that railway. In the last weeks of December, 1931, Spry began to think that a compromise proposal might be necessary because of economic conditions. He presented a submission on behalf of the Radio League to the Royal Commission on U-21 Railways and Transportation on January 1^, 1932. Stating that the League sought reform in broadcasting rather than any particular method of reform, he proposed that the two railway companies should amalgamate their broadcasting departments to form one new company. This company would then create a program building organization to assist spon sors of indirect advertising programs. It could sell time to the government company or it could be an integral part of the combined governmental and private company. Toward the end of January, 1932, rumors circulated that a judgement by the Privy Council was imminent. Spry and Plaunt reactivated the League and planned a delegation to the Minister of Marine. The League and the Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting. A meeting of the League was held in Ottawa on January 29» 1932, in which a financial statement for the period of December 1930-January 1932 was read. The League received $226* + of which $2192.91 was used for expenses. Arrangements were made for the delegation to the Minister of Marine. In a press release after the meeting the League maintained that insufficient advertising revenue had reduced the number of coast to coast programs to less than one half that of the previous season, that very few sta tions operated profitably, that stations could find few sponsors, and that stations could not afford to broadcast U-22 sustaining programs. A nationally owned and operated com pany was desired by almost every commercially disinterested organization in the country; concerted opposition to the proposal was coming only from the Canadian Pacific Railway, radio manufacturing interests, and private station owners. In addition to advertising two methods could be employed to finance broadcasting: a governmental subsidy or a listeners' license fee of $3 annually. Because of the economic depression a subsidy should not be considered. The release drew attention to the activities of the National Broadcasting Company in Alberta; the League opposed the entiy of NBC into additional Canadian communi ties until broadcasting policy was determined by the govern ment . A delegation from the League met with the Minister of Marine on February 2, 1932, and was assured that the Government would take action as soon as the Privy Council rendered judgement on the jurisdictional question. A decision favoring the Federal Government was announced one week later; Prime Minister Bennett informed the House of Commons that a Parliamentary Committee on Radio would be formed to study broadcasting. He echoed the earlier state ments of the Radio League when he declared that radio, properly employed, could "be made a most effective instru ment in nation building with an educational value difficult to estimate." At the first formal meeting of the Committee on March 11, 1932, Commander C. P. Edwards presented a report on Canadian broadcasting which confirmed much of what the League had been stating. Of sixty-six stations one was of 10,000-watt power, five were of 5,000-watt power, and the remaining sixty were of much lower power. The average broadcasting day of fifty-six stations was six hours fif teen minutes. Pour of the most powerful stations were affiliated with American radio networks. To replace every station in Canada the Department of Marine estimated that $1,800,000 would be required. The Province of Ontario had approximately half the total number of receiving set licenses in the Dominion. Pour hundred applications for new stations were on file with the Department. Spry made two formal appearances before the Com mittee on behalf of the Radio League. In his first testi mony he argued that unless Canada had a definite broadcast ing policy, her demands would receive little consideration at the Madrid Conference on wave lengths which would be convened in the fall of 1932. It was imperative that a definite long terra broadcasting policy be enacted at the present session of Parliament; the policy should be the public ownership and operation of all stations. In reply to questions concerning the membership and financing of the League, Spry stated that the League was "in effect the b2b agency of all federations and organizations which are sup porting the improvement and public ownership of Canadian broadcasting." Supporters of the League received detailed statements of policy from the League's headquarters and then endorsed the program of the League. The League offered to import an expert from Britain and one from the United States at no expense to the Government; the offer was accepted. The forces of the opposition were especially active during this period. Stations CKAC (Montreal), CPRB (Toronto), CKCO (Ottawa) and others broadcast statements that a "government system would cost Si5)000,000 a year and would require a license fee of $30 to finance" and that "under a government system no Canadian would be able to hear American programs." Montreal La Presse conducted a spirited campaign; the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and the Canadian mem bers of the RCA group launched strong offensives against the proposed national system. Suddenly a new group appeared, calling itself the Ontario Radio League. It had all the earmarks of an organization which was planned one year previously as a counterbalance to the Canadian Radio League. Large quantities of letters and telegrams were sent from this group to the Parliamentary Committee, all of them opposing a nationally owned and operated system. Spry V25 and Plaunt believed that a strong "popular" counteroffen sive was essential to offset the bad effects of this cam paign. Spry in the west and Plaunt in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes organized an expression of support which was "simply magnificent." Gladstone Murray, the League's expert witness from Britain, outlined the policies and operations of the BBC for the Parliamentary Committee. Dr. Joy E. Morgan of the National Committee of Education by Radio in the United States presented a factual account of broadcasting in America, stressing the power of the RCA group and the manner in which it threatened freedom of opinion. As the Committee’s hearings wore on three distinct positions on broadcasting emerged. Commercial radio inter ests presented the arguments for the continuation of the status quo. They advocated private ownership, government regulation through the establishment of some type of com mission, the continuation of direct advertising, and federal subsidies. The Canadian Pacific Railway and Ashcroft's organization favored a private monopoly. Many of their proposals were similar to those of the first group, advocating in addition the abolition of all low- powered stations and a limitation upon the number of high- powered stations. The third group comprised mostly commer cially disinterested organizations and individuals which 1+26 were represented by the Canadian Radio League's advocacy of a public monopoly. In his second appearance before the Committee Spry effectively answered the insinuations concerning "the existence and reality of the League." Each member of the Committee received a memorandum which documented the sup port of the League from coast to coast. Spry maintained that eveiy organization which appeared before the Committee in opposition to a nationally owned system was interested commercially. After discussing the various proposals, Spry presented a summary of the League's position: Because of the power of the American power group, because of the failure of private enterprise, because of the inadequate advertising revenue available for Canadian radio broadcasting, because no scheme of broadcasting upon a national scale had been proposed that does not require a subsidy either direct or from the listener, because the fullest use of musical talent and educational resources cannot be made under commercial guid ance, and above all, because no agency so powerful as broadcasting should be owned and operated by irresponsible agencies, the Canadian Radio League advocates the public ownership of radio broadcast ing stations. The attainment of this objective might take from three to seven years; the program could proceed in three stages. The proposals of the Radio League were then sub mitted to the Committee. For the first time the League offered definitions of "direct" and "indirect" advertising which were similar to those proposed by many of the commer cial groups. Also for the first time the League offered a b27 concrete proposal for the development of a French Canadian network which would he brought about by joining low-powered stations at specified times to the national system. Spry voiced the objections of the League to a commission on the grounds that the role of such a body would be primarily negative and that the establishment of a commission would not solve the fundamental problem of financing broadcasting in Canada. The unanimous report of the Committee was presented to the House of Commons on May 9> 1932. It may be argued that the report represented an attempt of the Committee to reach a compromise between the position of the commercial interests and that of the Radio League. It recommended that a commission rather than the public corporation which the League advocated should be established to regulate and control all broadcasting. Having thus attempted to placate the commercial interests, the Committee then incorporated the remaining proposals of the League in its report. The report established the principle of national ownership of broadcasting in Canada and provided the scaffolding for one national system in which commercial station^ would play a necessary but complementary and local role. After the report received the approval of the House of Commons on May 11, 1932, the establishment of a national system seemed assured. Spry obtained information that * f 28 delaying tactics would be employed to prevent the enactment of a Broadcasting Act. He telegraphed this information to newspapers and to prominent members of the League, request ing that they initiate a stream of telegrams to the Prime Minister which would demand immediate action upon the Com mittee’s report. He made one more attempt to prevent the establishment of a commission. He wrote a letter to the Hon. W. D. Herridge, brother-in-law of the Prime Minister and the intermediary between the League and the Government, in which he listed seven reasons why a public company would be preferable to a commission. Intermittent activity of the League: 1932-1936. The Government accepted the major recommendations of the Committee and enacted the Broadcasting Act on May 26, 1932. The commercial lobby believed that the plan would be still born because "the revisions and checks" which it devised in party caucusses would "render it unworkable." These revisions guaranteed that the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission would operate as a department of government. With the passage of the Act the services of the Radio League were no longer needed. Plaunt prepared a final financial statement which showed income of $5529.71 and expenditures of $5*+ 53.71 during the period of December, 1930-May, 1932. Financial and administrative difficulties plagued the Commission although the Prime Minister personally drafted an amending Act which gave to the Commission more latitude than it had before in the hiring of personnel and in the leasing of stations. A Parliamentary Committee was named in 193^ to review the operations of the Commission. Questions were asked concerning the activities of the Radio League in 1932. Plaunt decided to prepare a resume of what the League advocated in 1932 because since that time the proposals of the League were much misrepresented. He used the occasion to state that the fundamental defect of the Commission was that it was charged both with the formula tion of policy and its execution. The final report of the Committee concurred in this view, recommending that a general manager be hired. The Government took no action upon the recommendations. Believing that reorganization of broadcasting was inevitable, Plaunt maintained that it should be achieved through parliamentary debate rather than through a revival of the Radio League. Vincent Massey, one of Mackenzie King’s closest advisers, agreed and undertook to interest the Liberal Party in the issues of radio. The Liberals launched their- attack on the Bennett Government in the House of Commons on April 16, 1935, using the material which Plaunt supplied. After a lapse of several months Plaunt once more *f3o communicated with Massey on reorganization of radio. He offered to submit a detailed plan for reorganization after the national elections which were pending. The Liberals were successful in the election; Massey arranged for the Hon. C. D. Howe to meet Plaunt in Ottawa so that they might discuss radio reorganization. Plaunt presented a memoran dum to Howe which he prepared in collaboration with Brooke Claxton. Pleased with the memorandum, Howe stated that it would provide the plan of reorganization. Plaunt was offered a place in the proposed Board of Governors, was requested to have Brooke Claxton prepare a draft Act, and was told that Gladstone Murray was the logical choice for the general managership of the corporation. Commercial interests were extremely active during this period. Two American radio networks endeavored to secure a broadcasting franchise in Canada while Canadian radio interests, after submitting proposals of their own to Howe, began promoting the candidacy of their own men for the positions of chairman and general manager of the Broad casting Commission or its successor. Claxton prepared a draft Act which was based on Plaunt's memorandum. Howe disagreed with several of its provisions. He intended to place all private stations in the control of the Minister rather than in that of the corporation. He did not favor the idea of an ultimate *+31 monopoly, believing that his plan would give the public company a near monopoly of broadcasting in Canada. He intended to lease twelve or fourteen stations and to rent transmission wires for approximately fourteen hours daily. He insisted that tenure in the Board of Governors should be "at pleasure." The Department of Marine at Howe's suggestion pre pared a draft Act which was submitted to Claxton for his comments. Claxton used the occasion to restate the prin ciples which had governed the preparation of his own Act. He maintained that Section 7 [of the departmental draft] raises the very fundamental question as to the main purposes and powers of the Corporation. The bill you have sent me puts the Corporation on an equal footing with any private person operating stations. Both are completely under the control of the Minister. It seems to me that this completely ignores the proposed aim of such a Corporation which is not only to broadcast a few programmes over a few stations but immediately to influence and con trol and ultimately operate and own all broad casting in Canada. Broadcasting is either a national monopoly and a national service, or it is not. Howe requested Claxton to revise the departmental draft and to forward it to him personally. In mid-February, 1936, Plaunt placed the "radio issue" before Prime Minister King during a personal inter view. He regretfully declined the position of private secretary to the Prime Minister because he believed that it was his duty to present the public point of view in the ^32 forthcoming hearings of a Parliamentary Committee on broad casting . Between 1932 and 1936 the Radio league was inactive; Plaunt, Claxton, and E. A. Corbett constituted a standing committee of the League. In preparation for the League's appearance before the new parliamentary committee, Plaunt enlarged the standing committee. He wrote to thirty promi nent members of the League, to important national organiza tions which were affiliated with the League, and to the newspapers. In addition he wrote an article for Saturday Night in which he reaffirmed the policies of the League, stating that any reorganization of broadcasting should be upon the principle of unified national control. As the hearings of the Parliamentary Committee began Howe informed Plaunt that the League's amendments to the draft Bill would be discussed section by section in the Committee. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters in conjunc tion with the Canadian Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of Canadian Advertisers advocated before the Committee that the broadcasting agency should produce and distribute programs, that the broadcasting agency should neither own nor operate stations, that the regulatory functions of the agency should be transferred to the Department of Marine, that competition between the ^33 Commission and the commercial stations for advertising revenue and for audience should he avoided, that transmis sion lines should he subsidized, and that the new Board should he composed of members who were "intimately inter ested in the problems of broadcasting." The proposals of the Radio League were substantially the same as those which were submitted to the Parliamentary Committee of 1932, advocating a completely different form of national broadcasting. The League recommended that the Board of Governors consist of nine members who would be chosen because of their public qualifications rather than for any technical knowledge of broadcasting, that a general manager should be appointed who would be responsible to the Board, that the Corporation should regulate all broadcast ing in Canada, that a national system should be established as quickly as possible, that the Corporation should be empowered to borrow money for the erection of high-powered stations, and that new wire contracts should be negotiated which would give the Corporation the "right to sublet to commercial sponsors and retain the revenue thus secured." In reply to numerous questions from the Committee concern ing the relationship of the Corporation to Parliament, Claxton maintained that Parliament would retain ultimate control of general policy and that the Board of Governors would be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Corporation. The main positions were the same as those of four years earlier except that the possibility of a private monopoly was eliminated. The establishment of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting -Commission was a compromise that simply postponed the decision of whether Canada was to have a national system of broadcasting which would be based upon the "public service" concept or one that would be based on a "business" concept. The Committee decided in favor of the "public ser vice" concept, incorporating 90 per cent of the League's recommendations in its final report. With the establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation practically assured, Plaunt intensified his campaign to have Gladstone Murray appointed its first general manager. Commercial interests with the blessing of Howe organized a powerful lobby to promote the cause of Reginald Brophy, director of station relations of the National Broadcasting Company in New York. After months of negotiations during which Plaunt communicated with the Prime Minister, Gladstone Murray was appointed General Manager of the Corporation. Plaunt and one other member of the Radio League were named to the Board of Governors on September 10, 1936; the Chairman of the Board was one of Plaunt's nominees for a b35 position in the Board. The new Broadcasting Act followed practically "word for word" the draft Bill which Claxton submitted to the Hon. C. D. Howe in January. On November 2, 1936, the Canadian Broadcasting Cor poration became a legal entity. Although the League initially envisioned a campaign of three months' duration, those three months lengthened to six years of intermittent campaigning for a national broadcasting system which would be owned and operated by the Government. The Radio League having achieved its goals no attempt was made to have it continue. May 7, 1936 marked its last formal appearance on the Canadian scene. Eighteen years later, in 195V, an attempt was made to revive the old League in the name of the Canadian Radio and Television League. E. A. Corbett, a charter member of the old League, was convinced that some commercially dis interested organization was needed to counterbalance the propaganda of the commercial broadcasting lobby and to defend the concept of a single national system of broad casting. The new League held several meetings, distributed a small pamphlet, and submitted a brief to the Royal Com mission on Broadcasting. Unable to obtain adequate finan cial support, it remained active approximately thirteen months. In 1958, Graham Spry, who retired from an active *+36 role in the Canadian Radio League in 1932, believed that a new League of disinterested citizens was needed because broadcasting legislation was imminent which he feared might destroy the "public service" concept of broadcasting in Canada. With his impetus a new organization, the Canadian Broadcasting League, began to take shape. Prime Minister Diefenbaker met with a delegation of the League on July 18, 1958. The League emphasized the importance of broadcasting to Canadian national life. It advocated the creation of a new regulatory board but opposed the recommendations of the private broadcasters for a Board which would be independent of Parliament and modeled after the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. With the exception of adequate long-term finance for the CBC, the new Broadcasting Act contained the safeguards which the Broadcasting League advocated. For several years the League maintained a shadowy existence until in 1962, David Kirk, Chairman of the Ottawa Executive, set plans in motion to have it established per manently. A one-day national meeting was held in Montreal on March 3» 1962, in which a constitution was adopted, a provisional executive elected, and a research project com missioned. The research report was completed in the fall of 1962; a "Statement of Principles and Policy" was based upon the findings of the report. On November 1*+, 1962, the *+37 League issued a statement to the press. It advocated a "mixed public-private system but with all national networks in either language operated by public authority"; public funds for the CBC should be provided by statute; a standing committee on broadcasting should be formed in Parliament; financial difficulties of private broadcasters should not be accepted as "an excuse for failure to meet broadcasting responsibilities"; and finally, if two stations of the same language were, to be established in one locality, one of those stations should be owned by the CBC. As 1962 drew to an end the Canadian Broadcasting League was stronger and better organized than at any time since its establishment. It remained to be seen what influence the Broadcasting League might have upon future policies of Canadian broadcasting. II. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of the study are presented in two sections. The first section, primary conclusions, weighs the evidence in relation to the three hypotheses which were introduced in Chapter I; the second section, secondary con clusions, presents the remaining conclusions of the study. A. PRIMARY CONCLUSIONS 1. The first hypothesis maintained that the Radio League exerted little or no influence upon the formulation J+38 of Canadian broadcasting policy. From the evidence in the general summary and in the chapters upon which the summary was founded it is clear that the Radio League did not originate new policies for Canadian broadcasting. It accepted the general recommen dations in the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting as vitally necessaiy for Canada, it modified these recommendations to suit changed economic conditions in the country, and it created a powerful lobby of promi nent and commercially disinterested citizens who echoed the views of the Radio League for a publicly owned national broadcasting system. Hence although the Radio League did not originate new major policy, it was the single most important force during a six-year period in winning acceptance throughout the country for the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, Consequently the first hypothesis must be rejected. 2. While allowing that the Radio League might have influenced broadcasting policy decisions as one force among many, the second hypothesis stated that it would be almost impossible to isolate and assess the distinct contributions of the Radio League. The evidence in the summary makes it clear that the Radio League in late 1930 became the undisputed public *+39 leader of the movement which advocated the establishment of a national broadcasting system as ’ ’ public service.” It con ducted campaigns to educate Canadians to the value of radio in their country; regional leaders of the League spoke at public meetings across the country; resolutions which favored the policies of the League were passed at meetings of provincial and national organizations and were forwarded to the Government at Ottawa; newspaper campaigns concerning radio were organized and promoted by the League. After two months of intense activity the Radio League could reason ably claim that it made the question of broadcasting policy of such importance that action of the Government became inevitable. The Radio League dominated the proceedings of the Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting in 1932. At the request of the League prominent Canadians testified before the Committee, national organizations submitted briefs in favor of a publicly owned and operated national system, and two expert witnesses were heard. When it appeared probable that the opposing lobby would succeed in its efforts to postpone the enactment of broadcasting legislation, the Radio League organized a drive to counteract this lobby. Legislation was enacted embodying a few suggestions by the League and the principle of a single national system of broadcasting. ^ 0 Through the intervention of Vincent Massey, J. W. Dafoe, and C. A. Bowman, who agreed wholeheartedly with the policies of the Radio League, the Liberals in the House of Commons adopted the "radio issue" as their own in early 1935. When they formed a new government in late 1935, the policies of the Radio League were accepted as the keystone of new broadcasting legislation. In the hearings of the Parliamentary Committee of 1936 Plaunt and Claxton, who represented the Radio League, argued persuasively against a system of divided control which the Hon. C. D. Howe, the Minister who was responsible for broadcasting, and the opposing lobby favored. The Report of the Parliamentary Committee and the subsequent broadcasting legislation represented a conclusive victory for the principles of the Radio League. Hence the second hypothesis must be rejected because from the evidence it is clear that the Radio League was the undisputed leader of the movement which advocated the establishment of a publicly owned and operated national broadcasting system and that its policies were incorporated in broadcasting legislation. 3. The third hypothesis maintained that the Radio League influenced decisions of broadcasting policy to such an extent that without the League Canadian broadcasting quite probably would have developed along distinctly different lines. This is the only hypothesis that can be supported completely by the evidence. In spite of the leadership which the Radio League provided, the national support for its policies which the League enjoyed, and the influence which the League brought to bear upon the government, the Canadian Pacific Railway almost succeeded in acquiring a private monopoly in Canadian broadcasting. Hence it seems clearly reasonable to conclude that without the leadership of the Radio League and without its persistent efforts to have its program for a publicly owned and operated system implemented through legislation, Canadian broadcasting quite probably would have developed as a private monopoly of the Canadian Pacific Railway. B. SECONDARY CONCLUSIONS 1. Prom the evidence it is clear that Charles A. Bowman was a chief architect of Canadian broadcasting. Three years before the founding of the Canadian Radio League Bowman began a crusade for better radio with a series of signed articles in the Ottawa Citizen. He enlisted the support of several prominent Canadians and of the Southam Publishing Company. As a member of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting (1928-1929) he alone of the three commissioners was convinced at the outset that bk2 some type of public ownership was essential if Canada were to have a truly national broadcasting system; subsequently the Report of the Commission reflected his views. When opposition to the recommendations of the Royal Commission began to grow, he wrote a series of articles in defense of the Report. He organized a listeners' group in Ottawa to promote his ideas and attempted to establish a western branch of the group in Alberta. When the Canadian Radio League was founded to enlist support for the recommenda tions of the Report of the Royal Commission, Bowman immediately offered his assistance to the embryonic League and cooperated with the League in its campaign for a national broadcasting system. 2. Prom the evidence it is equally clear that Graham Spry and Alan Plaunt were the main leaders of the movement to establish a national broadcasting system along the lines which were recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting. Formidable obstacles blocked the way. The Canadian economy was sluggish in the wake of the economic depression of 1929? the Canadian Pacific Railway intended to obtain a private monopoly in radio, commercial radio interests opposed a publicly owned and operated broadcasting system, and a general mood of "keep the government out of it" was quite prevalent through out the country. Mf3 Realizing that a strong national organization was needed to raise the question into national consciousness, Spry and Plaunt founded the Radio League for this purpose. They planned and directed the League’s campaigns in the market places of the nation and in Parliament. After a series of partial successes they achieved their objective almost completely in the enactment of broadcasting legisla tion in 1936. 3. Prom the preliminary evidence it would seem that the Radio and Television League in 1955-1956 was unable to influence broadcasting policy in any apparent way. When the officers of the Radio and Television League decided that the League should not appear before the Royal Commission on Broadcasting, they tacitly admitted that in their opinion the League was unable to marshall widespread support for its program. Although they submitted a written brief to the Commission which was prepared by Professor A. R. M. Lower, they requested Lower to present an expanded version of the same brief as a private citizen. *+. Prom the preliminary evidence it .is almost impossible to assess the influence of the Canadian Broad casting League upon policy decisions of the government during the period 1958-1962. The League sent an impressive delegation to meet wilh Prime Minister Diefenbaker in July, 1958; subsequent broadcasting legislation reflected the general viewpoint of the League on Canadian broadcasting; but there was no indication that this occurred because of the League's intervention. The League submitted briefs to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to the Board of Broadcast Governors but these submissions did not seem to have exerted influence upon the development of Canadian broad casting policy. III. IMPLICATIONS It appeared to the writer that two questions which were in the forefront of discussion on Canadian broadcast ing in the late 1920's and in the 1930's no longer were being asked generally in the early 1960's. The first question was whether or not Canadians believed a national broadcasting system was important to the future of the country. In the early period the ques tion was central and evoked an affirmative response from many commercially disinterested individuals and organiza tions. In the 1960's the continued existence of a national system seemed so to be taken for granted that the question was posed rarely if at all. The second question asked how a national broadcast ing system was to be financed. In the early period few pretended that sufficient advertising revenue existed in Canada to finance a national system. If a national system were to be privately owned, then subsidies from the govern ment would be required to supplement the insufficient revenue from advertising. That answer was unacceptable because it was believed that this kind of a national system would operate as a business instead of as a public service. In the early 1960’s the financing of a national system still loomed large. Revenue from advertising constituted a small part of the annual budget of the Canadian Broad casting Corporation. Yet in 1961 the Board of Broadcast Governors authorized the inception of a commercial tele vision network in eight urban areas. The action could only mean that advertising revenue which was insufficient to support one national system would in the future be divided between two such systems, one operating on the "public service basis," the other operating on the "business basis." As a result of these developments it seemed to the writer that a new question, one which was long overdue, must be asked in the early 1960's:; shall the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation continue to be the national sys tem of Canada, operating as a "public service," with local stations across the country providing a necessary but complementary service to the single national system, or, shall the Corporation be supplanted by a fully commercial Mf6 system, operating as a "business," with some distinctly Canadian programs being produced and distributed to commer cial stations by a government broadcasting agency? An analysis of the evidence would seem to indicate that the second part of the disjunction was unobtrusively but firmly beginning to assume the ascendency. After having reviewed and weighed the evidence the writer became convinced that the formula which created one integral national system in the 1930's was the correct one for a country like Canada. As long as Canada is determined to remain a separate nation on the North American continent, just so long will she be in need of a national voice which broadcasting can most effectively provide. Broadcasting "as a public service," free from the tyranny of advertising dollars, ratings, and political interference, can alone provide genuine variety in program ming, the continual encouragement and development of Canadian talent, the regular scheduling of programs with "special interest" appeal as opposed to the almost exclu sive scheduling of programs with mass appeal, the constant exchange of ideas between English Canada and French Canada and between the eastern and western sections of the nation. The writer did not believe for a moment that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was able to achieve this ideal; it was the objective towards which the Corporation should have kk-7 been constantly striving. Broadcasting "as a business" cannot do these things although it does provide outstanding programs. Experience has shown that when economic forces are permitted to operate freely in Canadian broadcasting, they soon dictate the importation of American programs, the scheduling of these programs in prime viewing time, the servicing of profitable urban areas to the neglect of unprofitable rural areas, and the making of token efforts to satisfy the demands of public service. In stating these observations, the writer had no special interest. He was not objecting to the way in which commercial broadcasters conducted their business for he was well aware that broadcasters were businessmen and not philanthropists. He was stating his belief that the fault lies with the system, not with those who operate within the system. He was also stating his belief that broadcasting was far too important to Canada to allow it to become merely a business. The writer was compelled to observe that while A attempts were being made in the early 1960's to whittle away Canada's national broadcasting system and to replace it with a wholly commercial system, reverse trends were developing in the United States. With the advent of Newton Minow and of his successor E. William Henry to the Chairmanship of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) M+8 it became clear that an attempt would be made by the Com mission to change the pattern of American broadcasting. In 1963 the Commission initiated a campaign against excessive advertising; it notified broadcasters that it intended to enforce the "fairness doctrine" which demanded that more than one side of a controversy should be treated fairly and adequately; it also gave notice that broadcasters would have to find time in program schedules for something other than programs of broadest appeal. Although the FCC was striving in 1963 to incorporate some of the better features of Canadian broadcasting into the American system, it would be unfortunate if Canadians allowed their system to degenerate by default into a poor carbon copy of that American system. After thirty years of public and private effort Canadians could be proud of their system of broadcasting. Although it was far from perfect it contained within itself the potential to provide an ever better public service to the entire country. In the opinion of the writer what Canadian broadcasting needed most in the early 1960's was firm direction and an end to the com promises which tended to weaken the CBC and perhaps ulti mately to supplant it with a fully commercial system. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY During the course of the investigation four matters were discovered which suggested possibilities of future ¥+9 studies. 1. A study of the first four years of operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should yield valuable information on how the principles which fashioned the national system worked out in practice. Detailed records of these four years are to be found in the Plaunt Papers; these papers would be an important initial source of any such investigation. 2. A study of the Canadian Association of Broad casters is long overdue. Although the Canadian Broadcast ing Corporation was investigated many times, no study of the role of the Association in Canadian broadcasting has appeared. 3. A study could be undertaken to examine whether or not a distinctly Canadian policy of broadcasting was discernible in the work of four Royal Commissions and seventeen Parliamentary Committees which investigated broadcasting during the period 1928-1963. An attempt might be made to isolate and describe the interactions of Canadian and American broadcasting policies with one another. Prom the evidence it would appear that the interactions were quite common and that they influenced subsequent policy decisions in both coun tries. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. PRIMARY DOCUMENTS PILES OP THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE, 1930-1936 University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver. Alan Plaunt Papers, 27 boxes. Plaunt Correspondence, 1930-1936. Boxes 1-7. Spry Correspondence, 1930-1932. Box 11. Miscellaneous Radio League Correspondence, 1930-1936. Box 12. Notebook of Alan Plaunt. Box 26. Statement Issued to the Press by the Radio League, December 8 , 1930. Box 22. Progress Report from the Radio League to all Members, January 29, 1931. Box 22. Draft Agenda for the Second Meeting of the Radio League, February 5, 1931. Box 16. Proposed Budget for the Radio League, December-May, 1931. Box 16. Agenda for the Third Meeting of the Radio League, April 23, 1931. Box 22. Pactum on Behalf of the Canadian Radio League in the Supreme Court of Canada. Box 17. Case of the Canadian Radio League in the Privy Council on Appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. Box 17. Canadian Radio League Legal Account Bank Book, Box 26. k5l 1*52 Memorandum Presented to the Royal Commission on Rail ways and Transportation hy Graham Spry, Ottawa, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Canadian Radio League. Box 17. Statement of Receipts and Disbursements of the Canadian Radio League to January 29, 1932. Box 16. Statement Issued to the Press by the Radio League, January 29, 1932. Box 22. List of Contributors to the Canadian Radio League. Box 26. Contributions to the Canadian Radio League, March 22- May 28, 1932. Box 2 6. Highlights of Recent Canadian Editorials Supporting a Nationally-owned Broadcasting Corporation, April 9, 1932. Box 22. The Canadian Radio League for a National Broadcasting System— General and Detailed Analysis of Public Support. Box 23. Statement of Income and Expenditure of the Canadian Radio League, May 28, 1932. Box 26. Review of Events Leading up to Broadcasting Act of 1932. Box 22. Memorandum re Canadian Broadcasting Reorganization, December, 1935. Box 17. Meeting of Executive Committee of the Radio League, May 2, 1936. Box 16. A Sinister Lobby— Press Release from the Radio League, July 2, 1936. Box 22, Draft Letter from the Board of Governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the Hon. C. D. Howe, September 22, 1936. Box 13. **53 RADIO LEAGUE BOOKLETS The Canadian Radio League, October, 1930. Box 22. The Canadian Radio League, January, 1931. Box 22. La Ligue Canadienne de la Radio, January, 1931. Box 22. The Canadian Radio League, March, 1931. Box 22. The Canadian Radio League. June, 1931. Box 22. Radio Advertising--A Menace to the Newspapers and a Burden to the frublic. April, 1931. Box 22. Canadian Radio for Canadians. March, 1932. Box 22. PILES OP THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING LEAGUE, 1958-1962 Canadian Broadcasting League, Office of the Chairman, Ottawa Executive, 111 Sparks St., Ottawa. Memorandum on Broadcasting in Canada, April 8, 1958. Series of "throw-away" cards which contained a synopsis of the Broadcasting League's Program, Spring, 1958. Delegation from the Broadcasting League to meet with the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, July 18, 1958. Statement of Professor Donald G. Creighton. Leader of the Delegation from the League, July lo, 1958. Statement by Graham Spry, Member of the Delegation from the League, July 18, 1958. Statement of the Canadian Broadcasting League to the Board of Directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 2*+, 1959. Brief of the Canadian Broadcasting League to the Board of Broadcast Governors on the Proposed Television Legislation and Second Television Stations, November 2, 1959. Submission to the Board of Broadcast Governors from the Broadcasting League on Conditions and Regulationi Respecting a Private Television Network, August 8 , I960. Statement from the Broadcasting League concerning future plans of the League, January, 1 9 6 2. An Invitation to Canadian National Associations and Interested Individuals to Attend a National Meeting of the League, Winter, 1962. Minutes of Meeting of Canadian Broadcasting League, Queen’s Hotel, Montreal, March 3, 1 9 6 2. Notice of Meeting from Ottawa Executive of the Broad casting League, August 16, 1962. Basic Issues in Broadcasting— A Report Prepared for the Canadian Broadcasting League by Albert A. Shea, Pall, 1962. A Statement of Principles and Policies— Canadian Broadcasting League, November 6, 1962. Statement to the Press from the Canadian Broadcasting League, November l1 *, 1 9 6 2. B. ROYAL COMMISSIONS Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting. Report. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1929. ______ . Piles of the Commission: Pive Volumes of Mis cellaneous Materials. Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada. Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences. Report. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1951. ______ . Piles of the Commission: Thirty-one Volumes of Evidence. Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada. ______ . Piles of the Commission: Volume 8. "A Report on Private Radio in Canada Presented by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, September, 19^9." Royal Gommiasion on Broadcasting. Report. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1957. ______ . Piles of the Commission: Twenty-two Volumes of Evidence. Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada. . Piles of the Commission: Brief No. 4-7, Exhibit 24-9. "Brief of the Canadian Radio and Television League." Royal Commission on Publications. Report. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1961. C. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES ON BROADCASTING Special Committee on Radio Broadcasting, 1932. Minutes of Evidence. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1932. Special Committee on the Operations of the Commission under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1932. Minutes of Evidence. Ottawa: King's Printer, 193*+. Special Committee on the Canadian Radio Commission, Minutes of Evidence. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1936. D. CANADIAN BROADCASTING LEGISLATION Canada, 22-23 George V, Chapter 51. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1932. Canada, 1 Edward VIII, Chapter 24-, Ottawa: King's Printer, 1936. Canada, 7 Elizabeth II, Chapter 22. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1958. SOR/59-4-56, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 93, No. 23, December 9, 1959. E. BOOKS Briggs, Asa. The Birth of Broadcasting. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. *f56 Canadian Periodical Index, annual editions 1938 to 19*+8; Canadian Index to Periodicals, annual editions 19^8 to 1 9 6 2. Ottawa: The Canadian Library Association. Cassirer, Henry H. Television Teaching Today. UNESCO, I960. Charlesworth, Hector. I*m Telling You. Toronto: Macmillan, 1937. Codding, George A. Broadcasting without Barriers. UNESCO, 1959. Corbett, E. A. We Have with Us Tonight. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1957. The Cumulative Book Index, annual editions 1932 to 1962. New York: The H. H. Wilson Company Doctoral Dissertations Accepted by American Universities, annual editions 1933 to 195^. New York: ?he H. H. Wilson Company. Index to American Doctoral Dissertations, annual editions 1 955 to 1 9 6 2. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Klapper, Joseph T. The Effects of Mass Communication. Glencoe: The Free Press, I960. Lynch, William. The Image Industries. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1959"^ Munro, William Bennett. American Influences on Canadian Government. Toronto: Macmillan, 1929. Schramm, Wilbur. Responsibility in Mass Communication. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Seldes, Gilbert, The Public Arts. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956. Shea, Albert A. Broadcasting: The Canadian Way. Montreal: Harvest House, 1963. Siepmann, Charles A. Radio, Television, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950. Waller, Judith C. Radio, the Fifth Estate. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company, 1950. Who's Who. London: Macmillan, i9 6 0. *t57 P. BOOKLETS Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Annual Report 1960- 1961. Ottawa: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1952. ______ . Report of November 2. 1936-March .31. 1937. Ottawa: King’s Printer, 1938. Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission. Interim Report for the Calendar Year 1933. Ottawa: King’s Printer, l5W. Sound and Television Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Toronto: United Kingdom Information Service, I960. Sparks, Kenneth R. A Bibliography of Doctoral Disserta tions in Television and Radio. Syracuse: Syracuse University School of Journalism, Newhouse Communica tion Center, 1962. G. PERIODICALS "Doctoral Dissertations in Television and Radio," Joumal of Broadcasting. Is377-383, Pall, 1957. Gibbon, John Murray. "Radio as a Pine Art," Canadian Porum, 11:212-21^, March, 1931. "Graduate Theses and Dissertations on Broadcasting: 1956- 1958," Journal of Broadcasting. 2:55~90, Winter, 1957- 1958. Knower, Pranklin H. "Graduate Theses and Dissertations on Broadcasting: 1956-1958," Journal of Broadcasting. bt77-87, Winter, 1959-1960. ______ . "Graduate Theses and Dissertations on Broadcast ing: 1959-1960," Journal of Broadcasting. 5:355-370, Pall, 1961. Kroeger, Albert A. "International Television," Television Magazine, 20:l +3“1 +9} 7^-8^-, July, 1963. The Letter-Review (Port Erie, Ontario), March 12, 1 9 62. Plaunt, Alan B. "Canadian Radio," Saturday Right, 5l:ll, April b) 1936. k5 8 Spry, Graham. "A Case for Nationalized Broadcasting," Queen*s Quarterly. 38:151-169, Winter, 1931. "The Canadian Broadcasting Issue," Canadian Forum, 11:2^6-2^9, April, 1931. ______ . "The Canadian Radio Situation," Education by Radio, 1:83-85, July 2, 1931. ______ . "Radio Broadcasting and Aspects of Canadian- American Relations," in W. W. McLaren, A. B. Corey, R. G. Trotter (eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Canadian-American Affairs Held at St. Lawrence tJniver- sity. July 17-22. 1935^ New York: Ginn and Company^ 193d. ______ , and R. W. Ashcroft. "Should Radio Be Nationalized in Canada?" Saturday Night. ^6:2-3, January 2*+, 1931. Thomas, Alan. "Audience, Market, and Public— An Evaluation of Canadian Broadcasting," Canadian Communications, l:l6-1 +7, Summer, I960. H. NEWSPAPERS Blackburn, Bob. "How Representative Is It?" Toronto Telegram, April 2, 1962. Bowman, Charles A. "Radio Public Service for Canadians— Some Objections Answered," Ottawa Citizen, December 27, 2 8, 30, 31, 1929. The [Charlottetown] Guardian. June 20, 1929. "Highlights of Canadian Editorials Supporting a Nationally- owned Broadcasting Corporation, Spring, 1932v" in the Files of the Canadian Radio League, Box 22. The Montreal Star, November 12, 1959. Prince Rupert News, February 10, 1932. I. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Shea, Albert A. "Broadcasting in Canada: 1920-191 +0." unpublished Manuscript, CORE Research Organization, Montreal. b59 Sumner, D. B. "The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation." Unpublished Master's thesis, Queen's University, Canada, 19^9• J. INTERVIEWS Personal Interview with Alan Thomas at the Office of the Canadian Association for Adult Education, Toronto, June 21, 1962. Personal Interview with Fr. K. St. Denis, Ottawa Univer sity, August 1*+, 1 9 6 1. Personal Interview with David Kirk, Chairman, Ottawa Executive of the Canadian Broadcasting League, 111 Sparks St., Ottawa, August 22, 19o2. Personal Interview with E. A. Corbett at the Office of the Canadian Association for Adult Education, September 11, 1962. Statements on early Canadian Broadcasting by Charles A. Bowman in a sound-recorded interview with Alan Thomas at Nanaimo, B. C., February 18, i9 6 0. Tape is deposited in the University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver. K. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Fred Southam to Harry Southam, May 11, 1928. Bowman MSS, University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver. APPENDIXES APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OP THE ALAN B. PLAUNT PAPERS: I93O-19IH DESCRIPTION OP ALAN B. PLAUNT PAPERS (1930-19^1) UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LIBRARY, VANCOUVER, CANADA In addition to Plaunt's correspondence his papers include many external and internal memoranda, circular letters, and publicity materials, as well as an extensive collection of news clippings. Taken as a whole the papers which are preserved in the Special Collections Division of the University Library should be of inestimable value to anyone undertaking a study of this important formative period in the development of Canadian radio. Boxes 1-10. Plaunt Correspondence. 1. October-November, 1930; December, 1930. 2. January-February, 1931* 3. March-December, 1931. 1932. 5. 193^; 1935; January-March. 1936. 6. April 1-September 10, 193©. 7. September 10-December 31» 1936; 1937. 8. 1938; January-March, 1939. 9. April-December, 1939; January-August 29» 19^0. 10. August 30-December 31 > 19*+0; January-April, 19^1; Plaunt undated; Mrs. Plaunt. Box 11. Graham Spry Correspondence (1930-1932). Box 12. Miscellaneous Radio League Correspondence (1930- Miscellaneous CBC Correspondence (1936-19^0). Box 13. CBC Dated Memoranda (1936-19^0). Boxes 1^-15. Clippings. Boxes 16-27. Miscellaneous Materials. 16. Undated Memos; Agenda and Minutes. 17. Submissions. 18. Government Documents and Publications. 19. Parliamentary Committees; CBC-fiscal; 1939 Reports. I f 62 i f 6 3 20. Publicity-Radio League; Publicity-CBC. 21. Magazines; Newspaper and Magazine Reproduc tions. 22. Radio League-General. 23* Radio League-General. 2*f. CBC-General. 25. CBC-General. 26. Radio League Accounts and Membership. 27. Scraps. NOTE: Those wishing to use the papers which deal with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, i.e., those dated from September 11, 1936, may do so only with the permission of Mrs. Dorothy R. Dyde. Mrs. Ljyde in 1963 resided at 9910— 115th Street, Edmonton, Alberta. APPENDIX B CANADIAN RADIO FOR CANADIANS (MARCH, 1932) UNIVERSITY OP BRITISH COLUMBIA LIBRARY: PLAUNT PAPERS, BOX 22 Canadian Radio for Canadians “It must be agreed that the present system of radio broadcasting is unsatisfactory. Canadians have the right to a system of broad casting from Canadian sources equal in all respects to that of any other country." — The Right Honourable R. B. Bennett, P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Canada. THE ISSUE. The issue is the freedom of public opinion. The issue is, shall radio broadcasting be operated by commercial organisations for commercial purposes, as it is at present, or will it become, in the words of the Prime Minister * ‘ a most effective instrument in nation building”? Radio— an instrument of public service, or of private profit and propaganda? Radio— from Canadian sources for Canadians? The broadcasting problem is more than a problem of better entertainment. More than a problem of operating a utility. More than a problem of private interest. It is a problem of national moment. It is a problem of ensuring a free public opinion. Radio is a monopoly— a broadcaster monopolizes for the time he is broadcasting the channel he is broadcasting on. The number of channels is limited. The radio is like the telephone. It in evitably becomes a monopoly. It is a monopoly in 29 countries — a government monopoly in 21 of them. The issue is— who shall control that monopoly? The people of Canada? Who? The problem calls for immediate consideration. There has been stalemate for nearly three years. Development has been checked, stopped. Next autumn, the nations of the world will meet at Madrid to re-allot wave-lengths. There will be a consolida tion of the radio systems of the world. Millions will be spent throughout the world to consolidate the new allotment Canada must have a programme before the Madrid conference. After the Madrid Conference it may be too late. " The amount of fodder that is the antithesis of intellectual that comes over our radios is appalling while the selection of material for broadcasting remains in commercial hands." Senator the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, P.C., former Prime Minister of Canada. "This group (U S . radio monopoly) by its power and influence is so subtle and effective as to portend the greatest danger to the fu ndamental of American republican government. No greater issue presents itself to the citizenry. A monopoly of mere property may be bad, but a monopoly of the voice and the expression of the people is quite a different thing." —Judge Ira Robinson, former Chairman of the U S . Radio Commission. THE CONDITIONS. Radio broadcasting in Canada today is operated on the basis ( f. advertising revenue, largely by private companies. What are the results? ? . There is less than half an hour a day, average, broadcast ing from coast to coast. 2. There are 66 stations— of these cnly six are 5,000 watts power or over. Ten American cities have more power than all Canadian stations combined. ?. Only three out of five Canadians can hear Canadian broad casting regularly. 4. Only seven stations in Canada broadcast the American mini mum requirement of a station— twelve hours a day. Of these seven stations, four are associated with American radio chains and broad cast a half or a third of American programmes. The other three stations are 500 watts each, limited in range and for 5— 8 hours broadcast phonograph records. Rot a single Canadian station, therefore, originates more than seven hours a day of Canadian programmes. Of the other stations— 26 broadcast only 5-10 hours a day. 10 broadcast only 2-5 hours a day. 14 broadcast only 2 hours or less. Of these stations, more than half of the service is phonograph records. Canada may claim more wave-lengths, but at the present time, Canada is not using and is not able to use the wave-lengths she has. 5. Most Canadians listen most of the time to American sta tions. Canadian stations do not hold Canadian audiences. 6. Canadian coast-to-coast programmes have declined in number. "Under existing conditions, Canadian. business suffers both from the lack of adequate broadcasting coverage and from extensive American advertising with which we are not able to compete." Col. J. H. Woods, past president, Canadian Chamber of Com merce. “The Canadian Legion believes that the Canadian public would be better served by some form of federal ownership and operation rather than by ownership and operation by private enterprise — Canadian Legion (B.E.S.L.) THE ESSENTIALS OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM. There are certain primary conditions which any broadcasting system in Canada must fulfill if i t . is to be, in the words of the Prime Minister, “an effective instrument in nation building.” These dominating necessities are: 1. Canadian ownership and operation. 2. Government regulation and control. 3. Greater revenue for more and better Canadian programmes. 4. Canadian coverage, clearer reception and larger stations. 5. Sponsored advertising programmes, but no direct adver- f tising. How are these essentials to be secured? ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS. 1. The present system means inadequate coverage, increased proportions of the programmes with advertising, inadequate re venue for Canadian programmes, too many small stations, too few large stations. And who are entitled to channels? There are more than 400 applicants for stations. Only a fraction of these could get channels. If not all, who should get them? One church, but not another, one party paper, but not another, one railway, not another? How could there be selection? 2. Two competitive networks operated by the railways, on the lines of competing hotels, express companies, telegraph com panies, ships, etc. 3. A private monopoly. Of what interests? 4. A National system, of publicly owned stations with com petition and private enterprise in programmes. There has been unanimity in one fundamental question— Can adian listeners want Canadian broadcasting —Royal Commission. "The question o f monopoly in radio communication must be squarely m et It is inconceimble that the American people will allow this new-born system o f communication to fall exclusively into the power o f any individual group, or combination Radio com munication is not to be considered as merely a business carried on fo r private gain, fo r private advertisement, or fo r entertainment o f the curious. I t is a public concern impressed with the public trust and to be considered primarily from the standpoint o f public interest." — Herbert Hoover. FINANCE. The fundamental problem of producing a first class Canadian system is the problem of finance. There are three principal methods, (1) government subsidy, (2) advertising, and (3) a listeners license fee— for the use of a set or of tubes. (1) An annual government subsidy at this time is not to be asked. Nor is it necessary. Since the Aird report times have changed. (2) Advertising revenue in Canada is not sufficient to fin ance the erection of first class stations and pay for first clas9 programmes. No system, based upon providing Canadian cover age, could be financed by advertising alone. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. National advertising programmes have been cut in half, and not a single Canadian station anywhere ori ginates more than an average of seven hours of programmes a day. (3) The last alternative is the license fee. A three dollar license fee from each owner of a receiving set would produce from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 a year, in addition to revenue from the sale of advertising time. A license fee of $3.00— less than a cent a day— imposes no* burden upon any government, upon any advertiser, upon any broadcaster. It places a burden upon the person who benefits from broadcasting— the listener. The license fee— now $2.00 a year— if raised to $3.00 a year would solve the revenue problem of Canadian broadcasting. The capital expenditure required depends upon the type of station built. Col. Steele, Director of Radio, National Research Council and technical advisor to the Parliamentary Committee, estimates that $2,000,000 would build a complete new high-powered system. The Canadian Radio League— disagreeing here with the Aird report— is not advocating an expensive system. In due course, the League will lay before the Parliamentary Committee a detailed scheme entailing no capital expenditure in 1932, only a small expenditure in 1933, and will advocate that future capital ex penditures, as in the case of the high-powered system in Britain, be made from revenue. “W herever a public service is o f such a nature as to lend itself to monopolistic control it rightfully comes within the classification o f a public utility which should be publicly owned and democrati cally managed and radio broadcasting is within this category.” — Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. “Resolved that this Assembly believes that the best interests of Canada will be served by the adoption of a policy of national owner ship of radio broadcasting and would recommend that the Federal parliament enact legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the Aird report." — Passed unanimously by the Alberta legislature. THE CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE. The Canadian Radio League is a voluntary, non-commercial, independent organization. It has no paid officers. It is the voice of no special interest. It was organized by a group of listeners. 7t has grown to embrace practically every non-commercial, inde pendent organization in Canada, the heads and other leaders of the Anglican, Catholic, United, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches, national women's organizations with a membership of 671,000, farmer, labour, and veterans' organizations with a membership of 357,000, and a large body of business, industrialist, banking and professional leaders throughout the country, presidents of 16 Can .-dim universities, newspapers and periodicals with a circulation of 2,028,668. j i t has been opposed by the Canadian Pacific Railway, by the Association of Canadian Broadcasters, by newspapers owning stations. It has been attacked over the air. Yet, its support has steadily grown. Today, it represents every element in Canada. It is financed by private individuals. It is the public. It is public opinion. ' HE LEAGUE POLICY. he Canadian Radio League supported the Dominion govern ment against the provinces in maintaining federal jurisdiction over .adio communications, and intervened both before the Supreme Court at Ottawa and the Privy Council at London. The Canadian Radio League will appear before the Special Pa''iamentary Committee on Radio Broadcasting and will present a detailed scheme for a system of broadcasting that will comply with the essential conditions— Canadian ownership and control, Canadiarf coverage, Canadian programmes. The League will advocate: 1. The establishment of a Canadian Radio Broadcasting Company with a directorate appointed on a basis similar to the National Research Council, independent of political interference, not part of the civil service, yet responsible, in the last resort, to the people. 2. A listeners* license fee of $3.00 to yield from $1,500,000 to $2, 000, 000. "It is the desire of the United Farmers of Canada (Saskatche wan section) that radio broadcasting in Canada be organised along the lines recommended by the Royal Commission.” —Statement by United Farmers of Canada (Sask.) "'The Archbishop o f Quebec is keenly alive to the influence of broadcasting on the mind and spirit of modern generations He approves with his whole heart the object o f the Canadian Radio League which is striving to ensure the dignity and the art of this so powerful means of reaching the people, which, unfortunately, com mercialism is in danger continually o f lowering. H e cannot but ap plaud the efforts o f the Canadian Radio League for the improvement and refinement of broadcast programmes.“ (Translation) . — Monseigneur Villeneuve, Archbishop o f Quebec. LEAGUE POLICY (Continued) 3. The immediate establishment of a programme building organization to increase the amount of national broadcasting and make available Canadian programmes from coast to coast. 4. The launching of a long-term technical scheme designed to eliminate the present chaotic conditions and to give a system of Canadian owned and operated stations that will improve reception and enlarge coverage. 5. Provision for low power local stations for items of local interest. 6. A monopoly of broadcasting facilities, for reasons of econ omy in construction and maintenance, and efficiency in operation— 7. Competition in programmes between private companies and the national company, between the provinces and other authori ties sponsoring programmes— 8. Adequate representation of and protection for the pro vinces and minorities. Competition and Private Enterprise in Programmes. Public ownership ard control of stations. "Resolved that, the National Council of Women of Canada declare their sirung "Support of the establishment of a Canadian Broadcasting Company by the Dominion of Canada to own, operate and control all broadcasting stations in the Dominion, to erect high- powered stations that can serve the tvhole Canadian people, to elim inate direct advertising, and by the increase o f a license fee to three dollars, finance a greater number of Canadian programmes. — National Council of Women. “ . . . . The Imperial Order of the Daughters o f the Empire welcomes the suggestion of the Canadian Radio League in its desire to organize public opinion in regard to the national ownership of broadcasting as a public service “ _ _ — Resolution of Imperial Order Daughters o f the Empire. “There is no doubt in my mind that there is abundant material o f a first-class quality in Canada to provide as fine radio performances as could be wished for." — Ernest MacMillan, Conductor, Toronto Symphony Orchestra. “The Canadian Radio League, while advocating a system which zvill give Canadians the opportunity of hearing regular Canadian programmes o f a distinctive character, has no desire to blanket United States programmes and advocates that all stations be so located with regard to populous centres as to obviate the possibility of blanketing reception >from United States stations ” — Radio League Constitution. U. S. SITUATION “Let the American situation be described, as it concerns Canada, in a series of statements which may be elaborated in more detail as required. “First, Canada, for purposes of commercial exploitation, is part of the territory of the Radio Corporation of America, ” “Secondly, The Radio Corporation of America .... occupies a dominant position, amounting in respect of some services, to a monopoly. It operates directly or through subsidiaries, trans-oceanic, ship-to-shore, broadcasting and other services. The National Broadcasting Company, the R.C.A. Communi cations, the Radiomarine Corporation, The Radio-Victor Com pany, The Radiotron Corporation, General Motors Radio Cor poration, the R.C.A. Photophone, and the largest motion pic ture, vaudeville and other entertainment companies are sub sidiaries of the R.C.A. Through patents estimated to number more than 4,000, it influences where i t does not control the radio manufacturing industry of North America.” .... “Thirdl;7 , The R.C.A. and associates have entered into traffic and service agreements which embrace, if not in their terms, in their effect, the Dominion of Canada, and have made certain Canadian broadcasts impossible.” “Fifthly, The American broadcasting chains are supported by ad vertising. This advertising is not only heard in Canada, but, where there are Canadian subsidiaries, the advertising pro grammes originating in the United States are relayed to Cana dian stations. These broadcasts employ no Canadian talent.” “Sixthly, Canadian stations in the largest centres of population are, in some instances, owned or controlled by American interests. Others relay a large portion of their daily program from American sources.” “In brief, Canada, for important commercial and communica tion purposes, is part of the territory of the largest American radio communications and manufacturing group. This group in the United States is being attacked as a monopoly, as a combination in restraint of trade, as the propagandist voice of the so-called “power trust” of the United States, and as a threat to American republican government.” — Statement of Canadian Radio League to Parliamentary Com mittee. “To ensure that short-range local broadcasting stations be given consideration by the government in order that local needs may be met.” — Radio League Constitution. u t(T'f 1 1 “ The policy o f radiobroadcasting should depend on w hether we consider broadcasting as a business or as a m edium to be used fo r the benefit o f the country. I f it is a business, w ell, some control of pro gram s, or o f the activities of the stations zvould be sufficient, but if it is to be used fo r the benefit o f the country, from all points o f view , it can hardly be a profit-m aking business. That is the fundam ental fact o f the whole case, w hether broadcasting is a business fo r profit- m aking purposes or an instrum ent to be used fo r the benefit o f the public at large.” + -A ugustin Frigon, m e m b e r/R o y a l Commission ofi Radio ' Broadcasting.J j A d d ress all communications to— fi ALAN B. PLAUNT, Honorary Secretary, CANADIAN RADIO LEAGUE, 1 CLEMOW AVE., OTTAWA.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Fulk Of Neuilly

PDF

International Broadcasting And Its Societal Environments: A Test Of Hypotheses

PDF

Chronological Age And Grammatical Development As Determinants Of The Proportions Of Disfluencies On Lexical And Function Words In Preschool Children

PDF

Attitudes Of Academic Librarians In The Pacific Coast States Toward Library Technicians

PDF

The RNA polymerases of Gymodinium breve and soybean hypocotyls

PDF

A History Of Roman Catholic Church Policies Regarding Commercial Radio And Television Broadcasting In The United States, 1920 Through 1961.

PDF

Colonial Albany: Outpost Of Empire

PDF

The inability of collagen cross-linking to influence the insolubilization of proteodermatan sulfate and a sialo-glycopeptide

PDF

The Support Of Local Populations For The Forces Of Order And Legal Government In A Developing And Insurgent Area: Identification Of Some Problems And Relevant Factors

PDF

A Description Of Similarity Of Personality Between Selected Groups Of Television Viewers And Certain Television Roles Regularly Viewed By Them

PDF

The American Philosophy Of War, 1945-1967

PDF

Studies on the biology of zelleriella (protozoa, Opalinidae)

PDF

A Criticism Of News Broadcasting And Regulatory Issues In The Richards Case

PDF

The Ambassador'S Craft: A Study Of The Functioning Of French Ambassadorsunder Louis Xiv

PDF

The Public Interest Factor And Management Philosophy In The History And Commercial Operation Of Radio Station Wor-Am, New York, 1922-1970

PDF

The Relationship Of Macrophage Antigen Processing To Recognition Of Immunogenicity

PDF

The Closer Union Movement In The British West Indies

PDF

A history of the broadcasting of daytime serial dramas in the United States

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Some Effects Of Time Compression Upon The Comprehension And Retention Of A Visually Augmented Televised Speech

PDF

A Critical Study Of Frank C. Baxter'S 'Shakespeare On Tv'

Asset Metadata

Creator O'Brien, John Egli (author)

Core Title A History Of The Canadian Radio League: 1930-1936

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag history, modern,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Harwood, Kenneth A. (committee chair), Fertig, Norman R. (committee member), Smith, Don C. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-325085

Unique identifier UC11358720

Identifier 6408974.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-325085 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6408974.pdf

Dmrecord 325085

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights O'Brien, John Egli

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA