1944-04-21

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Hon. members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that to-day is the eighteenth birthday anniversary of Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth. Last night I sent a message to Her Royal Highness on behalf of the government and the people of Canada, but I am sure that Her Royal Highness would be pleased to receive greetings from the par-

H. R. H. Princess Elizabeth

liament of Canada to-day. I would therefore say, if I may; Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members, that this House of Commons sends its warmest and best wishes to Her Royal Highness, and among them the wish that she may have very many very happy returns of the day.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Following the Prime Minister's remarks in recognition of this very happy occasion, I should like to take the opportunity of associating the official opposition with the message which he has suggested may properly go from the House of Commons at this time. May I add, to what he has said, that Her Royal Highness celebrates, on this her eighteenth birthday, the occasion on which she becomes officially a councillor of state on the grim and momentous threshold of climacteric events so far as the war is concerned. The royal family has, I think, attained a position in the esteem of the nation and empire more elevated than perhaps it has ever held before, since that family has been sharing in a very intimate way in the trials and tribulations, the sorrows and sadness of the people. One is prompted at this time to make some mention of this, and I should like therefore to associate the official opposition with the remarks of the Prime Minister and to couple therewith our felicitations and expressions of respect, devotion and affection to Her Royal Highness in the very happy event now being celebrated.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: May I just say briefly that we too would join in the felicitations to Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth. We regard the royal family as a symbol of unity among the nations which comprise this great commonwealth, and as such we honour and respect them.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: The members of my group are pleased to join with the Prime Minister and others who have spoken in tendering to Her Royal Highness and the royal family very best wishes for a long and happy time following these dreadful years.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I rise to a question of privilege. Under date of April 20 I have received a notice, signed by the Clerk of the House, which I think is unfair to the Clerk himself, in connection with the parliamentary restaurant. As I read the declaration, it actually bars one of the most

responsible officers of the House of Commons, the Clerk himself, from eating in the parliamentary restaurant. Perhaps it is a misprint; I do not know. It is not rationing, but certainly, according to the letter I have received under the date indicated, the Clerk of the House of Commons is barred from admission to the restaurant which he supervises, Mr. Speaker, under your jurisdiction, it also bars Brendan Bracken and Elmer Davis. I do not see why I should not have the privilege of taking these gentlemen to the parliamentary restaurant, or why any member of the press should not be allowed to do so. I do not know of any better way of cementing the friendly relationship between the united nations than that I should have the privilege of taking Elmer Davis and Brendan Bracken to the restaurant.

On the orders of the day:


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite
certain whether my inquiry should be directed to Your Honour or to the Prime Minister. It concerns a matter which has been made the subject matter of a question of privilege at to-day's sitting. On March 21 last the joint committee on the parliamentary restaurant adopted certain regulations affecting members of the Senate and the House of Commons, deputy ministers, private secretaries, and members of the press gallery, as well as others mentioned in the regulations. I have no desire to reflect upon the wisdom or otherwise of the regulations so passed; that would be highly improper. I should like however to inquire if it is the custom in respect of a joint committee of both houses of parliament for a report to be presented and concurrence asked, the procedure which is followed in respect of the reports of single chamber committees. I raise this point merely to seek information, in view of the fact that the rights and privileges of some of the persons mentioned appear to have been drastically affected by the new regulations, without any opportunity having been given to parliament to express its opinion.
May I add that in my time in parliament I cannot recall a parliamentary joint committee having made a report to the house. I cannot recall on the other hand that there has been any regulation which has so drastically affected certain persons who perhaps have not the same opportunity to express their opinions in the house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The restaurant committee is not a committee of the house, but is a joint

Parliamentary Restaurant
committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. At several meetings they have had under consideration the conduct of the restaurant, and came to the conclusion that there were many abuses which had to be rectified, more particularly in these days of war. The committee has met, and will again meet. May I say that these are the considered opinions of the committee, and are not those promulgated by the Clerk of the House, who is in fact only acting as the clerk of the committee. These other matters have to be taken into consideration. I rather think the committee may feel that they should make some report to the house respecting their deliberations, and their reasons for coming to this conclusion. That is a matter I shall bring before it, when the proper time comes.


Gordon Graydon: May I say that I hope
nothing in my remarks would indicate that I was placing any responsibility upon the Clerk. I did not mention that. I realized that it was a resolution of the joint parliamentary committee, as was indicated. However, I do hope that Your Honour will review the situation and perhaps find it possible to have the matter dealt with again by the committee in case there are certain injustices which should be remedied.


Thomas Vien: I used the words, "promulgated by the Clerk" because they appeared in one of the Ottawa newspapers. If it is suggested that responsibility for what was done rests upon the shoulders of the Clerk, that is entirely wrong. As I have indicated, the matter is before the committee and it will be the subject of further conversation and discussion. I think I can say that the committee may consider that a report be made later to the house.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I wonder if I might be allowed to speak a sentence, or at any rate not more than two, in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) and later by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) on the new rules governing the cafeteria and1 the restaurant. Of course, I must endorse the remark made by the leader of the opposition that the Clerk is in no way responsible. He merely sent out the notice. The committee is responsible. The leader of the opposition is the leader of a party and perhaps he spoke with due care and consideration having regard to the fact that he is a leader. I am not the leader of any party; I am responsible only to my constituents, and I am prepared to take a chance with them.
100-140J
After twenty-eight years of experience in public life I consider the rules suggested here the most colossal piece of snobbery I have ever seen in .print. If the house allows them to go without being changed I shall be ashamed to be connected with a body that has produced this kind of class legislation, which I thought had gone out of fashion fifty years ago. The day before I was first nominated in 1898 to run as a member I was working in a gravel pit shovelling gravel, and none of my constituents thought any the worse of me, nor was I ashamed. Yet apparently we as members of parliament are to be treated as being superior to the people who sent us here.


Thomas Vien: The remarks that have been, made by the hon. member are entirely contrary to what- is intended by the committee. I cannot allow such a statement to go to the country, that a pedestal is being set up for members of the Senate or of the House of Commons. The restaurant is subject to rules which the committee are endeavouring to apply as properly as may be for the convenience of members, senators and others, and such remarks as the hon. gentleman has made are entirely contrary to the whole spirit of the committee.	*


Alan Webster Neill: I challenge the Speaker to put the notice into Hansard so that the public will get it and can judge.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HANSELL REFERENCE TO REMARK OF MR. KNOWLES IN DEBATE ON APRIL 20

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege respecting what I believe to be a reflection upon the entire Social Credit group in this house.' After I spoke last evening the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) replied as appears at page 2207 of Hansard. He said:
Just a word in reply to my hon. friend. I have listened with great interest to the foreign policy of the Social Credit party. I think this is the first time it has been expounded in this house.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made this remark: "International anarchy". I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre make that remark. He did not say it very loudly. I did not want to make a public example of him by asking him to withdraw it then, as I thought the Hansard reporter did not get it. Evidently he did, since it is recorded here. I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that remark. If he is a gentleman he will do it.
Privilege-Mr. Hansell


Mt. KNOWLES:: Mr. Speaker, may I say that in making that remark I was simply expressing my view as to what was involved ' in the kind of policy which the hon. members were expounding. It stands.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member is still not a gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a question of privilege-


Thomas Vien: I must ask the hon. member (Mr. Hansell) to withdraw that statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Thomas Vien: I ask the hon. member for Macleod to withdraw that statement.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre first to withdraw his remarks with respect to the policy we are expounding, which he has described as "international anarchy"? If he will do that I shall be pleased to withdraw my remark.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has made a statement reflecting on another hon. member which he must withdraw. It is not parliamentary.


Ernest George Hansell: I will be a gentleman and withdraw that remark.



STANDING COMMITTEES


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the name of Mr. Nicholson be substituted for that of Mr. Maclnnis on the special committee on social security.
That the name of Mr. Noseworthy be substituted for that of Mr. Maclnnis on the standing committee on banking and commerce.
That the name of Mr. Farquhar be substituted for that of Mr. McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) on the special committee on defence of Canada regulations.
That the name of Mr. Rickard be substituted for that of Mr. McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) on the special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
, RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) made some inquiries based cm certain speculations which have appeared

in the press concerning Canada's financial relations with the United States. I wish to take this opportunity to explain to parliament the present situation and some of its background, and thereby, I hope, to correct some of the false impressions which may have been created by the rumours to which the hon. gentleman referred.
May I state at the outset that as a result of a recent series of conferences between the treasuries of Canada and the United States, I was able to reach a complete understanding with the Hon. Henry L. Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the United States Treasury, in regard to our mutual financial arrangements which had their origin in the Hyde Park declaration of April 20, 1941.
The house will recall that that declaration was made at a time when Canada's reserves of gold and United States dollars had been reduced to dangerously low levels as a result of our huge and steadily increasing purchases in the United States of machinery, equipment and materials, which were required both for our own war effort and for the production of war supplies for our allies. Even in normal times, Canada purchases much more from the United States than we sell to our neighbours. Since the outbreak of war, however, these imports from the United States have shown an extraordinary increase and last year according to the trade returns they amounted to no less than SI,424 million, of which imports for the armed services and war production accounted for roughly one-half. It is therefore not difficult to realize why our limited supply of United States dollar exchange was for so long the most serious bottleneck in our war effort or why we had with considerable reluctance to take so many drastic measures to conserve our dwindling resources of this scarce commodity.
This exchange problem was the most urgent problem in our economic relations with the United States, which engaged the attention of the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States when they met at Hyde Park just three years ago yesterday. However, there was also a growing danger of possible unnecessary duplication of production facilities on the north American continent, with consequent undue pressure on scarce labour and materials, if each country tried to make itself wholly self-sufficient in the field of war supplies. The basic principle of the Hyde Park declaration, therefore, was an agreement that "in mobilizing the resources of this continent each country should provide the other with the defence articles which it is best able to produce and, above all, produce

Hyde Park Declaration
quickly, and that production, programs should be coordinated to that end." Hence, while Canada's purchases of war supplies in the United States had increased greatly and were bound to increase still further, the United States undertook to increase its purchases in Canada of urgently needed war supplies . in respect of which we had facilities for speedy and economical production. A second provision of the declaration was that in so far as Canada's defence purchases in the United States consisted of component parts to be used in equipment and munitions which Canada is producing for Great Britain, Britain would be able to obtain these parts under the lend-lease act and ship them to Canada for inclusion in the finished articles being produced here for her account. This provision has proven difficult to apply in practice and its effect has therefore been limited.
This very simple understanding, which by the way was never embodied in any formal treaty or document, is an outstanding example of the neighbourly good will and the capacity for constructive cooperation which our two countries have so frequently displayed in their relations with one another. It was not a onesided arrangement but was entered into for the mutual advantage of both countries. True, one of its primary purposes was to assist in solving Canada's exchange problem, but the reason for desiring to solve this problem was merely to enable Canada to continue to make her enormous purchases of war supplies and other goods in the United States. We never wished to ask the United States for lend-lease assistance-we always felt that, as a nation in a favoured position, free from the ravages of war, we were in duty bound to stand on our own feet and indeed to share with the United States in assisting other less fortunate of our allies in carrying on the war against the common enemy. That position we have been able to maintain and we shall continue to do so-I am sure it is a position which this house and the Canadian people will approve. I need scarcely add that to the extent that the United States increased its purchases in Canada, Canada gave full value for the money in the form of vital munitions of war which contributed to the war effort of the United States without increasing the strain upon its material and labour resources.
The successful working of this Hyde Park declaration has been referred to on previous occasions. In my budget speech of last year, for instance, I stated that our shortage of United States dollars had ceased to be a major problem. Early in 1943, therefore, we reached
an understanding with the United States Treasury to the effect that if our holdings of gold and United States dollar reserves should tend to rise above an agreed maximum we would take appropriate steps to offset that tendency, and the United States on its part agreed to follow a programme of procurement of war supplies such as to prevent our holdings of these reserves from falling below an agreed minimum.
Hon. members are aware of the legal provisions of the Exchange Fund Act prohibiting disclosure of our exchange holdings, and I shall not assist the speculators by transgressing in respect of that principle. It will perhaps be sufficient for me to say that the agreed range to which I have just referred was measurably below the country's total holdings of gold and United States dollars at the outbreak of war, a time at which those holdings were not unduly large.
During 1943, unanticipated developments, not related to the Hyde Park declaration, served to increase our supply of United States exchange beyond expectations, in spite of the steps taken to offset its expansion. The arrangement which was concluded with the United States Treasury last month covered, therefore, a series of measures, to be taken by Canada, intended to reduce our balances to the agreed range. In addition to immediate payment for certain past purchases of United States equipment and supplies for which bills had not yet been presented, the Canadian government has undertaken to reimburse the United States for all the airfields constructed by the United States government in Canada and for the telephone line from Edmonton to the Alaska boundary also built by the United States government. Some time ago, the decision to reimburse the United States for all permanent improvements to airfields on the northwest staging route and in the northwest generally was announced. This arrangement has now been extended, and Canada is assuming the cost of permanent improvements to all airfields constructed in whatever part of Canada by or for the account of the United States government. A conference of officials of the two governments will be held shortly to finalize the cost of these permanent installations. Further, a number of contracts placed by the United States army and navy in Canada will be cancelled. This procedure affects, of course, only a relatively small part of the United States contracts placed in Canada. The productive capacity which otherwise would be released by these cancellations of United States contracts is being taken up by
International Monetary Fund

orders placed by the Mutual Aid board for the purpose of meeting the urgent war needs of other united nations.
The understanding which I reached last month with the Secretary of the United States Treasury brings to an end the special financial arrangement entered into last year. Canada and the United States are mutually released from the obligations assumed under that special arrangement.
However, in so far as the Hyde Park declaration is concerned, the principle of close collaboration in war production, which was an essential part of that declaration, and the provision relating to components for the United Kingdom, still stand.
I trust that information which I have given will not lead hon. members to jump to over-optimistic conclusions. We have passed safely through a period of extreme gravity in our exchange position. I hope that
i.t is now over, but the experience which I have had in the first three or four years of war has given me a vivid appreciation not only of the seriousness of exchange problems but also of the rapidity with which the position may change.



INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W\ L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): I desire to take this opportunity of making an announcement which is being made to-day in other capitals.
Over many months, officials of a number of the united nations have been giving close study to the international monetary arrangements which will be desirable after the war. The house will recall that on April 14, 1943, I tabled in the house a proposal by United Kingdom officials for an international clearing union and one by United States officials for an international stabilization fund. On July 12, 1943, the Minister of Finance tabled tentative draft proposals of Canadian experts for an international exchange union. These proposals were all directed to the same ends, namely, the achievement of international monetary arrangements compatible with the balanced growth of international trade and with domestic economic policies aimed at high employment and incomes, but there was a considerable divergence in the methods suggested for achieving these objectives. Since that time, continuous efforts have been made to reach a common view as to the principles to be followed in post-war monetary arrangements.
(Mr. Usley.l
I am glad to be able to announce that as a result of discussions among experts of the united nations there is now a consensus of opinion among those participating on the need for the establishment of an international monetary fund and a statement has been drawn up of the principles which should govern its constitution and operation. I wish to make available, with the permission of the house, a document setting out this statement of principles, but to conform to arrangements with other governments, it will be tabled when the house reassembles at 8 o'clock.
In announcing this agreement on the principles which should govern the constitution and. operation of an international monetary fund, I should like to make quite clear that what has been achieved is an agreement among experts. No government is in any way committed to this document or to the views of its experts. The statement is made public at this time in order that there may be public knowledge of the progress which has been made and informed discussion of the proposals before governments proceed further.
This statement of principles on international monetary relationships is conceived as part of a general plan of international economic cooperation, which as a whole will have for its objects the progressive expansion of international trade, high levels of employment, improved standards of living, reasonable stability of prices and .machinery for orderly exchange arrangements. The Canadian government is thoroughly aware of the importance of establishing international monetary arrangements favourable to the expansion of trade and employment, and is keenly sympathetic with the particular objects to which this statement of principles is directed. It is equally anxious that common views should be reached on other parts also of a general plan of international economic cooperation, particularly on a reduction in the barriers to trade expansion, a reduction vital to Canada's welfare and necessary if conditions favourable to stable monetary arrangements are to be achieved. The view which will ultimately be taken by the Canadian government of any proposed monetary arrangements will be greatly, perhaps decisively, influenced by the progress which it is possible to make in achieving agreement on other aspects of international economic policy with which monetary arrangements are inseparably linked.
Mr. QUELCH:: Can the Prime Minister say whether or not a day will be set aside for the discussion of the international monetary proposals before any commitment is made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot make any promises at the moment.

International Law



INTERNATIONAL LAW


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 

HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry to direct to the Prime Minister. On Monday last I directed an inquiry to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance with respect to the acute rental and housing situation in Canada, to which I received the answer that he had nothing further to add to the previous statement he had made to the house on March 27. I would not raise the question again were it not for the extreme urgency surrounding it. Cases of hardship appear to be multiplying, and in some instances they involve the wives and families of our fighting men overseas. Because of the acute situation which has arisen, and in view of the fact that more than one department is involved, I am asking the Prime Minister if he will indicate what steps the administration is taking to meet this problem.
Before he answers may I say that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) only a few moments ago brought to my attention a more detailed suggestion with respect to relieving the situation. I would link the two together in my question to the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware my hon. friend was going to ask this question. I understand he sent a copy to my office, but I came into the house rather hurriedly and had no chance to see it. I would say, however, that even had I seen it I should have replied to the effect that I have nothing to add to the statement made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. It was a statement of government policy, and it stands as such.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I call attention of the house to the insufficiency of a return tabled two days before the Easter recess on Toronto housing, and dealing with the same subject. It showed that there were no war-time houses built there at all during this war, and that only $50,000 had been spent on the conversion of eight properties, or thirty-four units there. I suggest an amendment to the return; it would involve only three or four sentences. May I ask the house to be good enough in this emergency to allow me to read this, so that I may have an answer to my question on Monday.
In the first place, there was a considerable amount of property which the city of Toronto gave the government gratis for the duration. I may say the city and the government have
Housing

been working together in the matter. I would suggest that the old Havergal college on Jarvis street, in which about 350 of the women's army were housed, might be used. They are moving out on April 30th, and should before that to make it available.
Then, the second property, an R.C-A.F. equipment depot, is on the waterfront; seven of these sheds could be given as an emergency, and there are some buildings in the exhibition grounds which could be used temporarily.
Then, there is a lack of motor trucks until May 1 to move some of these poor people away. Surely the -military authorities could provide a few trucks. There are the equipment buildings I refer to on the waterfront, and some harbour property. I would suggest that three or four of these buildings might be made available so that these people might have a place in which to store their goods. At the present time they have not sufficient storage space. Further, I would suggest the loan of some military construction and housing staff of the forces to erect temporary buildings, or portable emergency houses.
I am asking that this housing matter be considered over the week-end, because it is serious.	.



QUESTION OF EXTENSION TO WINNIPEG OF HOUSE CONVERSION PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: On Tuesday of this week I asked a question with respect to the government's house conversion plan. I did so on behalf of the Winnipeg city council. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) indicated that he would endeavour to make a reply on Thursday. I was telephoned yesterday morning from the Department of Finance and told that in view of the absence of the parliamentary assistant from Ottawa he would not be able to make this reply on that day. However, I had hoped that the reply would be made to-day. Can the Minister of Finance indicate whether an answer is ready? My question was:
Is consideration being given to extending to Winnipeg the benefits of this plan?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I looked into (he matter to which the hon. member refers and I found that the city council of Winnipeg made an application some months^ ago for the extension of the housing conversion plan to that ctiy. The hon. gentleman perhaps realizes that many cities have applied for the extension of this plan to them, and every application has to be considered carefully. The machinery set up for the consideration of these questions is in the form of
tMr. Church.]
a committee called the housing coordinating committee, and I believe this matter has received some consideration by that committee. It has not yet been decided to extend the housing conversion plan to the city of Winnipeg, but the matter is under consideration by the committee, according to my understanding of the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless a reply has gone forward in the last few days, no reply to the application made last October has been received by the Winnipeg city council. If the minister finds that to be so, will he endeavour to see that the communication is answered right away?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Ye*.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious threat to war production involved in the dispute between the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited and several thousands of its employees, will the parliamentary assistant give the house full details of the present situation, and indicate what steps the government is taking so that war production may be resumed with a minimum of delay?


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Parliamentary Assists ant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the hon. member's intention to ask this question. On Friday last the Department of Labour asked one of its officers who happened to be in that section of Ontario to cancel some other engagements he had in other industrial plants, and to proceed to Windsor at once. That officer has been in Windsor since Friday morning. Last night another officer of the Department of Labour proceeded to Windsor by air to assist in doing eveiything possible to resolve the differences, so that a halt in production might be avoided.
May I add that the department at Ottawa is alive to the matter and is in constant association and touch with its conciliation officers. Everything is being done to bring about the objective the hon. member has in mind.


Gordon Graydon: Replying to the answer which has been given, may I say that I did send a notice of my question to the parliamentary assistant, and I am sorry it did not reach him in time. May I add only this, that I do not wish my remarks to be regarded as indicating that fault for the strike rests on any particular shoulders. Most strikes cannot

Labour-Ford Motor Company
be regarded in that way, and I am quite sure this would be in the same category. But I believe the public would like to know how it is that these things occur in a war-time industry, under the present complicated legal and constitutional arrangements set up for this particular purpose. Can the parliamentary assistant give any information as to how this condition has arisen in the present situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend will realize the difficulties inherent m the question. I can only repeat that the department is doing everything it can to bring about a satisfactory conclusion to the matter. Application for a hearing by both parties is now pending before the wartime labour relations board. That matter will be disposed of, I presume, on Tuesday next. I am sure that under those circumstances the leader of the opposition would not expect me to add anything more. There is a disposition to bring the matter to as speedy a conclusion as possible.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. The leader of the opposition has persisted in referring to the difficulty at Windsor as a strike. One of the factors involved is whether it is a strike or a lockout. There is a great difference between the two. Can the parliamentary assistant inform the house whether the department has determined whether this is a strike or a lockout within the meaning of order in council P.C. 1003?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has not given me any notice of his question. He will appreciate that the war-time labour relations board is the body that will determine a question of that sort. I am sure on reflection the hon. gentleman will agree that it would be wholly improper for me to pass judgment on the matter.


Clarence Gillis: That is the reason I raised the point. I think in the House of Commons it is wrong to classify this difficulty as a strike when there are other factors involved.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say any such thing.


Clarence Gillis: No, but the leader of the opposition did.


Gordon Graydon: On a question of privilege, I know my hon. friend is very quick to take some political advantage of-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, this is- 100-141
Mr.	GRAYDON:	I	am	speaking	to	a
question of privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order.
Mr.	GRAYDON:	I	am	speaking	to	a
question of privilege.


Thomas Vien: In speaking to a question of privilege the hon. member should not impute motives to the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Gordon Graydon: If I have imputed any motives I shall be glad to withdraw them unconditionally. I am asking that motives imputed to me. be withdrawn, and perhaps it would not be proper for me to impute motives while I was doing that. My question of privilege is this. If I used the word "strike"-I will accept my hon. friend's word that I did-I did so inadvertently because I recognized in looking over the news reports that that was one of the problems involved. I think I was careful in my remarks with respect to the matter at Windsor to indicate that I was only seeking information, rather than taking any stand with respect to the matter. If I did make a slip of that kind I am sure that my hon. friend will realize that he and I as well as others in the house sometimes are guilty of inadvertence. That is what this was.


Clarence Gillis: I am not a clairvoyant, so that I do not know what the hon. member is thinking.


Thomas Vien: There cannot be any argument on the matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, I expect to be leaving Ottawa shortly to be present at the meeting of Prime Ministers to be held in London in the near future. I have been discussing with my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) the distribution which it would be desirable to make of my duties as Prime Minister, President of the Council, and Secretary of State for External Affairs. Mr. Crerar has expressed the hope that the duties of these several offices might be assigned to different members of the government. I have accordingly decided to ask him to act as President of the Council, to preside at meetings of the cabinet and of the war committee and to continue to act, as he has done for some time past, as deputy leader of the House of

Army-Farm Leave

Commons. I intend to ask Mr. Ralston, the Minister of National Defence, to act as Prime Minister and leader in the house, and Mr. St. Laurent, the Minister of Justice, to act as Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure that this arrangement will commend itself to hon. members.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to the matter of spring leave. He mentioned two points. One, he suggested that there was some lack of uniformity in administration and, two, that more promptness might be exercised in dealing with applications. With regard to the matter of uniformity, I should like to say what I said at the time the present method of granting spring leave was put into effect. There is bound to be a certain lack of uniformity when applications are being dealt with by the different district officers commanding instead of being sent to national defence headquarters. That method was adopted deliberately because it was felt that there would be considerable delay in having everything sent down here. There were some complaints last year in that regard, and so the new order was put into effect. I do not think hon. members or the country generally would want us to revert back to the other method whereby everything had to come to national defence headquarters. It was decided that instead of referring these applications to national defence headquarters, which might ensure uniformity, they would be referred to the general officers commanding in chief and the district officers commanding. It was felt that these officers, being on the ground and having had some experience in connection with requests for agricultural leave, would be in position to appraise the applications and deal with them more quickly.
I	think generally speaking that that has proved to be true.
Now, regarding the time taken to handle these applications, there were some complaints that sworn declarations were being required to substantiate particular cases. To meet that situation, instructions were sent out on April
II	to this effect:
Complaints have been received that applicants for spring leave are required to submit with the applications supporting evidence in greater amount than might reasonably be con-
sidered necessary or of requiring such supporting evidence to be in the form of a sworn declaration.
While it is not desired to restrict in any way the discretion given to G.O.'s and D.O.'s C. in satisfying themselves that applications for spring leave are meritorious, it is pointed out that no particular form of evidence is required.
It will be appreciated that in many rural areas difficulties are experienced in securing declarations under oath and it is therefore suggested that except where doubt exists this should not be insisted upon especially when the supporting statements are made by responsible municipal or other officials or are those of persons of known standing in the community.
And! then there was this paragraph, and this in regard to the matter of speed:
It was intended by the order authorizing spring leave to make available all soldiers eligible under the terms of the order for this type of leave who could possibly be spared, and it is desirable in order to meet urgent labour requirements that applications be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
I could refer the house also to what was said in the previous order, but I think that that is sufficient to indicate that headquarters are doing everything they possibly can in this respect.
I just want to say this further, that if there are any specific cases my hon. friend has in mind, and he will refer them to me, I will have them looked into immediately.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: If I might be
allowed a question-and I wish to thank the minister for his statement on a matter that is of great importance-do men of the active army who have enlisted for overseas service have the right to apply for spring leave as well as the men under N.R.M.A.?


James Layton Ralston: It depends on what employment they are engaged in in the army. My hon. friend will find on Hansard at page 1641 the full statement that was made by the parliamentary assistant setting out exactly the terms on which men are granted spring leave. There are instances in which general service men are entitled to apply for leave just the same as N.R.M.A. personnel.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) spoke of some requirements which he thought might be needed in the city of Toronto with respect to handling the housing situation there. I want to say to him that I have had no requests so far from the city of Toronto with respect to these requirements, but I understand that the city's representatives will be in Ottawa on Monday. I regret that on account of an imperative previous appointment I shall not be able to attend the conference, to which I was invited, but at the same time I am seeing to it that inquiries are

Army-Farm Leave
made with regard to the matters he has mentioned in so far as they affect the army, so that information will be made available.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked yesterday with regard to the arrangements made by the department for the reception of members of the armed forces returning from overseas. The welcoming of our men from overseas is a very live question and we are sincerely making every effort to inform the public of their return, commensurate with security.
I indicated yesterday that the men return home either on a hospital ship or -troop transport. The hospital ships carry only invalid personnel and in that case there is no question of security. The names of all such personnel are received in Canada well in advance, of the arrival of the ships. Copies of these nominal rolls are then sent to each military district and others concerned, together with the names and addresses of the next of kin. In every case the next of kin are notified promptly by letter from national defence headquarters of the expected early arrival.
On the day the hospital ship docks, -that information is given to the local -press of the districts. Any inquiries are dealt with at district headquarters. When the hospital ship docks, the information is given to the press, and when the trains leave the port each military district is notified and kept informed periodically as to the progress of the train and the expected time of arrival at the various districts along the route. The same information- is given by public relations officers who are on the train and who give press releases from time to time. Then at the districts the public relations officers assist the press with regard to details of the -personnel aboard. In addition to that, in some districts radio broadcasts are given- to indicate the time when the train will arrive. That is so far as the hospital ships are concerned.
With regard to troop transports, the procedure manifestly must be different. There the next of kin are not notified in advance, for security reasons. As I indicated yesterday no information can- be -published in the press for at least twenty-four hours after the transport docks and then the name of the ship and port of entry cannot be mentioned.
Arrangements, however, have been made whereby representatives of the telegraph companies can go on board and take telegrams from the returned soldiers to their relatives and friends advising them of their safe arrival in Canada. These telegrams are held by the postal censor until the necessary time has elap-sed, and then they are dispatched to the 100-1414
next of kin all over Canada. That does not give information as to when the soldier is going to arrive in his home town. All that is said there is that he has arrived in Canada.


Gordon Graydon: Does the man have to pay for the telegram himself, or is that taken, care of by the government?


James Layton Ralston: I gave instructions that the department will pay for the telegrams.


Gordon Graydon: I think that would be much more satisfactory.


James Layton Ralston: Again, as in the case of the hospital trains, the districts are kept informed periodically as to the time of arrival of the trains at the city or town where the district headquarters are located, and all assistance is given to the press there.
With regard to comforts on the trains-and this a-pplies -to both hospital and troop trains -there is a representative of a voluntary organization on the train who distributes newspapers, -magazines, fruit, games, et cetera. Then other voluntary organizations from what might be called Welcome Home committees welcome the boys at the port of entry and at the larger centres through which they pass and on arrival in each military district, distributing fruit, coffee, cigarettes, et cetera. I know many cases in which arrangements are made whereby returning soldiers are transported to the homes of citizens if they have to stay over any time, particularly at divisional headquarters.
The difficulty comes with regard to the particular point raised by my hon. friend, and that is notice to the relatives in the home town as to what train the soldier is coming on and what the time of this arrival will be. Here I pause for a moment to make this explanation.
Men have to go to the district headquarters first before they go home in order that their documentation may be completed and that they may be paid, their ration books issued and a great many other details attended to. Then the man is given leave, and he is on his own. He is entitled to select the train he wants to go home -on. Therefore it is manifestly very difficult in a city like Toronto for instance, where there are many attractions, to know just exactly what train the soldier will decide to go on if he is going to stay over there for a few hours. What we are doing is having the officers at the depot get from the soldier the train on which he proposes to go home. The officer gives him the time of departure of the trains which go to his particular locality, and when the
Army-Farm Leave

soldier indicates what train, he is going on a wire is sent to his home. That I am afraid is the best that can be done. I have discussed it thoroughly with the officers and it has been considered to be about all we can do to give notice to the folks at home as to the time at which the soldier may be arriving. We have had the greatest help from the Legion in that respect. They are anxious to get the nominal rolls and we give them to them, and they assist us materially in looking after the soldier in the particular town where the district headquarters is situated. Often they see the soldier on the train and help him to give notice to those at home of the time of his arrival.
As the numbers increase, I think there will be greater opportunity for voluntary organizations to assist in this welcome. The department is giving constant and unremitting attention to every possible method whereby we can improve the cordiality, the warmth and the spontaneity of the reception given to soldiers coming home. Of course it is not in every instance that soldiers want welcoming committees at the train. Sometimes I find .that towns arrange if they . have a number of soldiers coming home, one on one train and others on other trains, to wait for a civic reception until everybody is there, so that they may have perhaps a somewhat more orderly and 'more comfortable arrangement than would be possible by simply going and meeting the men at the train.
What we are trying to do is to give the best information we can, having regard to the situation which exists, whereby the soldier himself has the right to select his train, inasmuch as he has the transportation warrant and is entitled to go on the train of his choice. That does not apply to the same extent to casualties who are still needing treatment, because so far as they are concerned they generally go to a hospital or rest home, and wait until a particular train leaves, and then they are seen to the train by -military personnel.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I was talking to some members of the Legion in Ottawa and they felt that some improvement could be made in notifying them rather more accurately of the times when trains will arrive. I understand it has frequently happened locally that the notice received indicates that a train will arrive in Ottawa at a certain time and when that time comes it is found that the train has not yet reached Montreal and those concerned have not been notified. I do believe that some little checking up could be done to ensure more specific and up-to-the-minute

notice being given parents and others concerned in that regard.
With reference to what the minister has said regarding spring leave, I should like to ask one further question. Where farm helpers on leave are being called back to military headquarters for examination, I find locally that there has been some complaint for a considerable time about the men being detained. I believe that when the farm boy calls for examination there is some delay in examining him physically, and after that examination his plea for extension for spring leave is dealt with. I have known of several instances in which a boy very much needed at home has been kept two weeks longer for that very reason. I would ask the minister to look into this matter and see whether the process cannot be somewhat expedited.


James Layton Ralston: I will.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister . of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of His Majesty to enter into an agreement to pay to the corporation of the city of Ottawa the sum of $100,000 for the year ending July 1, 1944.
Mr. G. J. MelLRAITH (Ottawa West): The grant to the city of Ottawa has come up for a number of years now in the form of an annual bill. In going back over the debates it seems clear that a great many hon. members feel that they have not sufficient information, or at any rate all the information they would like to have in order to form an opinion on this subject, and that therefore they are not able to judge the adequacy or the inadequacy of the amount granted. As representative of Ottawa West constituency, which is situate wholly within the limits of the corporation and comprises about two-thirds of the area of the corporation, I have had occasion to examine in detail all the various items that must be considered in arriving at a proper amount. As a result of that examination I have felt that the amount provided is wholly inadequate.
An unfair burden is being placed on the real property owners, the taxpayers of the city of Ottawa. In each of the last three sessions I have pointed out the inadequacy of the amount provided, and in 1942, on the second reading of the bill, I gave the house extended details of the various items and factors hav-

City of Ottawa Agreement
ing a bearing on the relationship between the city and the dominion. I take it that the matter of details as to these items is not a proper one for discussion in the resolution stage. The data up to that time will be found at page 2683 of Hansard for the year
1942.	In addition to emphasizing the inadequacy of the amount I urged that the method of providing the sum by an annual bill was not wholly satisfactory. I urged the setting up of a special committee of the House of Commons to consider the whole matter.
There are certain relative factors entering into consideration of the matter, upon which I am sure hon. members would desire to have information. I am sure they would desire to have the matter dealt with in a way which would permit the summoning of witnesses before the committee and the production of evidence and relevant documents as they see fit. I am sure that the procedure of having an annual bill rather than a bill covering a longer period of time is not satisfactory. The city of Ottawa as the capital of the nation, is the concern and the interest of all parts of the nation. I feel confident that hon. members will look at this measure from that point of view.
The city can no longer be expected to provide services on the scale expected by the dominion, which services must come out of the taxpayers of the city. At the same time the rest of the country cannot afford to have the development of the nation's capital impaired by the inadequacy of the city's revenue. It is the desire of all Canada to have a capital developed in a manner worthy of the ideals of the nation, and I am sure that is the desire of all hon. members. Yet by permitting this annual injustice to go on from year to year we are impairing the development we all so much desire.
I quite agree with the point of view that the energies of the House of Commons must continue to be directed first and above all to the prosecution of the war, but I do suggest that we have now reached the stage in the development of the war where we can properly have regard to post-war measures and developments, and that we must look to these matters at this time. As part of this larger question of development, the city of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, must have its proper place. I therefore again urge, as I have done repeatedly in the past, and particularly in the last two sessions, the setting up of a special committee of the House of Commons to look into the whole matter. I ask that it be done at this time.
George Russell Boucher: thing that will go a long way to meet the services that are given by the city to the government. I hope to see an investigation made by a committee, which will go into all the facts and circumstances, and will bring into this house a thorough and fair explanation of the relationship between the government and the city, and that as a result the members of this house will see that justice is done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member who has just taken his seat has referred to an interview which His Worship the Mayor had with me recently. Perhaps I should place on record the communication that came from His Worship a little earlier in the month and my reply thereto. I received the following communication some days ago:
Office of the Mayor
Ottawa,
4th April, 1944.
Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
The following motion was unanimously adopted by our city council last night at its regular meeting:
''That His Worship the Mayor of Ottawa, be, and hereby is, authorized by council to request the Right Honourable the Prime Minister to appoint a committee representative of the federal government and parliament of Canada to meet in conference with a committee of council to be appointed by His Worship the Mayor, for the purpose of discussing the relationship and financial agreements existing between the Dominion of Canada and the municipal corporation of the city of Ottawa, with a view to formulating and recommending a revised agreement which will be mutually equitable as between the Dominion of Canada and the city of Ottawa."
On behalf of city council I beg to urge, Mr. Prime Minister, that the government take action immediately to set up a committee so that the whole matter may be gone into during this present session of parliament. We are prepared to meet with a government committee at once.
Sincerely yours,
S.	Lewis,
Mayor.
I replied to that communication as follows:
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
His Worship,
Mayor Stanley Lewis, Ottawa, Ontario.
Ottawa, April 4, 1944.
My dear Mr. Mayor:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of to-day's date, setting out a motion adopted at last night's regular meeting of the city council, with regard to a conference between a committee of the city council and members of the government of Canada.

council's request will be brought before the cabinet at an early meeting, in order that arrangements may be made for a meeting with the city representatives for the discussion of the relationship between the municipal corporation and the government. Thereafter, I shall be glad to see that arrangements are made, through your office, for a mutually convenient [DOT]time for the meeting.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
On Tuesday last, the 18th, I had a brief interview in my office with His Worship the Mayor, at which time, among other reasons mentioned by His Worship for the meeting referred to, was that he and the members of the city council have the responsibility of the future development of Ottawa as a city. His Worship spoke of the greater Ottawa as a city. The council feel that it would be of assistance to them if they knew in a more definite way than is possible at present what the future relations between the government and the city in connection with financial and other matters are likely to be. I mentioned to His Worship that the government felt, of course, a special interest in the development of a greater Ottawa as the capital of Canada, and that we too were very much concerned that the development made in the creation of a greater city should be such as would take into full account the future of Ottawa as the capital of Canada.
I subsequently drew the representations of the mayor to the attention of my colleagues in the cabinet. We discussed the matter fully; and it was thought that, instead of a meeting of the government with the mayor and his colleagues, it would be preferable to have a committee of this house, or a joint committee of both houses, meet with the mayor and his colleagues and have them go carefully into the whole question of the relations of the city and the government, allowing the council to make its own representations to the committee, and the committee to gather such information as would be helpful to the government in reaching a decision on financial and other matters which it would be necessary to make. As it is uncertain how long the work of a committee may take, what the extent of the representations may be, and as it is obviously desirable that the city should be immediately secured in the matter of an agreement between the corporation and the government, it was thought both by the mayor and myself that it would be advisable that a bill based on the resolution which appears on the order paper should be proceeded with by both houses forthwith, but that if passed it should be without prejudice to any action which the government might wish to take as a result of the representations which might be considered

City of Ottawa Agreement
between the city officials and the parliamentary representatives appointed on a committee to meet them.
My hon. friend the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), who has spoken, suggested a committee of the members of the House of Commons. He has done so before. I am not sure that it might not be advisable to have a committee representative of both houses of parliament. One advantage of such a committee would be that it would enable hon. members from other parts of Canada to appreciate some of the considerations of which the corporation of Ottawa has to take account as a consequence of Ottawa being the capital of Canada. It would, too, I believe, be regarded throughout the country as helpful to have the views, not merely of the government and the council, both of which are located in Ottawa, but to have as well that larger and possibly more impartial consideration which might be expected1 to be given by representatives of both houses of this parliament, from all parts of Canada, meeting with the mayor and his officials. Both the city officials and the government would bring before such a committee their own experts and officials, presenting all aspects of the relationship between the two which it might be desirable to have taken into account.
I do not know how many years it is that a measure similar to the one foreshadowed in the resolution has been passed.


George Russell Boucher: Since 1928.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Well, since 1928 there have been a good many changes in this city, and for that reason among others it would seem advisable that the whole situation should be carefully reviewed in the interests alike of the government and of the city. It has been understood' that this measure would be regarded as a temporary one. I remember some years ago giving an undertaking to the city that the situation would be carefully reviewed, and that review, it would now appear, might well take place in the manner suggested.


Gordon Graydon: May I point out to the Prime Minister that in any event it is only for the period ending July 1, 1944.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This measure?


Gordon Graydon: Yes; it is just for one year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just until
July 1.


Gordon Graydon: Of the present year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The future situation can be taken care of either as has been done in the past or as modified as a result of the conference.
I just wish to say that the government is wholly sympathetic to the idea of appointing a committee of both houses of parliament to meet with His Worship the mayor and his officials, and a resolution to that effect will be brought before the house for its consideration at an early opportunity.
I should like to take advantage of this moment to say just a word in regard to the future of Ottawa. I have spoken on this subject a number of times, and some years ago I made the suggestion, which others have also made, that some day the, capital of Canada might become a federal district to be administered by a commission, in a manner similar to the capital at Washington. I am not putting this forward as anything which should be done immediately. It is a matter which will require a great deal of consideration. But I feel that just now, if there is to be any immediate consideration of the planning of greater Ottawa as a city or as a capital, that planning ought to have in mind all possibilities of the development of this capital. I have often hoped that if the capital were to become a federal district, that district would extend far enough to include a very large area on the other side of the river as well as the Ottawa area. I would like to see-I may not live to see it but I hope others may-the day when the Ottawa river, instead of flowing along the north border of the capital, will be flowing through the heart of the city, the greater Ottawa that is to be, and that we shall have a capital city which will extend as far into the province on the other side of the Ottawa river as it may extend in the province on this side. I do not think that is a vision of future needs or of future greatness by any means too broad or too large. We have seen in recent years how rapidly this city has grown. We may well expect to see a capital city of Canada- of dimensions beyond anything we are likely to contemplate at this time.
I have one other thought in mind to which I should like to give expression, and it is this. The sacrifices of the men and women of Canada who served in the last war have been memorialized by a national war memorial in the heart of this city. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to create another memorial which could pay due tribute to the service and sacrifice- of those men and women of Canada who will have served in the present world
City of Ottawa Agreement

conflict. What finer memorial could there be than a capital city which would serve as a model of community planning for all the other cities of Canada, and which would be symbolic of the world-wide effort of Canada in the present war, and the significant place we hope our country will occupy in the world of the future-a national capital which would be not only the pride of Canadians but also an object lesson to other cities and to other countries? The national war memorial of the last war is in the heart of Ottawa. Might not the national memorial of the present war find noble expression, carefully planned, in a federal district as the site of the Canadian capital, through the heart of which would flow the Ottawa river.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to say one word which would reflect upon the proposed agreement, one which has always been so near and dear to the heart of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who is one of the leading citizens of the city. But the measure is based upon what is known as a subvention given in exchange for services.
I have read that 18,000 people have come to Ottawa since the beginning of the war, and by this addition to the normal population the burdens of the community have been increased. Buildings have been torn down, and by that means the municipality has been affected. I must point out however that something on the same principle as this vote should be done for other large centres of population in Canada which are giving almost the same type of municipal services to the government, but receive nothing for those services. I have in mind fire protection, police protection and many other forms of municipal aid, including the construction of sewers, pavements and roads.
Up to a few years ago the Ontario government did not pay for those local improvements. However at that time Sir James Whitney introduced a measure by which the government was obligated to pay for local improvements, the same as would any other private citizen in the community. It is true that the ctiy of Ottawa has given splendid service, but I must point out that something should be done for the larger centres of population, the provincial capitals also, throughout Canada. The Ottawa improvement scheme is nearly all federal, but it has some local features in that it provides parks, playgrounds and the like for the rising generation. In other cities those services are provided exclusively by the municipalities.
All the people in the city from which I come are admirers of Ottawa. We wish to see

the capital of Canada properly looked after in every way, and in a way befitting its importance as the capital of Canada. However an investigation was made a few years ago by the Australian and United States governments on the very principle of this agreement, namely, with respect to the subventions which should be paid by federal, provincial or state governments. For example, one of the states of the Australian commonwealth gave $2,500,000 a year to maintain a police force in Sydney. A similar procedure has been adopted in many of the states across the border in the United States of America. In most cases police and fire protection are given, and in some instances cash grants are allowed in exchange for services rendered the various governments. In my view the same principle should be applied to those larger cities in Canada which are giving similar services to the federal government. If one were to survey the budgets of municipal departments of many communities he would find that two or three mills on civic tax rates of those communities could be traced to assuming a federal burden. That is imposed by federal statute law on the municipalities, and they in turn must transfer it to the taxpayers. This practice has had a deteriorating effect in respect of the ownership of real estate-so much so, in fact, that many people do not want to own real property, with such federal taxes placed upon them.
I am- hoping that within the next short while Ottawa may have a better system of accommodation for the public. We have here a federal government and a municipal or local government. Something should be done to improve the accommodation available for visitors, members of the public who come to Ottawa from other parts of Canada, from the United States and other parts of the world. These people are sometimes driven away because they cannot find housing accommodation or a place to stay while they are here.
I would hope, too, that there might be some improvement in the train service offered at the Union station. I have come to the point where I consider the conditions there at times a death-trap. Almost every day one train is coming in while another is going out, and at the same time hundreds of people are jammed in between those two trains in a space of only twelve or fourteen feet in width. Surely something should be done about those depot facilities.
I hope the day is not far distant when the federal government will be a little more liberal toward the municipalities of Canada, so that subventions may be given to provincial capitals and other cities which are giving the very

City of Ottawa Agreement
same kind of service, at the expense of the local taxpayers, as is the city of Ottawa, and are getting nothing.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, with what has been said this afternoon regarding the city of Ottawa I believe all hon. members will agree. The question as to the relationship existing between the federal government on the one hand and the city council and the people of Ottawa on the other is one which is discussed in the house year after year. Every member realizes of course how beautiful this city is. I could not help thinking, however, when the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) was speaking that perhaps it is not fully understood that only a small percentage of people in Canada ever have the opportunity to see their capital city.
In his speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) visualized the great growth we may expect to see in Ottawa, and he pointed out how in later years the city of Hull might be included in the federal area. I wish that the vision had been broader when the capital was located at this point, because I am sure that in those days if the fathers had realized the great extent of this country the capital of the dominion might well have been placed farther west. I say that because one must realize that while there is only a distance of a thousand miles from this point to the east coast, there are three thousand miles to the west coast. The result is that the capital city is not placed in the centre of Canada; rather it is more to the east.
While I have every sympathy with the people of Ottawa and realize that they may have been at times dealt with unjustly in the matter of finance, I cannot come to any conclusion other than that Ottawa holds an advantage over other cities in which the government has appropriated properties. The advantage is that Ottawa has a permanent civil service which is not found in any other city of Canada. I am pleased indeed that this year a committee is to be set up, but I for one would like to see its powers go beyond Ottawa. I say that because we find in this measure the principle outlined only a few moments ago by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). There are cities in Canada where as much as three-quarters of the entire territory has been appropriated by or taken over by the dominion government, and where no return has been given whatsoever. The war has accelerated this condition. I have in mind one small district in British Columbia where over one-third of the territory has been taken over by the government for war purposes, and the land taken off the tax rolls. I am not referring at this moment to
the appropriation for the city of Ottawa, which I think we all agree is not adequate. I rise merely to point out that I should like to see the whole principle involved in this resolution investigated in detail. I should like to see a commission set up to consider the whole problem, which extends from one end of Canada to the other. I do not know whether there are other districts in Canada where the same condition exists as exists in certain districts in British Columbia where three-quarters of the area has been taken over by the dominion and provincial governments. No property taxes are paid on this property. I join with other hon. members who have contended that proper consideration should be given to the city of Ottawa.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this occasion go by without saying a word or two. I am not opposing this grant of $100,000 to be made to the city of Ottawa, nor am I opposing the setting up of a committee to consider the future relations of Ottawa with the government. However, as the last speaker (Mr. Reid) has mentioned, there are other districts in Canada which are just as badly off so far as tax exemptions are concerned, and yet they receive no consideration from the government. The naval dockyard is located in the township of Esquimalt. This small municipality has a population of about 4,000, and yet sixty per cent of the area is owned by the federal government. We have been unable to get even a small grant to cover the upkeep of roads and sidewalks. Unless something is done, this municipality will find itself in a very embarrassing position.
It is some time since the government decided that crown property would be exempt from taxation. At that time there was no doubt about what was in the minds of the people. It was thought that a post office would be located in each municipality, and customs houses in certain other places. These facilities, however, were to serve only the needs of the particular district. But since that time the government has gone a long way. We now find services which are national in character set up in many districts, and I maintain that when that is done there should be some grant paid by the national government to cover upkeep. Where the services supplied by the federal government are of a purely local character, they should be exempt from taxation.
The time has long passed when this whole question should have been reconsidered. Many of these municipalities will have to be given assistance if they are to keep out of difficulty. At the present time there is a shortage of
City of Ottawa Agreement

many thousands of houses in Canada. This, condition has been created largely by ourselves. We now propose to cure it by building more houses. So much taxation is being placed upon property that no one wants to own land or build a house. It has been said, and I think quite rightly, that only a fool builds a house, while the wise man lives in it. As I say, where the service maintained by the government is national in character some contribution should be made to the municipality to help it to carry on. I think a committee should be set up to investigate the whole problem of tax exemption on crown property.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and the hon. member for Carle ton (Mr. Boucher) are justified in suggesting that the taxpayers of Ottawa should not be expected to keep up appearances in harmony with the dignity which a capital city should have. I agree with them that a more equitable arrangement should be made to relieve the taxpayers of that responsibility. I agree also when they suggest that this is a responsibility of all the people of Canada, not just the taxpayers of Ottawa.
When it comes to considering the best method of overcoming this difficulty we must consider a number of things. Since I came to Ottawa I have spent a considerable amount of time in studying the subject mentioned this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I agree heartily with his suggestion that the proper method of obviating the necessity for such a measure as we are considering to-day is the creation of a federal district. But that would remove just one of the many anomalies which now exist in our constitutional position. My contention is that these anomalies should be removed in a systematic and proper fashion. These things cannot be done in a piecemeal or patchwork way; they should be done by adopting a well organized national policy.
In times past I have made several speeches in this house indicating what I considered to be the constitutional position of Canada and the manner in which I think it should be changed and brought up to date to harmonize with our constitutional status. The creation of a federal district is one of the things that should be done to remove one of the anomalies which exist. Perhaps I would not be in order this aftemooon in discussing some of the other anomalies, but I should like to mention a few which I think ought to be removed.
There is the matter of the constitution itself. We refer to the British North America Act as our federal constitution. I have con-

tended in times past that the British North America Act never was and is not now a proper constitution. It certainly cannot be called a federal constitution.
Allied with that is the manner of amending the constitution. In a federal union proper the states or provinces comprising that union should have the privilege and the power to amend their own constitution. That is still not the case in Canada.
Then there is the matter of the ratification of the constitution. The British North America Act was never ratified by the people of Canada. A federal constitution proper must be ratified.
Under our constitution there is still the power of disallowance which is an anomaly that must be removed and should not exist in a democratic country.
There is also the question of citizenship status in Canada. There is on our statute book no statute which makes provision for the status of a Canadian as such. We have also had raised from time to time the question of having a distinctive flag for Canada, and finally there is the matter of a federal district.
These are some of the many anomalies that ought to be removed. But personally I do not consider that tackling them one at a time is the proper way to do it. I feel, as I have stated in times past, that the Canadian people since 1931, through the enactment of the statute of Westminster, have had the privilege of removing all these anomalies by creating a proper federal constitution and establishing a federal district.
In concluding my remarks I should like to place on the record a statement of the policy of the group and movement with which I am associated. It is as follows:
Whereas the Statute of Westminster, in granting complete sovereignty and equality -with Great Britain to Canada and other nations of the British commonwealth, has changed the relative positions of the provincial and federal governments as provided in the B.N.A. Act; and _ Whereas it is desirable and expedient in the interests of national unity that an interprovincial conference of appropriate representatives of the Canadian provinces be held for the purpose of reviewing and adjusting the constitutional relationship as between the provinces and their central government with a view to providing effective democratic government in Canada:
Therefore be it resolved that without in any way prejudicing or jeopardizing the rights and privileges of any minority group in Canada, a comprehensive conference of representatives of the provinces be held for the purpose of considering:
1.	The existing legislative and administrative organization in the provincial and federal spheres.
2.	A more expedient allocation of powers as between the provincial and federal authorities.

United Nations Agreement
3.	Ways and means of facilitating the drafting, the adoption and the implementation of a Canadian constitution in keeping with the rights granted in the Statute of Westminster.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if such a policy were adopted the bill which we are now considering and matters allied to it would never again arise. Personally I feel that that is the only sound and proper way of dealing with this anomaly as well as with all others that obtain under our present constitutional position.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fournier (Hull) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 87, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull) moved the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1

Agreement .with city of Ottawa extended for one year.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Are copies of this bill available, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: We have sent for a copy.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull) moved the third reading of the bill.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, quite consistently, and without malice at all with respect to this matter, let me say that I have always insisted that a copy of a bill must be before us before it passes through this house. I think the minister will see the position in which we would be if we were not to stand up and maintain our rights in this matter. I have no desire to hold up this bill in any way. I think it is one which we all want to see go through as quickly as possible, and I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I ask that this bill be not now read a third time until we have a copy of it before us. I have no objection to our coming back to this bill and giving it a third reading once we have a copy of the bill in our hands, proceeding with some other item of business in the meantime. But to protect the position which we have consistently taken during many sessions in this house we
must insist on having a copy of the bill before us before it is given a third reading. Otherwise we shall be subjected, and properly so, to a good deal of criticism for laxity. I am not singling out this particular piece of legislation. I am taking the stand I have taken on several occasions before with respect to other legislation coming before us and will do so again, and I caution the government now to have their bills ready so that they can be put through their stages properly in this house. As I said I shall be very glad to see the bill get its third reading after we have passed some other item of business if a copy of the bill is before us.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: With the point raised by my hon. friend I have no quarrel at all. The bill, I take it, will be practically in the same form as the resolution. It is a very simple matter, the giving of a grant to the city of Ottawa, but if my hon. friend so desires we are prepared to let it stand. We thought we might dispose of it, however, since there are no new phases of the measure that will be revealed when the bill is before the house.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask why the bill is not before the house when we are asked to give three readings.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At the moment I am unable to give my hon. friend the information.


Gordon Graydon: The responsibility for the delay in this matter certainly cannot, by the greatest stretch of the imagination, be regarded as resting on our shoulders. The government should have the bill here if they are anxious to make the grant to the city. I am anxious that it should go through as quickly as possible, but the government is the obstacle.


Alphonse Fournier: At the next sitting.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of bill No. 84, for carrying into effect the agreement for united nations relief and rehabilitation administration 'between Canada and certain other nations and authorities.
Gordon Graydon: I realize that there is no desire on the part of the house to debate further at any length the bill which is now before us for third reading. There were two points which I wished to make, and I have now been afforded that opportunity by the motion for third reading.
United Nations Agreement

I would refer the house to that portion of the schedule known as article I, paragraph (c) of section 2, and I should like to read particularly that part in which I am interested at the moment, and that is in connection with the purposes and functions of the administration. I quote:
To study, formulate and recommend for individual or joint action by any or all of the member governments measures with respect to such related matters, arising out of its experience in planning and performing the work of relief and rehabilitation, as may be proposed by any of the member governments.
My sole reason for raising this point at the moment is that this schedule constitutes the agreement which has already been signed at Washington by a number of nations; and this nation did not see fit, by reason of its government's policy, to wait for ratification before the signing of the agreement. A number of other nations did this, but in its wisdom or otherwise Canada saw the matter in a different light.
Although the agreement has been signed and perhaps, as some members have said, matters cannot be remedied, I do not think this procedure should be allowed to pass without a protest on my part, and I would draw to the attention of the government the implications which are patent in the particular part of the schedule that I have mentioned. So far as this nation is concerned, and this government as well, we have actually signed the agreement with a number of other important nations, and we may find ourselves perhaps in a position which is not now contemplated, since we have agreed to study, to formulate and to recommend for individual or joint action by any or all of the member governments measures with respect to "such related matters". It is not just relief, not merely the provision of supplies, but matters related to the provision of relief and of supplies. The interpretation is pretty loose and that may perhaps lead us into positions not contemplated by the resolution when brought up.	.
I would caution the government, because I believe that this particular section may be fraught with dangers which have not been indicated and which apparently have not come to the attention of the government. I envisage this, that under this section it might be possible that in some of the smaller countries in Europe relief and rehabilitation will become necessary as conquest has actually been achieved and the nations freed, and, after the relief and rehabilitation programme had been under way for some time, certain experience in planning and performing the work of relief and rehabilitation, as mentioned, might be used as a means of going farther. How much

farther we do not know, and having regard to the circumstances, I think there should be at least some limiting clause with respect to the length to which these nations banded together are going to go in matters further than relief and rehabilitation provisions.
I would point out by way of warning and caution that this nation, by signing the agreement and particularly by adhering to this section, may conceivably be adopting in the international field a policy that may go much farther and into much more perilous and dangerous undertakings than those contemplated by the government, or evidently by those who have become signatories to the agreement. With that I rest my case at the moment.
The other point I wish to make is this. It is not sufficient for this nation simply to propose plans for what it is going to do for other countries. This nation has to do more under UNRRA than that, and the one weakness of our position in relation to IJNRRA, as I see it, is the fact that Canada failed last year actually to plan for its food supply. That was a matter that came before this house on several occasions. The suggestion was made time after time, not merely from this side of the house but in other quarters as well, that there should be plans with regard to food in Canada. The suggestion was made that there should be a food minister and that plans and schemes should be on foot for the provision of supplies not only for the war but for the days of the rehabilitated peace-time period.
I think it can be properly said that we are entering into this UNRRA agreement completely unprepared to play our part with respect to food supply. I am not going to mention the reasons to-day. I am not catechizing the government farther on that point, but at a more suitable time I think the government, through the appropriate minister, must answer certain questions with respect to the manner in which we are prepared to do something in support of the paper writing into which we have entered as one nation in the international field. Food is one thing for which we have not planned very well in war. We have had surpluses of one thing and we have had deficiencies of another. Our food supply has been a serious question. If the war ends unexpectedly, where is the surplus except for perhaps one or two staple lines? Where is the surplus we are to use under the terms of the UNRRA agreement? It is one thing to sign an agreement and it is another thing to provide the things that we are prepared to provide under it. This country must solve the inevitable problem, and that is why I think we must have a food policy and a food

United Nations Agreement
plan, not only for the remainder of the war but for those days envisaged and contemplated by the agreement in question.
I rose to protest, first of all, against one of the provisions in the agreement, and, second, to protest against the lack of a plan to provide the necessary materials and food supplies contemplated in the agreement in the time in which it will operate. I am hopeful that the government will heed some of the suggestions that are being made in this regard. The suggestions are made honestly, because I have great fear as to what our position is to be with respect to this agreement unless the government simultaneously, collaterally and concurrently have a proper internal and domestic plan at home by which we can fulfil the terms of the agreement into which we have entered with other nations of the world.


Mr. BRUCE McNEVIN (Victoria, Ont.):: I am surprised by some of the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). He now states that there should have been a minister of food. I think it was only yesterday or the day before he took the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to task for suggesting some new departments headed by a minister.


Gordon Graydon: Do not misrepresent me, now.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: That is as I understood it.


Gordon Graydon: The food minister was
to be under the Minister of Agriculture. My hon. friend knows that. There was no new ministry to be set up.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: My hon. friend said a
minister of food.


Gordon Graydon: Quite; my hon. friend
listened to the debate last session, and surely he should have known that.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I am listening to it this
session. The leader of the opposition said a minister of food.


Gordon Graydon: Do not misinterpret.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I take issue with the
statement that the food production plan of the Dominion of Canada has not been given leadership or has not been a definite plan. When we compare the production figures of 1938 with 1943 and take into consideration the fact that for the latter period there are at least twenty-five per cent fewer people engaged in the production of food products and that we had in 1943 a forty per cent increase in the total amount of food produced over the figure for 1938, I think that definitely establishes the fact that the food production plan of the Dominion of Canada was well
directed and well guided; and, in addition to that, that the farmers of Canada responded magnificently to that leadership and to the direction that was given. For that guidance the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) must be given the major portion of the credit.


Gordon Graydon: The farmers responded
in spite of the leadership.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to say just a word concerning the remarks made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). I take it that the first point he raised was in regard to paragraph (c) of section 2 of article I. I do not attach to the language of that paragraph the implications which my hon. friend endeavoured to read into it. After all, paragraph (c) provides that the council or the administration may-	.
.	.	. study, formulate and recommend for
individual or joint action by any or all of the member governments measures with respect to such related matters.
All they do is to study, formulate and make recommendations.


Gordon Graydon: No; read farther.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.
Such proposals-
That is, such recommendations or formulations as they make.
-shall be studied and recommendations formulated if the proposals are supported by a vote of the council, and the recommendations shall be referred to any or all of the member governments for individual or joint action-


Gordon Graydon: That is the point.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -if approved by unanimous vote of the central committee and by vote of the council.
My hon. friend states that this will bind the member governments. I do not put that construction upon it. I am free to say that I have not given perhaps as close study to it as my hon. friend has done; but I do not think there is any commitment there that would bind this government or any other government to any fantastic or impossible proposition.
On the second point I wish simply to supplement what the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. McNevin) has said. I think the leader of the opposition was a bit wide of the mark in his criticism of the administration for lack of a food policy. His suggestion that something in the nature of a food ministry should be set up was covered by the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture
United Nations Agreement

(Mr. Gardiner) and the Department of Agriculture have, since the outbreak of the war, been mainly concerned with an increase in the production of foodstuffs in this country. And with what results? We undertook to supply Britain with vast quantities of bacon and pork products. As I recall it, in the year prior to the outbreak of the war, our shipments to the United Kingdom were something on the order of 140,000,000 pounds. Last year they were over 600,000,000 pounds. Does my hon. friend claim that there was a lack of planning, a lack of energy and a lack of effort in a few short years in securing this tremendous increase?
At the present time and for some time past I understand substantial shipments of beef as well as dairy products have been going to Great Britain. How has this been achieved? Is it the result of a hit-or-miss method, of a haphazard plan or a lack of plan that my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, described it to be? Not at all. It is the result of organized effort and planning in the production of those food crops. Cheese, one of the most concentrated of foodstuffs, has been sent to Great Britain in far greater quantities in the last few years than was ever sent before the outbreak of war. We have sent milk products of one kind and another, powdered milk and concentrated milk. These were the commodities that the people of Great Britain wished to have and we have produced them. We have done that without placing any undue hardship upon the people of our own country. No one in this house will presume to say that the government in its policy has been niggardly in supplying meats, dairy products-milk, particularly for children -to the people of this country.
Cereal production is also subject to weather conditions, over which, unfortunately, the government has no control, but for which some people would like to blame the government, and cereal production has been maintained and increased. The hon. member *who is parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, in speaking to the measure the other day, stated, as I recall, that it was expected that a substantial contribution from Canada would be in wheat. I can assure my hon. friend that we have the wheat in this country at the present time. I think, therefore, my hon. friend was extending himself considerably in an effort to find ground for criticism of the food production programme in this country. He may not know it, and he may not believe it when I tell him, but from one end of Canada to the other there is full recognition to-day of the magnificent job

which the Minister of Agriculture has done in the production of foodstuffs. I find evidence of this on every hand. What do the authorities in Great Britain say; what do the authorities in the United States say, about Canada's effort in this regard? They think it has been a very fine effort and has made an exceedingly great contribution to the purposes of the war.
I simply wished to say this because in the absence of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture I did not wish to let pass unchallenged the rather strong criticism which was made by the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand that, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) concurring, we may revert to order No. 7 and get the third reading of bill No. 87.
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved the third reading of bill No. 87, to authorize an agreement
between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.


Gordon Graydon: We are prepared to allow this bill now to proceed. I only want to caution the government; on future occasions, when there is a bill to be presented, do not place us in the embarrassing position of having to object to the passing of a bill in which we are interested and which we support. I leave that as a word of caution.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I want to add one further word. Do not let the leaders think, either, that because one or two copies of a bill are distributed to the leaders, only, in the house, that carries it, merely with the leaders' support. I warn the government now that I will not support any bill merely because the leaders get copies of it. A bill has to be distributed to every member of the House of Commons. With that protest, the bill may go ahead.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Judges Act



JUDGES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 85, to amend the Judges Act.
Thomas Langton Church: Before the bill is read a second time I should like to suggest that we should have what in some legislatures is known as a legal committee. A great many members of the House of Commons are not lawyers, and it may be a good thing that they are not, but I believe this house needs a committee on legal bills of this kind. Five or six matters have arisen, of which this bill is one, to which a legal committee could usefully give consideration-matters affecting the judges, their status, the question of salaries, criminal code amendment, the justice department, and related legal subjects. I believe that such a committee would strengthen the hands of the Attorney General of Canada, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). He is right most of the time, and I hope that shortly he will be promoted and become right honourable, perhaps when the birthday honours are announced.
Another matter for such a committee was referred to several times by Chief Justice Robertson in the Ontario court of appeal, namely the problem of delinquency. I hope the minister will consider this suggestion for such bill as the one now before us. I support the second reading of the bill.
Mr. A. II. BENCE (Saskatoon City): This bill gives us an opportunity of drawing one or two matters to the attention of the administration with respect to the judiciary. The position which the judiciary of this country finds itself in at the present time should, I believe, be broadly reviewed for the purpose of determining whether the conditions which exist are the best possible in the interests of the administration of justice. There are a number of important questions which must be given serious consideration. One of the first is, are we providing sufficient compensation for the judiciary to attract the very best type of man to the bench? It seems to me, in view of the fact that the judges are the custodians of the rights of the people, and sit in judgment on matters which concern the liberty and the property of the subject, they should be in a position, financially and otherwise, so that no question might arise about their being beyond reproach. It is not asking too much of parliament to suggest that the scale of financial remuneration of the judges be such that, first of all, we can obtain the
best men available, and, second, that once they have been placed in the judicial position, they shall have no undue worries as far as their financial future is concerned.
In connection with this matter I would draw to the attention of the minister and the administration a matter which I know has created considerable concern among members of the legal fraternity, namely the fact that no provision is made for the maintenance of widows and dependents of deceased judges.
I should also like to take this opportunity of discussing the vexed question of the compulsory retirement, of judges. This matter has been referred to on a number of occasions, not only in this house but in the press. The situation which exists with respect to compulsory retirement is, to say the least, anomalous. Under the provisions of the British North America Act the governor general, which is to say the government, is authorized to appoint two different types of judges, those of the county or district court, and those of the superior court of the province, consisting of the trial judges and the appellate judges. In addition to that, under the provisions of the other acts which are in existence, the Supreme Court Act and the Exchequer Court Act, the governor general may also appoint judges to the supreme court and to the exchequer court.
With respect to judges of the district or county courts, the lowest courts to which appointments are made by the government, there is a provision that there shall be compulsory retirement at the age of seventy-five. That provision is contained in the Judges Act, and I believe was first passed in 1913.
The provisions for the supreme court are contained in the Supreme Court Act, and we find that the justices of that court are also compulsorily retired at the age of seventy-five years. That provision came in a little later, and was passed by parliament in 1927. Section 9 of the Supreme Court Act states:
9. The judges shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the governor general on address of the Senate and House of Commons: Provided that each judge, whether heretofore appointed or hereafter to be appointed, shall cease to hold office upon attaining the age of seventy-five years, or immediately, if he has already attained that age.
A similar provision was placed in the Exchequer Court Act at that time. Thus we now find ourselves in the position where judges of the lower courts, namely the county or district courts, and judges of the highest court of the land, namely the Supreme Court of Canada, are compulsorily retired at the age of seventy-five years. On the other hand, members of what I might describe as the intermediate court, referred to as the superior
Judges Act

court, consisting of the trial and appellate courts, are not subject to the same provision. We find ourselves in the position where we have men sitting on those courts who have attained ages as great as ninety years. We have had many examples of judges over eighty years of age who have sat in these courts.
I believe I should first point out the reason for this condition. District court, county jourt and supreme court judges are appointed rnder acts of parliament, and hold office by virtue of those acts. On the other hand, superior court judges hold office partly by virtue of a provision contained in the British North America Act, to be found in volume 5 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Section 99 of that act states:
99. The judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall foe removable foy the governor general on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
Consequently, as a result of the provisions of that act, parliament has no authority to deal with the compulsory retirement of judges of the superior court. On the other hand, parliament has authority to deal with, and has dealt with judges of other courts.
As I said before, the provisions respecting the compulsory retirement of supreme court judges were brought into effect in 1927, at which time considerable discussion took place in the house. It was decided at that time that there should be compulsory retirement, and that it should be retroactive.
The next step in the picture came in 1933, at which time a measure was introduced and passed in the house, despite the opposition of hon. members of the party now occupying the treasury benches. The measure at that time did not deal with compulsory retirement, but provided that when a judge of the superior court reached the age of seventy-five his salary would be reduced to the amount of the pension he would receive if then retired. In my opinion the method adopted to achieve the purpose the administration had in mind was not the best one available. In other words, it was a roundabout way of achieving an object which, I believe, could have been attained in a direct fashion.
At the time that matter was before the house for consideration a fairly lengthy debate took place. The objection taken to the measure was voiced briefly by the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he stated, as reported at page 4790 of Hansard for 1932-33:
The provisions of this bill appear to violate contracts between the crown and members of the judiciary. Perhaps my hon. friend would explain to us on the second reading whether that is the case or not, and if it is the case, on what grounds he justifies the measure at all.

Subsequently, during the debate, the Right Hon, Mr. Lapointe took strenuous objection to the effect that the legislation would be a breach of contract between the judges and the crown. Generally speaking, it was opposed on that basis by members of the Liberal party then sitting in opposition. It is indicated in Mr. Lapointe's speech that they felt the question of politics came into the consideration of the administration, and he [DOT]pointed out the following at page 4795 of Hansard for the same year:
I am free to confess that I believe the purpose is to create vacancies for the appointment of new judges.
Unfortunately, I believe one of the greatest difficulties different administrations in this country have encountered has been that oppositions have felt that the reason why certain measures were being introduced might be partly political, giving the administration of the day an opportunity to fill appointments from adherents of their own political groups. It seems to me that was a great mistake. Surely the attitude taken at that time was the wrong one, because if the measure had been passed by parliament we would not find ourselves in the impossible position we have to-day, and the situation would have been immeasurably improved by this time. Possibly I should add in passing that while the measure was passed by the House of Commons, it was eventually turned down by the senate on the grounds advanced by the then opposition in the house.
I am not in favour of a policy of breaking contractual obligations with anyone, certainly least of all the judges. I believe this problem could have been solved quite easily in another way. First of all, an amendment should be made to the British North America Act so that parliament could deal with superior court judges in the same way as it deals with judges of the lower courts, and with those of the highest court in the land. There would appear to be no sound reason whatsoever why that should not be done. A provision could be inserted in the proper act along the same line as those provisions now applicable to other judges, and there could be compulsory retirement at the age of seventy-five.
In order, however, that there may be no question of breach of contract, I believe it should be provided that the compulsory retirement would not apply to present members of the judiciary, or that financial provisions be made whereby those now sitting in the various courts might be compulsorily retired at seventy-five, but with the full salary they now receive. In that way we would avoid

Judges Act
being accused of a breach of faith which otherwise might follow. It would only be a few years before the matter would be completely straightened out. Judges now on the bench could be permitted to act until they retired or were possibly removed, a procedure that is not often adopted in this country, and then provision could be made with respect to new appointees on the same basis as now applies to the district courts and the Supreme Court of Canada. In accepting an appointment, a man would know exactly what his position was. If it is felt that something should be done immediately about the retirement of judges who have reached seventy-five years of age, I think we should consider giving compensation on the basis of their present income. That is the only fair and sensible solution of the problem.
I do not want to get into any argument as to whether any particular man who is over seventy-five years of age still retains his faculties sufficiently to perform his duties in the same manner as he did in earlier life, because there are certain exceptional examples of men who can do this. However, I think generally speaking it must be concluded that when a man has reached seventy-five years of age his faculties are not nearly as good as they were when he was younger. In addition, I believe the public has not as much confidence in the judgment and ability of a man of eighty-five or ninety years of age as in the judgment and ability of men twenty or twenty-five years younger. We must consider the position of the public in this matter, because the administration of justice affects the public. These courts have been created and these judges have been appointed purely and simply for the purpose of being of service to the public. Also, if judges were retired greater opportunity would be given to younger and more aggressive men to enter the judicial field.
I think the political angle should be entirely disregarded. I doubt if there will be any opposition, or at least not very much, from any of the parties in this house should the administration decide to proceed along the lines I have suggested. I do not think it will be contended that vacancies were being created for the purpose of appointing particular men.
This matter has to be faced, and the sooner it is faced the better. When the exchequer court bill was before the house I took the stand that judicial appointments should be made as quickly as possible. The minister took exception to my remarks and suggested that I had said that such appointments were dangled before the eyes of prospective
appointees. I was not making that suggestion with respect to the minister himself; I was making it with respect to the administration generally. I think it is agreed that in many cases appointments are held up because of the political situation in which certain gentlemen find themselves. That is a situation which should be avoided if at all possible. The minister may think the administration of justice in Saskatchewan has not been impaired because a certain position has not been filled, but in the long run I think it is a better policy not to put off these appointments indefinitely. The minister will clear up this matter to my satisfaction, and I am sure to the satisfaction of all members of this house, if he makes this appointment to the vacancy which exists there as soon as possible and not let politics intervene in any way. The minister has referred to the fact that members of the legal fraternity who were not adherents of the political party at present in power have been appointed to the bench by this government. He may know of such cases, but I must say they have not come to my attention and I do not think they exist in Saskatchewan. I suggest to the minister that the present vacancy in that province offers an admirable opportunity to him to demonstrate the spirit which he has suggested exists. Possibly some leading member of the Progressive Conservative party could be appointed to that post.
As far as the situation in that province is concerned I should like to reiterate emphatically a protest which I made when the exchequer court bill was before us. I believe we have reached a time when the learned gentleman who occupies a high post in the diplomatic service of this country as high commissioner to Australia should make up his mind, or the administration should make up his mind, either to continue in the diplomatic service or to return to his duties on the bench. Personally I think it is unfair that he should be allowed to retain a judgeship in his hip-pocket, so to speak, while he spends a number of years in other countries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a few minutes to express my support of the contention of the previous speaker that steps should be taken as early as possible to strengthen the position of the judiciary in the eyes of the people of this country. I feel he has done something worth while in the presentation he has made in connection with the desirability of the retirement of judges of the provincial superior courts at a determined age. As he has pointed out, we find ourselves in a rather odd position. The judges of our highest courts, the Supreme
Judges Act

Court of Canada and the Exchequer Court of Canada, and those of the lower courts are subject to compulsory retirement. On the other hand, judges of courts in the so-called middle brackets, the provincial superior courts, are appointed for life. The British North America Act denies either to this parliament or to the provincial legislatures the right to fix a compulsory retiring age for these judges.
While it is agreed that some men of ripe years maintain their mental and physical vigour, I think as a general rule it would be much better for the administration of justice and the prestige of our courts if we adopted the principle that the judges in all courts should retire at a fixed age. In my view the retiring age of seventy-five years which applies to those judges who are compelled to retire, and which is the age the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) thinks should be applied in all cases, is too high. I believe in this day a lower age should be fixed and I suggest that seventy years might be given consideration. When I use the phrase "might be given consideration" I do so in the hope that the government is giving serious thought to this matter. I dare to hope that when the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) speaks, as I hope he will a little later on, he will give some indication whether this matter is under consideration by the government.
In the province from which I come, one of the newspapers on its editorial page not long ago gave itself to an expression of opinion on this whole question. I think many of us will agree it was regrettable that the kind of thing had to be said that was contained in that particular editorial. The principal objection was that it seemed by inference to cast reflection on some of the older men of one of the courts of Manitoba who undoubtedly had given good service. It is not necessary for me to defend the Winnipeg Free Press, but I do wish to say it is regrettable that that kind of situation could develop where, in order to press an important point such as this it seemed necessary to involve the prestige and personalities of revered gentlemen such as those who have sat on our bench. That, of course, was not intended, but it grew out of the failure of governments of the past, as well as the present administration, to deal with this matter.
I feel that the previous speaker is on sound ground when he suggests that we should not delay further in connection with this matter. I understand that at the present time in the provincial superior courts of the country- these courts have a wide range of names- there are twenty-nine judges between the

ages of seventy and seventy-five, and eleven judges of the age of seventy-six or over, running as high as ninety-two years.
Like the previous speaker, I affirm that undoubtedly there are men in the higher brackets with mental and physical vigour greater than that of many who are much younger, but as a general principle I think members of this house will be agreed that there ought to be fixed a reasonable retiring age for judges of all courts in this country. I agree with the previous speaker in his suggestion that an amendment to the British North America Act should be sought to make this possible. If there are reasons which make it difficult to secure such an amendment for a period of time, I would suggest that some other method might be found to bring about this result. I have, as a matter of fact, on the order paper a bill which, while not in a sense concerned with the retirement of judges, would have that effect. My purpose in rising at this time is to express the hope that during the course of this debate the Minister of Justice will give us some indication as to whether or not the retirement of judges of the provincial superior courts is being given consideration.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I think in about two minutes I can give the assurance that hon. members have sought, that at the very first opportunity the matter of an amendment to the British North America Act to deal with the provision which now gives judges of the provincial superior courts a life tenure in their office will be considered. This is in my opinion a matter which should not be presented for amendment to the imperial parliament without previous discussion with the provinces, because the administration of justice and the establishment of the courts are matters that are within provincial jurisdiction. It is my view that the proper procedure with respect to amendments to the British North America Act when dealing with any portion that gives jurisdiction to provincial legislatures should involve prior conference and consultation with the legislatures, and if it is sought to take away from them something which has been allotted to them, their consent should be obtained.


Mr. BENCE:: That is not the case here, may I suggest.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would consider that it is a case where there should be consultation with the provinces, because under section 92 they have jurisdiction in respect of the constitution of the courts, and section 99 is not placed specifically within dominion or provincial powers because it is something which

International Monetary Fund
affects both the powers of the governor in council and the powers of the provinces with regard to the setting up and the manning of the courts of justice. It is a matter which was on the agenda for discussion at the last provincial conference, and it certainly will be one of the matters to be considered at the next provincial conference. All I can say to the house is that as far as I am concerned I would recommend that that conference agree to an amendment to the constitution to give the proper Canadian authorities the right to fix an age limit for the exercise of judicial authority. I am not going to discuss at the present time whether it should be seventy or seventy-five years. I think that is a matter which should be left entirely to the good judgment of the Canadian legislatures including this dominion house, and I would hope that the provincial legislatures would find it in the general interest to leave that to the discretion of parliament, as it is in the discretion of parliament with respect to federal courts and with respect to district and county courts.
As, however, everyone here has recognized, the direct way of going about it will be to get an amendment to the British North America Act, and then have parliament deal with it in its wisdom, as it should be dealt with according to the circumstances.
For the supreme court and the exchequer court-and of course this -bill is only concerned with the exchequer court-the age limit -that parliament has seen fit to set is seventy-five, and the 'same age limit has been set for the district and county courts. I do not think the constitution should fix what -the age limit should be. I think it should be left entirely to the Canadian legislatures to determine from time to time what the proper age limit should be. At the next provincial conference, if I am there, I will strongly urge that something be done so that Canadians can settle in their own legislatures what should be -the proper age limit.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean that the conference is apt to be very soon? Is that the implication?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The conference, as
far as the federal authorities are concerned, will take place just as early as -the provincial representatives can be brought together. We cannot have a conference without them. They have been invited and have been urged to come just as quickly as they can find it convenient to do so.
There were two other matters discussed by the hon. member for Saskatoon city (Mr. Bence). One was, are we providing sufficient compensation for our judges? This bill is to
provide compensation of $9,000 for an additional puisne judge of the exchequer court. It would probably not be proper to make that figure any different for that position from what it would be for the president of the exchequer court or the other puisne judges of the court. It probably would not be proper to make it different from the general scale which applies to the superior court judges throughout Canada.


Alfred Henry Bence: I did not suggest anything
like that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is a matter about which the Minister of Justice has received for several months urgent representations not only from judges and lawyers but from a large number of organizations that have expressed the view that under present conditions the country was not making sufficient provision for the compensation of the judiciary-. That, however, cannot be dealt with on this bill. It is a matter that is being given serious thought by a great many people.
It is the same with respect to the question whether or not there should be some provision for widows or dependents of judges. Hon. members m-ay be assured that these matters are receiving serious consideration, but there are, of course, a great many factors that have to be taken into account, especially during a war period, when the burden on all citizens is so great. I trust that with this -assurance the house will be prepared to accept the provision of this bill for the additional judge to be appointed in the exchequer court.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee -took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Section 1 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I would ask that we revert to motions, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Finance, who is unavoidably absent, I table, in accordance with the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made to the house this afternoon, three copies in English and three in French of the joint statement on the establishment of an international
C.N.R.-Auditors

monetary fund. Printed copies of this statement will be available for members either to-morrow or Monday.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Did I understand the minister to say that copies would be available or printed in Votes and Proceedingsf


Norman Alexander McLarty: I said that printed copies will be available. I am more or less pinch-hitting at the moment, but my advice is that they will be printed.


Major James William Coldwell: As long as they are printed I am content.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of bill No. 86, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment of auditors.
Gordon Graydon: I fancy this is a non-oontroversial measure, but there are two questions I should like to ask the minister. Is this bill, as it stands, on all fours with the bill of the previous session covering the same matter? Are the terms of remuneration for the employment of the firm of auditors the same as they were in the previous bill?


Mr. MICHAUD:: The answer to the first question-is that the bill is almost on all fours with last year's bill except that in the twelfth line the numerals 1944 were substituted for 1943 to make it applicable to this year. The same remuneration is provided for as in past years.


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister with him the exact remuneration which the company received during the last year?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. The remuneration is provided by agreement and has been for some years. It is $50,000 annually. In the last few years an additional amount of $1,800 was provided as remuneration for auditing the accounts of the Trans-Canada Air Lines.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY Am FOB NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
The house resumed from Thursday, April 20, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Air services branch-
3. Civil aviation: operation and maintenance of municipal (terminal) airports, $398,260.
Gordon Graydon: At least one member of our group desires to say something on this this item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall not be long. Unfortunately, I had to be out of the house during the time much of the debate was carried on. I was in when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke, and I congratulate him upon the presentation he made and upon the clear evidence of how he digs into matters in which he is interested. He presented an exhaustive statement to the committee. I was in when the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) spoke. I greatly enjoyed his speech, too, because of the amount of material he presented. Many of the other hon. members made excellent speeches as well, but I do not recall them at the moment. The two committees of which I am a member took up a good deal of my time and therefore I missed much of the debate. I was in last evening when the minister spoke and I enjoyed his remarks. He was much more explicit last night than he was when I heard him on March 17. If he had said on March 17 what he said last evening, perhaps the debate would have been shortened. However, I feel I ought to state my position as clearly and as briefly as I can.
I am convinced that the discussion so far has done good and that much information has come out. I keep asking myself, as I did in the beginning, when I heard the minister speak on March 17, what is the situation? I say frankly I was greatly dismayed. Not knowing all the facts at that time I feared the direction in which we were headed. I have always been a strong advocate of maintaining Canada's sovereignty in full. For years I have looked forward to a great expansion in Canada's airway programme. I envisioned some city in the maritimes being made the centre of air operations in that section. I am not familiar enough with the airfields in the maritimes, or the air currents,

War Appropriation-Transport
fogs and so forth that would have to be taken into consideration in the establishment of airfields, to know much about the best centre there; but I presume some one big centre could be developed from which Canada's whole eastern air programme would be operated.
I had envisioned Montreal as a great air centre. When I speak of Montreal I mean the airfields adjacent to Montreal and used by that city and vicinity. I had envisioned an airfield there from which the whole territory north to Ungava and perhaps Baffin Land, when that territory is opened, as it will be by-and-by, both commercially and for passenger traffic, could be served. I know enough about the north to realize that its resources are far beyond the conception of the average Canadian, in fact beyond the conception of most people anywhere. I have envisaged an air transport service some day, consisting of planes of one to three hundred tons capacity and even more, moving products down to Montreal from the north. I envisage another great airport at or near Toronto. I am not sure whether the department have finally settled on any specific site, although they do use Malton and perhaps the island airfield. Certainly the country north from Toronto around Hudson bay will open up for both commerce and passenger traffic a great field of future expansion. The same applies to the country north of Winnipeg along the west coast of the Hudson bay, in which area minerals are being discovered. I fancy I can see in the future great fleets of aeroplanes coming down from the north, helping to build up Winnipeg into a great city of half a million or more. The same applies to Prince Albert, perhaps the last really big centre for northern Saskatchewan, which has a great northern hinterland. The same is also true of Edmonton. Every time I go into the territory north of Edmonton, whether by boat, plane or otherwise, I picture to myself the day when Edmonton will be a city of half a million. It has, I am convinced, one of the surest futures of any of our cities. The same would apply to Vancouver or whatever airfield is established near that city for traffic on the west coast and across to Asia.
So that I had envisioned a great and wide air programme for Canada, and when I heard the minister speak my heart went down, for, I said to myself, "This is all going to be put, at least to a certain extent, under foreign control." In that I may be wrong; I hope I am. But when I read the minister's speech, and I have read it carefully two or three times, I first asked myself, "Just why the
hurry to submit either to this house or to any other body our proposals?" The minister stated that he attended the conference at London last October, at which, perhaps, air programmes both national and international were under discussion; but he ended his remarks in that regard by saying that that conference had been only exploratory, and that the intention was to hold other conferences here and there and perhaps everywhere and explore the matter farther. Then I asked myself, how can we have before us these draft proposals for discussion if other conferences, perhaps much more important, are to be held? I would have thought that any draft proposals would be left until every possible avenue for both international and national airways had been explored.
To come back to the subject of the national airways, has the minister, both in his remarks and in the draft agreement, indicated that we are to have full possession of the air over our respective countries? In the words of article II, section 1:
Each member state recognizes that every state has complete exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory.
I cannot reconcile that with the section immediately preceding namely section 3 of article I, which reads:
The authority-
That is the international authority which is to be set up, not the local authority, and on which Canada will presumably have her fair share of members.
-shall have exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to the provisions of this convention, over international air services between two contiguous member states, provided that any two contiguous member states-
For example, I suppose, countries with extended borders, such as the three or four thousand mile border between Canada and the United States.	-
-may agree that services between them shall come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the authority. When such an agreement has been notified by both states to the board, and until such agreement has been terminated, the authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to the provisions of this convention, over the services between the two states.
To my way of thinking, if an outside international authority has control over air lines in Canada or between Canada and the United States, that is a surrender of our own absolute control over airways in Canada; and it seems to me that, if that is the case, we would always have to submit to some international authority a request to multiply and extend our air lines. Knowing this country as I do.
War Appropriation-Transport

I foresee great expansion to the north. Canada's northern territory has not even been scratched. An extremely limited survey of these areas reveals that they are full to overflowing of resources and have vast possibilities. Steffansson, the great arctic explorer, who has written so much about the north, spent a couple of years in the arctic without having taken with him any resources for the maintenance of himself and his crews, in order to demonstrate to the world that the white man can live in the north without supplies from the south. Having made discoveries of vast resources up there, he has recorded them in his books.
I myself, while on my trips to the north, have met many other men who have been farther north than I have, priests and clergymen of the Anglican church and the Roman Catholic church who have lived for many years in Baffin island, Southampton island, Banks island and elsewhere, and all of them record the existence of great resources. The time is coming when Canada will not only receive from our incomparable north vast resources but enjoy the possession of a playground which, even though it be cold for part of the year, will be visited by millions of tourists. I myself just love it; I cannot get enough of it. I do not know when I am going to be satiated with travel in the far north, and I believe that those who go there once will want to go again. How are we to control the air lines-not one, two or three, but maybe twenty-five or thirty-which will radiate from our great southern centres to aid in the exploration, survey, development and transportation of the products of the north? I say, how are we to [DOT] do it if some international body is to control our routes? I have great respect for the minister. He is a hard worker, and has had a lot of experience. I sincerely hope, however, that in proposing this convention and the articles therein he is not surrendering any of Canada's sovereignty to do what she likes within her own boundaries. When he speaks again I hope 'he will reassure me that that is not the intention.
During the course of his remarks he did say something that I thought was real news, namely, that the government had determined that after the period set out in his speech the great Canadian Pacific Railway-and I suppose the Canadian National Railways too -are to divorce their activities from aircraft. I shall have to be shown before I will support that. Someone will have to present facts, figures and arguments to convince me that tny other transportation service could carry on air transportation better than either of the great railway systems.

In the course of his remarks the minister said that about two years ago he had invited representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Airways to sit in and to cooperate under one management. He pointed out that he would allow two directors to each of them. In the end the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Airways representatives declined to enter into that arrangement. I have just been wondering if the minister has been somewhat piqued because the Canadian Pacific representative did not come in on that plan. I think the minister is too big a man for that. But his action in divorcing the Canadian Pacific Railway from any connection with airways prompts me to ask myself if the minister is not just a little piqued?
I cannot find anything but praise for either of our two great railway systems because both have done marvellous jobs. Perhaps the Canadian Pacific, being the first in the field, and having been longer in the railway business- although it was not ahead of the old Grand Trunk-deserves unstinted praise and support from this country for the vast contribution it has made to our development. I do not know what Canada would have done had it not been for those wonderful men who built and operated the Canadian Pacific, right down to today. When I say that I am not detracting in any way from the Canadian National system. I am one who greatly admired the work done by the late Sir Henry Thornton. I am one who was deeply sorry when I learned of his sad and tragic end. In my view, even if he made a few mistakes, even if he did take some steps which did not pan out as had been hoped, he deserves great credit.
I am>
convinced that the two big railway companies, either together or separately-and I prefer separately-have done masterly jobs, even if under the minister's direction. The minister did say something about competition. As one who was in big business, one who helped to build big business, I know that the sharpest and strongest competition with which any business house can be confronted is the best possible means of sharpening the wits of the men who are at the head of that business. It induces them to develop their business. I do not believe any big company in Canada would have got anywhere, had it not been for competition.
I am one who believes that competition is the life of trade, and it results in initiative. Why does government service fail? Although occasionally government can do something right, in the great majority of cases businesses operated by governments are failures, because there is no inducement for the management to

War Appropriation-Transport
initiate anything. They are on the government payroll, and they do not need to care a fig whether they make ends meet or not. As one example, ample evidence of that is to be found in the oil business at Fort McMurray, and that is only one of many examples. Private business thrives, advances, increases employment and gives more jobs when it is operating under conditions of the strongest competition. That has been my experience. I have seen businesses grow to great strength from* very small beginnings, because in their operations they were at all times face to face with other brilliant men who were designing, thinking and initiating. One cannot get anywhere in this world without initiative.
I fear that there will not be anything to induce any air company to expand, initiate, and develop unless it has competition. I am not one who would for one moment criticize anybody else who thinks the government can operate business. My experience has been, however, that private business cannot operate successfully in competition with it-that is, if they are not on the same footing. Private corporations have to finance their operations with a view to making a profit from their business. On the other hand, government business does not need to care whether there is a profit or not. All it has to do is to appeal to the treasury, if it wants more money.
I fear that if all air transport is put under one control we are not going in the right direction-either that, or all competition is a failure. That is something I do not believe. I fear the placing of Canada's lines before some outside international body for approval. We have got along very nicely without that sort of thing, and I should like to have some reassurance from the minister, when he speaks again, as to whether I am right or wrong in this regard.
I ask the minister:	Whither is Canada
drifting? Where is the old spirit? Where is that spirit of development? On each of the last two occasions I visited the old country I heard men talking about our imperial conferences. The last time I was over there I examined into a certain matter I wanted placed before an imperial conference which was to meet later. However, I shall not go into that now. Reading what I could read about imperial conferences I learned that those conferences are usually divided into two camps. In one camp I found New Zealand, Australia, India, Great Britain and Newfoundland, while in the other there were Canada, the Irish Free State and South Africa. That may be all right, and I am not finding fault with it. I say that each part of the empire has a right to think what it likes, and to do
what is best for itself. At the same time, however, it should consider the empire as a whole, and what is best for the empire.
What has happened now? So far as the empire is concerned, the Irish Free State has more or less gone out-and I shall not make further comment upon that. I am glad to see, however, that South Africa is getting closer. May I at this point say that General Jan Christian Smuts is, in my judgment, one of the greatest men into whom God ever put breath-and I say that reverently. He is getting closer to the empire; and I am glad to see that both Australia and New Zealand are thinking much the same way. I would hope that when our Prime Minister goes to the conference to be held in the near future he will keep before him, more than ever before, the thought that after all our duty in Canada is to get closer to all the other parts of the empire. I cannot think for one minute but that all other nations would be pleased to see a stronger empire. But we cannot be stronger if we are disintegrating. Let us hope there is no dissension at any empire airways conference, for that might be followed in turn by our occupying a less important position as far as international airways are concerned. We should be ready to cooperate in full in the decisions arrived at by the representatives of the different empire countries at that conference.
I want to say quite frankly that -next to the empire my love is for our cousins to the south. We are fortunate in having a neighbour like the United States. Many of us have relations living in that country. I admire that country, and I know those people will think more of me and more of Canadians generally if they see us acting in cooperation with the other countries of the empire instead of trying to set ourselves up as independent and doing as we like, apart from the empire.
It seems to me that the programme set out in this draft agreement would tend to. disintegrate the unity of the empire, and if it does I am opposed to it. I am for unity of the empire above everything else. Recently I read an editorial in the Globe ajid Mail. Some of my hon. friends opposite do not like the Globe and Mail. I do not need to say anything for that great paper, but I read their editorials and the editorials in other papers, whether they are friendly to me or not. I always try to put myself above any selfish interests. I like to try to put myself on the plane of thinking of Canada. I want to do the best I can for this country. This editorial seems to express my opinion; they can write
War Appropriation-Transport

what I want to say much better than I can say it. It appeared in the issue of April 19, and reads:
Here is the crux of the issue between Mr. King and his sympathizers on the one hand and Lord Cranborne and Mr. Bracken on the other. As far as we can gather from his statements, Mr. King would work out a foreign policy framed primarily in the selfish interests of Canada, and then would be willing to hold intermittent consultations with the other British governments to discover whether his policy could be dove-tailed into the policies of the rest of the commonwealth.
Lord Cranborne and Mr. Bracken, and .presumably also Mr. Curtin and Mr. Fraser, before they sponsored any special policy for their own nations, would engage in close and constant consultation to determine if the views of the partner nations could not be harmonized in support of a policy which would be acceptable to the whole commonwealth. Its attainment mignc not always prove possible, but it would occur very frequently.
The last paragraph sets out my position.


Mr. HOWE:: The Globe and Mail has
changed its position.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am sorry to hear the minister say that, because I have refrained from talking politics. Canadian aviation and international aviation in which Canada is to be associated is above politics.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was not talking politics; I was talking about the Globe and Mail.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The older I get, the
farther I try to keep away from politics. I think hon. members will admit that I seldom mention politics in this house. I like to think of what I can do for Canada. When I reach the stage where I cannot render any service to my native country outside of politics, then there is no interest here for me. I wish to read another extract from the Globe and Mail of April 18, as follows:
In 1926 Canada, along with Great Britain and the other dominions, accepted the following as a just and worthy definition of the mutual relations, rights and responsibilities of members of this commonwealth:
"They are autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations."
That is the position I like to take. I cannot see why we in the empire cannot present a solid front. We do not want to do anything that will cause enmity. We want to create harmony among the nations, and especially we want harmonious relations with the great republic to the south. I do not want to be alive if the time should ever come when bitter enmity exists between the northern and

southern halves of this continent. I like to think of our cousins-they are our first cousins -being the best friends there are of the empire, and the empire being their best friend. We should endeavour to avoid enmity against any other nation. The time has come when all nations must try to cooperate and avoid international strife.
International strife does not get us anywhere. The cost of this war would have provided freedom, would have provided homes and would have provided all the social requirements necessary to make every man, woman and child in the world, whether white, black, yellow or red, contented for the rest of their lives. I advocate the closest connections with the other countries of the empire. I want to advocate unity in the empire in order that the empire may more fittingly induce other nations of the world to follow its ideals. Every hon. member will admit that the ideals of the British empire have been a great example for the other countries of the world, and many of them have been adopted by other nations, especially by our cousins to the south. *
I was greatly dismayed when the minister sat down on March 17. I hope that when he replies at the end of this debate he will reassure us that there is to be a maintenance of our own sovereignty, and that we are to retain our sovereign position within the British empire.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct the attention of the committee to one or two matters. First, let me say that I have a great deal of respect for the minister and for his deputy. I am sure the minister attends the theatre, although I have not been in one for ten or twelve years. Apparently in civil aviation he expects to play the part of Edgar Bergen, and he is quite capable of doing it, while the rest of us act the part of a lot of Charlie McCarthys in civil aviation. The minister deserves a great deal of credit for the way in which a lot of the work of his department has been carried on.
Many of us followed this question of civil aviation during and after the last war and during the depression. Many hon. members have shown the utmost interest in civil aviation and in the work of the huge empire air training scheme which has achieved such magnificent results. Aviation if developed will be the most important industry in this country, along with agriculture. In 1938, long before Munich, I proposed in debate in this house an empire air training plan; that we should give some of the young men who were then out of work some form of military drill, pocket money, clothing, deferred pay, on an

War Appropriation-Transport
apprenticeship plan, and had that policy been adopted we would have been in a much better position to-day, and have had, as I said then,
25,000	skilled air pilots and mechanics when war came.
I would like to have the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman. I do not often interrupt hon. members and I do not like being interrupted. This question of civil aviation is one of the most serious before the British empire to-day, and it demands a proper solution. But the policy now before us, if carried through, would be the death-knell of the British empire. Only to-day in the British House of Commons Mr. Churchill made reference to the fact that the dominions must be taken into full partnership both during and after this war. We saw the result of lack of cooperation with New Zealand and Australia in what happened in the far east, during those dark days when we lost Hong Kong and Singapore and when the fate of civilization hung in the balance. These great sister dominions wanted to be consulted in empire policy regarding the air, defence and security; they were opposed to decisions being taken on these matters without their being consulted, and they pleaded for an empire war cabinet.
Where do we stand in connection with civil aviation to-day? Nearly one year ago the university of Toronto established a chair of civil aviation. But the classes are slow in coming in. That university has contributed in war much in men, leadership and money. Many of the young men who have come from that great university were young engineers from your constituency, Mr. Chairman. But we have the statement of Professor Lowden that since the announcement of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite on civil aviation the young men are not coming into the classes. After all is said and done, who saved civilization in the darkest days of 1940 when Russia had a treaty with Germany? It was the young men of Britain who fought in the air. Russia after that was attacked by Germany and has made a glorious contribution to the winning of the war. The United States was brought into this war by being attacked at Pearl Harbor. But the election of 1940 in the United States was fought and won on the issue of complete isolation. This aviation policy of the government is a straight Washington policy, pure and simple. In the election of 1940 in the United States the fight was won on the issue of going back to the policy of George Washington and Andrew Jackson of not taking part in foreign wars unless America was invaded, and the people voted in 1940, "no part in the war". But 100-142
then came Pearl Harbor, and the United States has proved a glorious ally of ours since then and has helped to save civilization. But who saved civilization in the darkest days of the war? It was Britain, who stood alone for two and a half years with the exception of aid from her dominions, and those dominions gave that aid while still retaining their status of autonomy and sovereignty.
The British dominions in the last war sent a million men to the front, men who went of their own free will and fought by the side of the mother country in the same cause, which became the cause of all. One hundred thousand fell in the fight. By that action the whole history of the world was changed. The very same thing is happening in this war. From the ends of the earth, from cape and island and continent, the sons of the empire rushed to the side of Britain. It was those glorious young men who fought at Dunkirk and Dieppe who saved civilization and rewrote the history of courage so gloriously. They went up in the air by night and by day, for twenty-four hours a day, and we owe our very existence as a people to these young men. While they are away, are we, behind their backs, going to make such a policy as this? I have had letters from many of them and I know that many of them will be looking for work when they return. Many of them will want to take up aviation as a civil career, and work of this kind will have to be provided for them. In the last war some 16,000 to 18,000 air mechanics in the Royal Air Force were trained in Toronto. Many of them afterwards went to the United States. In the United States many of the young men who had been given air training in Canada in the last war went into the manufacture of aeroplanes, with the result that the United States led the world in that field, and she got a large share of aircraft production under Chamberlain's rearmament air policy after Munich in 1938.
The minister and his deputy and other officials went over to England last May for a conference. I know that the minister nearly lost his life crossing the Atlantic in connection with this war. He has worked hard and I give him credit for it. I am not criticizing him personally. But I am fighting for a principle. One of the great mistakes that Canada has made since the outbreak of the war, one of the most fatal mistakes-and it was referred to in the debate yesterday in the British House of Commons-was that by our policy, land, sea and air, we are surrendering too much in military, political, economic and financial initiative to Washington. I stand by the principles that I supported last year in the debate on the address on March 28 and again on March 31. The C.C.F. have



War Appropriation-Transport
always been wrong about this war since it started and before. They were complete pacifists to begin with. They did not believe in the war when it started. You would think it was a political war so far as the C.CJ'. is concerned, for Germany is hardly ever mentioned by them. The leader of that party referred to the fact that the two old parties were just Hitlerites. As I said to my hon. friend here the other day, everything seems to be fair in love, horse races, politics and sporting events. My friends of the C.C.F. say anything they like outside the house because they have no one to hold them in check there like you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Speaker who act here as referees, together with the learned clerk of the house, and long may he continue. We are under some restraint in what we say here, although no libel laws apply to what is said in the House of Commons.
But as Mr. Churchill said to-day in the British House of Commons, the war is the primary thing that should occupy our attention, and it is far from won yet on land, sea and in the air. Although these domestic matters are of vast importance, the primary thing is the war and its winning.
I believe that this policy of the minister should go for study by a committee of this house. A committee of this house was sitting the other day for a day on the T.C.A. 1 cannot refer to its proceedings because it has not yet presented its report. I read the questions asked and answers given the other day before the committee, and I venture to say that if the information elicited there represents all that we know about aviation in Canada there is not much hope for this country. Nothing was done to study aviation but there was a good deal of bouquet-tossing at the Trans-Canada. One would think from the committee dialogues that they had discovered America as well as Charlie McCarthy. I suggest that this matter should go to a select committee 'of the house where the policy could be considered from every angle. Is this policy to be decided here without full consideration, with a conference of Prime Ministers in the offing? I say no. If it is, the Prime Ministers might just as well not meet.
Civil aviation will hold the empire together more than anything else that has been done in the past, and this is the time to recapture the spirit of empire. Unless we recapture that spirit before the war is over, that spirit will go into liquidation. The policy of the government in regard to civil aviation is a small-nation policy; that is all it is. It is a narrow nationalist, anti-empire, anti-Canada, pro-Washington policy. It is a policy that over-

looks all that has been fought for in this empire of ours in the two wars to which I have referred.
The hon. member for Parry Sound last night referred to the proceedings in London. That is all right. They had a nice time over there in and around London with the heads of all the countries in the wrorld. They assembled there, made some investigations and had an opportunity of discussing certain matters, but in. my opinion it was purely exploratory. Nothing much was decided and indeed nothing could be decided, apart from press interviews with Lord Beaverbrook and one or two others. In the British House of Commons Mr. Shinwell, a labour member of parliament for Shoreham, made a statement last week with regard to these matters generally. He wondered if the policy with regard to civil aviation was not a poor-relations' status policy', and he declared that consultations between the British government and the representatives of the United States on these matters were causing people to ask what arrangements had been made for the future of the country. He said that parliament had never been consulted. Lord Beaverbrook had made certain concessions to America on the question of civil aviation, but parliament, he said, had not been consulted and there were rumours that a commercial monetary agreement was likely to be reached. He added that the empire would become an economic vassal of the United States and that the future economic policy would be determined by that country.
I am as strong as anyone in this house for Anglo-American relations. I know we all admire the Americans for what they have done for us and for the civilization of the world. We admire their wonderful president, and all that. But we are living in a different world to-day. Conditions are not the same as in the past. I submit, therefore, that it should be the policy of this government first to make some exploratory arrangement or consultation with Washington so that we might come to a better understanding with the United States. The more we understand them, the more likely we shall be to like them, and the more likely it will be that we shall be able to appreciate our differences and remove them when we have a proper knowledge of the facts.
In my opinion we have not had anything like a wise policy in international affairs. The policy of the government fails entirely to realize that the air arm of the future should be considered in relation to the purposes of peace time. Civil aviation up to the time of the war was regarded as merely an adjunct

War Appropriation-Transport
to land transportation. In the future, travel will be reserved largely for speed. Fasttravelling aircraft will be needed to carry passengers and some perishable goods as well as samples for securing commercial orders, and air transport will function almost exclusively as a means of rapid transit. I have no desire to see us enter into competition with any of our allies, and by that I mean competition that can be avoided.
Canada was asleep in the period between the two wars. Our government failed to see what the United States was doing in civil aviation in the way of research and so on. In other words, America has been right all along and we have been wrong. The people in Canada and our empire who have been using the air for commercial purposes cannot be blamed if they have thought of the future in commercial terms, but I see no reason why this country should be asleep at the switch again. We should prepare for the technical development that is bound to come in the future and be ready to provide a better transport service for the public.
Will the government's plan take this broad 'outlook? I say no. Civil aviation before the war was neglected by the government. It was fostered only by private initiative. Private enterprise built it up in the face of many obstacles which were unnecessarily put in its way in the period between the two wars -obstacles that were created by this house, by methods of control, heavy taxation and so on. We have never had a foreign or empire policy on this question. We have never had any really practical policy which would coordinate affairs from the point of view of domestic, imperial and international circumstances.
The policy which the government has announced will never be carried into operation in view of the coming conference and the pending election. I submit that civil aviation should never become a political question. It is in no sense a political question, and for that reason all parties should get together and first settle our domestic problem to find out what is the best thing to be done. Do you mean to say that all that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines have done, all that has been built up by the railways on land and sea and in the air to promote the interests of the empire, all the services that have proved so valuable in transporting food and munitions in this war, must now be discarded and go into liquidation? Must it all be thrown to the winds of the heavens?
What has become of the sacred doctrine of Liberalism, "vested rights" and all that sort of thing? We made a great mistake before the war in 1937 and 1938. Let us not repeat 100-142i
that mistake. When this house was told that war was coming, what did we do? We had certain regulations in connection with the board of transport commissioners, previously known as the board of railway commissioners, and notwithstanding the Transport Act of 1937, ships of the merchant marine, ships of the Princess type, were sold at ridiculously low figures. A ship called after me, costing $1,700,000, was sunk by the Germans a few days after the Athenia, and cargo ships of eight and nine thousand tons were sold for forty, fifty and sixty thousand dollars by the present government, notwithstanding that a war was obviously coming and that Britain had a considerably reduced tonnage as compared with her tonnage in the last war. That I say was a great mistake. Where were the regulations then? We are supposed to have regulations by a transport board in regard to ships, railways and telegraph and telephone lines, but I fail to see any evidence of their application or any attempt at regulation, nor will any aviation transport board do a thing to regulate.
The policy of the government is wrong for three reasons. They should settle Canada's domestic policy first and then move up to the empire civil aviation plan. The lifeline has been thrown out to us by Mr. Curtin of Australia and Mr. Fraser of New Zealand. When the domestic affairs are settled the empire scheme could be then settled. The empire is gone unless we have a proper civil aviation policy. When you settle your empire policy you have something to go on in the next step internationally. In the result neither Russia nor the United States will have anything to do with this international policy. The government made this policy without considering one important fact, namely, that there is an Anglo-Soviet treaty which was signed and sealed at Moscow last year by Mr. Churchill and the head of that great country, Russia. What for? According to the text of that treaty the dominions are not a party to it. It deals with some of these very questions. Russia made an agreement with the mother country. It is not a small nation policy, far from it. The policy provides that England shall be at one end of Europe and Russia at the other end to act together as policemen of the seas and on the land for the security of the whole world. There is an example of power politics with our ally Russia, and the British are going to make another one with the United States for protection.
In view of these things, how does the policy of the government fit in with the Anglo-Soviet treaty? We do not fit in at all. It is
War Appropriation-Transport

all very well for us to think we are a nation and that kind of thing. That policy is just a small nation policy: Unless the dominions hang together-none of them is able to go it alone-they will all hang separately. We shall be a junior partner, and a junior partner in a concern has to make concessions and accept them. He has to give all he has or get out. Unless the dominions hang together they will hang separately, and they will not have much to say in the peace conference. Britain without the dominions will only be a second-class power. The whole policy of the government is wrong. It does not commend itself to the judgment or wisdom of the country. As to regulation of the railways I have very little confidence in them.
I shall touch on one or two matters and I shall conclude in five or six minutes. I wish to say.in all sincerity to the minister that I believe he is making a fatal mistake in the attitude he has taken with regard to the Douglas DC-4 in selecting it as the plane for civil aviation in the dominion. I think he is making a mistake. I pointed this out on two or three previous occasions. We are behind in research for a more modern plane. What is science going to do to the industry of civil aviation in the yeans that lie ahead? We have seen what was done after the great Schneider races, financed in 1931 when the government would not do that much for Britain even in civil aviation. Those races were financed by Lady Houston and magni-ficient planes came out of the discoveries that were made at that time.
The improvements that science brought about at that time saved Britain in the battle of London. Science should be explored more than it has been by this Canadian department. Science has made a real contribution. Let us look at what science did in the years to which I have referred. The glorious history of science in every generation has been magnificent. Take the history of science in medicine and compare it with what science has contributed to this industry, notwithstanding the tens of millions of dollars that this country has spent in that line. Yet so impressive, so far-reaching are those achievements as not merely to silence all criticism but to arouse a noble enthusiasm. At Lent, Mr. W. MacNeil Dixon, the great scholar in Gifford lectures in the university of Glasgow, comparing medicine with the modern needs, in view of the battle of Britain, of science as applied to civil aviation, said that the accomplishments were so impressive and far-reaching as not merely to silence all criticism, but to arouse a noble enthusiasm and enlist in the cause of humanity a legion
tMr. ChnthJ
of recruits, missionaries of her gospel. Take modern medicine alone, which he compares with civil aviation. He stated that medicine is the child of science, the most promising and brightest-eyed of her family. If it has not mastered, it has so diminished as to rob bodily pain of its terrors. Plagues and pestilences have been stayed; a multitude of diseases, diphtheria, rabies, smallpox, typhus, yellow fever, Maltese fever, to mention only a few, were almost exterminated. Great scourge ridden tracts of the earth's surface have been rendered habitable, food values understood, vaccines and anti-toxins discovered, antiseptic surgery so established as to open up new fields of remedial agency, ailments of the mind as well as of the body controlled and relieved. This is a record, indeed, to which no previous age in history can produce a parallel. Within a century the expectation of life in all civilized countries has amazingly increased-in our own by sixteen years; in Denmark by seventeen; in parts of America, by fifteen. Give to man and to his science their due. Who can be blind to such facts or deaf to their eloquence?
That there have been accompanying disadvantages cannot be denied. All goods are associated with evils, and nature will not let us rest. A static world is not, never was and never will be. There have been revolutions in the past, there will be revolutions hereafter, in the world of thought as in the world of events. We must expect the sudden and unpredictable. You may desire a stabilized system, an international agreement to keep things much as they are in respect of national boundaries, and international treaties, material advantages in wealth, air, coal, oil, trade facilities. It will not be given you. For all your entreaties and agreements, the world will not cease to revolve. Nature is no friend of stagnation. Parliaments change; economic conditions change; birth rates rise and fall; labour is cheap here and dear there; a new invention, a new commodity is in demand, and cities spring up to meet it. Factories are built; uninhabited areas become crowded; peoples migrate; once populous districts are deserted. The seats of ancient empires are lost in the desert or the jungle.
We have made practically no discoveries. Take the policy of the government with regard to the Lancaster. My leader is absolutely right about that, and so is Mr. Drew, the premier of Ontario. The Lancaster is not merely a war machine. It can be changed by design, research and equipment. Four to six seats can be placed in it and all that kind of thing. That is where we are, I believe, failing. It is said that the Douglas is more suitable. I read the debate in the British House of Commons on this very question. It was said there

War Appropriation-Transport
by men who have flown in the air and in all the theatres of war that the Lancaster is a good machine, and could, by research, be fitted .for civil aviation. Their remarks bore out what was said by the gentleman to whom I referred. We are in need of modern research so that we could use the planes to which reference was made.
We are far behind the times. Reference was made to the Boeing plane. Mr. Johnston, once with the Trans-Canada Air Lines, was president. I have nothing against Mr. Symington. He is an old friend of mine and has been since he was at the university of Toronto; but he is on the wrong side of the fence at this time. He has- always been a private ownership man, and one cannot serve two masters at a time like this. That is one of the mistakes that have been made in selecting men for the Trans-Canada Air Lines. That company should be organized from top to bottom and somebody who is a supporter of public ownership put at the head, if we are to have real public ownership. The head is the important man. In the T.C.A. we are getting the same kind of public ownership that we got years ago in the Canadian National Railways between the two wars. I could give the list of companies with which he is associated. I have them here but I shall not refer to them. The whole T.C.A. system should be reorganized from top to bottom and a different man should be at the head.
When our young men come home they will be looking for jobs. You talk about this famous bank, the industrial development bank. That will be a bank to lend money without any security. I am surprised that some of the Scotch members of the committee adopted a policy like that. I am surprised at some of the Scotch members falling for a policy like that, lending money without security, even for feeder lines in civil aviation. I look upon a Scotsman as only an improved Irishman, and I am very much surprised at the Scotch members of the committee adopting such a policy. I read the proceedings of the committee from the point of view of a public ownership man, because I have been an advocate of public ownership and have never deviated from that position.
The present T.C.A. monopoly policy is all wrong. We shall just be putting a lot of yes men in here who will agree to everything the government says about civil aviation, and so far as this phase of their policy on civil aviation is concerned the British empire might just as well disband immediately, if we are to have isolationism and separatism; whereas, by encouraging the empire conference method,
by adopting the aeroplane instead of the cable as a means of commonwealth consultation. We could draw the empire more closely together.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not want to make a speech. This matter has been canvassed and recanvassed and canvassed again during the course of the debate, and most of the important points have, I think been completely covered. However, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister, particularly with respect to some of the answers he gave last night, which I do not think are completely adequate.
First, I put this to the minister. This convention is being passed under the provisions of one of the items of the estimates, and included in his statement is the following, as reported in Hansard, page 1580:
Our representatives in the international discussions, therefore, will be authorized to support or initiate such proposals _ as, in the government's opinion, will be likely to result in the establishment of an international air transport authority. . . .
What I wish to know is this: when this matter is concluded and the item is passed, does the minister feel that that is tantamount to an agreement by this House of Commons with respect to the policy set forth in the statement and with respect to the suggested convention, as being matters of policy and as being a matter of a convention with which we as one nation should approach the other nations in the discussion of these proposals? If that is the case, he should take us more completely into his confidence than he has done so far. If we as a House of Commons are expected to pass on these things and come to an agreement upon them, surely we should be taken into his confidence to the extent of knowing as much about it as he does.
Reference was made last evening to the fact that in the latter part of the statement of March 17 there is an allusion to the press statement issued by Lord Beaverbrook at the close of the conference last October. According to Hansard, page 1580, the minister said:
Lord Beaverbrook emphasized the unanimous agreement which the conference had reached on every issue presented to it. He said that those issues were "adequate for testing immediate opinion in relation to civil -aviation."
It seems to me that if we are asked to pass on this thing we should be advised as to what those issues were; they should be set down seriatim, if necessary, so that we can come to a conclusion in our own minds as to what field was canvassed in the discussions and what items were not discussed. In addition, we should be advised as to the attitude which was taken by us and the information
War Appropriation-Transport

which was obtained by the minister at the conference which he held a short time ago with Mr. Burrell, assistant secretary of state of the United States, prior to Mr. Burrell's departure for England, when he entered into discussions with Lord Beaverbrook. We need to know these things if we are expected to come to a conclusion, particularly in that connection.
The hon. member for Lake Centre was inquiring last evening of the minister with reference to the matter of an empire set-up, and the most the minister was prepared to say was that there was a discussion of routes between empire countries and that routes between empire countries are wholly consistent with the principles which are laid down in the discussion of international aviation. What I should like to know is whether or not-incidental, if you like, to this discussion which took place in Great Britain last fall-the minister 'considered with the other members of the commonwealth the setting up of an immediate empire system which could be dove-tailed into an international setup; because, as I see it, there may be a great deal of difficulty and it may take a very considerable time to establish an international set-up, whereas we might easily and rapidly come to a conclusion as far as the empire is concerned, and might set up as preliminary to the international organization an empire scheme which would give service within the empire countries. I do not suggest for a minute any scheme which would be opposed to an international arrangement, but it seems to me that grave consideration should be given to this matter I have mentioned, because it is obvious that before we can come to a conclusion on an international scale much time will be occupied and, perhaps, many difficulties encountered.
Lord Beaverbrook, who was one of the leading members of the conference last fall, and has been delegated by the British government to speak on behalf of the government in connection with these deliberations, made reference to the empire in a statement he made last January, which gives an indication that an empire set-up must be in his mind, as incidental to an international set-up, because obviously the international organization was also within his mind if, as was said, the commonwealth had come to conclusion on every issue which had been presented to it, for one of the issues was an international set-up. On January 20, according to the Canadian press, Lord Beaverbrook said:
Our empire can be made to yield to the new science of transportation over the sea and through the air. I hope we shall make good use of our opportunities. We did not in the past.
fMr. Bence.]
From that I conclude he must have had in his mind some kind of empire proposals, possibly along the lines which I have suggested.
The other questions I should like to ask are these: I do not recall that they have been referred to in the discussion so far. First of all, I am curious to find out how it was that the scheme proposed by Canada became public property so long before it was presented to the Canadian House of Commons, and what steps have been taken to ensure that such an important thing as this shall not occur in the future.
In connection with the domestic issue, I was intrigued by the statement of the minister that Canadian Pacific Air Lines had been able to obtain planes and equipment which other air transport companies had not been able to procure. It was, I think, in connection with the routes in the Pacific northwest, and was obtained as a result of the fact that the company was collaborating with the United States in that field. What I am interested in in that connection-and it is merely incidental-is why the minister was so concerned about the fact that Canadian Pacific Air Lines were able to obtain these machines. Did the fact that they did so prevent the Trans-Canada Air Lines from obtaining them; and -if not, what possible complaint can he have in the fact that the company was so enterprising and energetic as to be able to obtain planes which could give service, and good service to this country?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister wish to reply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I might say that the item which the committee is discussing, and which I hope will be passed, is an item for the operation and maintenance of municipal airports, involving a sum of S39S.260. This discussion is taking place on the estimates of the air services branch of the Department of Transport, but the question being discussed is the policy of the government on aviation. Hon. members opposite asked the government to place on record its air policy. The government did so, and an opportunity is being given for discussion of that subject now, but there is nothing before the committee having to do with the government's air policy. These are war estimates of the Department of Transport, and not even civil estimates; but by agreement we are discussing post-war civil aviation. The discussion has been helpful. I can assure my hon. friend that he is making neither commitments nor entangling alliances at the present time. Much water must go over the dam before any agreements can be obtained. The government has put on record

War Appropriation-Transport
its desires in the field of international aviation. I think no one would be more surprised than the government if its programme were accepted in toto by all the united nations which will wish to join in canying on civil aviation in the international field. Nevertheless the government has put its plan on record and for discussion before hon. members. We welcome discussion.
Then, I was asked whether an international agreement of the type discussed interfered with Canada's sovereignty of the air within Canada. The answer is that it would not' interfere in any way. No foreign aircraft could carry traffic between one point in Canada and another point in Canada. That comes under the principle of cabotage, and is expressly prohibited by the terms of the draft agreement. Then, flying between points in Canada and points in the United States is reserved for bilateral agreement. The reason is, as I said earlier, that such lines are merely extensions of domestic air lines, and it is felt that bringing such problems under an international board would be less satisfactory than direct dealing. I believe that answers the-questions the hon. member asked.


Alfred Henry Bence: I asked whether the administration had considered, in view of the difficulties which would probably arise under an international agreement, the setting up of an empire agreement, so that we could get some kind of air route into effect, with a certain amount of expedition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Expedition is not needed.
Air routes are being flown everywhere, as military operations.


Alfred Henry Bence: I mean after the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: After the war there will be
need for international air routes. So far as empire routes are concerned, no extended agreement will be required. I believe there will be no great difficuliy in flying from Canada to Great Britain, or from Great Britain to British possessions in the middle east, thence to Australia, and from Australia to Canada. It so happens it is not necessary to leave British territory to make that route, so that there could be no great problem involved. But all countries are concerned in a broader application of international aviation principles, in order that routes must not necessarily be confined within an empire family, or within empire possessions. That is the problem being disoussed here. If the problem were the simple one of travelling from one empire country to another, I do not think there would be any great need of discussion in the house. It would be quite simple.


Alfred Henry Bence: But it would require some
planning, would it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What would be required? If
each country had a strong aviation service, with suitable aircraft, the rest would be quite simple.


Alfred Henry Bence: It would be a question, for example, of what British aircraft would fly across the Atlantic, whether there would be a duplication of aircraft across Canada, which of them would fly from Canada to Australia, and so on. That is the sort of thing I have in mind, and I wanted to know whether that was deliberated upon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would be a very simple problem to work out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions about the airport at Winnipeg. Before doing so, however, there are two or three comments I should like to make because of some of the things which have been said in this debate-one which, by the way, has now become quite extended. In that connection, however, we should not be dismayed, because after all, this is a very important subject.
I should like to make this comment, that if it were not for the tremendous losses which would be involved, both to the individuals concerned and to the country as a whole, I believe it woidd be a good idea to let those who want a free rein for private enterprise in respect of civil aviation have it for a little while, just to see what would happen. If private enterprise in civil aviation were really carried out, it would involve private firms building airways and airports, and providing all the meterological and other services the government is now providing. It would involve the maintenance of all these services at private expense. Then, if we had private enterprise, in the strict sense of the word, we would have to permit any number of individuals to operate any number of firms, until they had out each other's thorats, and denied the country the advantages of a planned civil aviation policy.
I thought the hon. member for St. Paul's gave the case away the other day when, in criticizing the minister for talking about a large number of individual firms which would operate after the boys came home, he said in effect that it would be ridiculous, and that it would be far better to let the Canadian Pacific Air Lines give jobs to those boys. The contention was that this would be better for returning R.C.A.F. personnel. In other words, the hon. member for St. Paul's was pointing out that in this day and age, when one talks about private enterprise he is really asking for private monopoly.
TTar Appropriation-Transport

Another discussion has crept into this debate, one concerning which I should like to make one or two comments. But first, before turning to that-


The CHAIRMAN:: It was understood that on one item in this war appropriation measure we should have a general discussion of civil aviation. I believe this is now the sixth day we have been discussing the items of this department, and in my opinion we should now come to a discussion of the items. I give that thought to hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be as brief as I can. However, the discussion has roamed literally all over the world, and in view of some statements which have been made which, by the way, have been in reply to contentions from this group, I think I should have an opportunity of replying briefly.
The statement has been made in defence of private enterprise in the air that the country would have suffered greatly had it not been for private enterprise in railway development, and in that regard the Canadian Pacific Railway has been mentioned specifically. There again I would remind the committee that the same thing applied as now applies to aviation, namely, that it was not private enterprise by itself that accomplished all this development. It was accomplished through tremendous public subsidy and public assistance.
Also, in this whole question of international aviation there has come into the debate what one might refer to as a question of-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must say, as I said before, that I do not deny the right to anyone to make a statement. But surely we have reached the stage in this committee when we should try to bring the discussion within the orbit of the item before the committee. There was an understanding, I believe, on the part of all groups in the committee that on the first item of the war appropriations we would have a general discussion. We have often been criticized, and I suppose I shall have to accept part of the blame, for tedious repetition, in not applying the rules of the committee in our discussions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can speak on your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Early in the debate it was agreed that there would be a full discussion on the government's statement on civil aviation on some item. Part 2 of item 3, civil aviation: operation and maintenance of municipal (terminal) airports, has been chosen as the item under which that discussion will take place. Since the discussion has been carried on for two or three sittings, I would suggest that it be concluded with ample latitude so that the general discussion on civil aviation can be completed.
[Mr. Knowles.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, germane to the whole question of international civil aviation is the question of the propriety of a country like Canada delegating authority in this matter to an international body. That principle has been attacked and opposed in the house, and I regret that such attack has been made. I should like to state briefly our position which is in keeping with the principles of democratic government. Under that type of government we delegate certain authority to responsible bodies. In the provinces it is impossible for the population to get together and decide at a mass meeting as to what laws shall prevail. Therefore, the people of the province elect a government and delegate authority to that government. So long as the principle is maintained that in due course the government must go back to the people for endorsement or for replacement, you have a practical working out of the idea of democratic government.
We have the same thing in the federal field. It would be utterly impossible for Canada's
11,500,000	people to get together at a mass meeting in order to govern themselves. We want to govern ourselves, and accordingly during the process of time we have worked out a policy of electing certain citizens of the country as our representatives in parliament. We delegate to those people for the period of time that they are our representatives authority to direct the affairs of the people as a whole. There is nothing autocratic or dictatorial about that; it is just plain, ordinary common sense. It is democracy; it is being practical.
Some of ,us feel quite definitely that the time has come when that sort of thing should be extended to the world as a whole. I cannot help deploring-I hope I am a gentleman in doing so-the opposition there is to this idea on the ground that it is building up a dictatorship. When Tje attempt to carry this principle into world affairs we are trying to avoid having what I referred to last night, international anarchy. So long as the international council or authority which we set up and to which we delegate authority and power is responsible to the governments which have set it up, there will be nothing dictatorial or autocratic about it. That is what we must do if we want to make progress in this world which has literally become very small.
I wish to affirm again my pleasure that some steps are being taken, that some concrete accomplishments are emerging which indicate that it is possible for the peoples of the world, through their various governments, to get together to discuss the possibilities of

ll'ar Appropriation-Transport
a government wider than a government on a national scale. I maintain that we should be practical when we discuss this kind of thing. There is no use in setting up bodies that merely meet together and talk. You must have an authority which will be able to carry out the wishes of the people they represent. That is why we in this group strongly supported the bill in connection with UNRRA; that is why we in this group were not hesitant to give our support to the government's attempt to throw into the pool of world thought some plan for the international control of international aviation.
I suppose, having said that, it would seem to add weight to the charges that have been hurled at the government from the left and right of us that they are trying to usurp the C.C.F. position in this matter. If they are trying to do that we can only congratulate them, but I should like to say to the minister that since March 17 I have had a feeling that he has receded from, shall I say, the C.C.F. position, which he took at that time. Neither he nor the government can trade for all time on the fact that he made a good statement on March 17. What we are interested in and what we believe the people of this country are interested in is what the government is going to do in connection with the policy announced in that statement.
Perhaps I should be specific and state what I mean when I say that the minister has retreated from the forceful and aggressive stand he took on March 17.


Gordon Graydon: He has seen the light.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has been under a great deal of pressure since then from hon. members sitting on our left and on our right. His own back benchers have not had an opportunity to get into the debate,


George Alexander Cruickshank: We have not had a chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said it first. The only support he has had has been from this group. I felt that the minister w'as fairly definite on that occasion as to what was going to happen to Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I took it from the speech of the minister that we could anticipate during this session of parliament the legislation setting up an air transport board along the lines referred to in his speech and also legislation providing for the divesting by the Canadian Pacific Railway within a year after the end of hostilities of their air line properties. Yesterday I asked the minister whether we could expect such legislation, and all he could say was that there would be legislation setting up an air transport 100-143
board. What has happened to the rest of the aggressive policy in the domestic field announced on March 17?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did I say after that?
I said we had better wait until we had seen the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That i* exactly what the
minister said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not do that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not the forceful, aggressive position the minister took on March 17. If he is now giving me some hope that he is-coming back to the C.C.F. position he took on March 17, I shall be glad to wait.
On the other hand, I suppose the minister will have to be forgiven for the many qualifying remarks he has made with respect to the government's proposal for an international air transport authority. The policy has been under attack from our right and our left.
I quite realize that the minister's reply that there has been no commitment is true, and he has also indicated that any changes can be made. He has taken credit that at least a policy has been given to the house for the full discussion we have had, although he admitted when he first tabled the document that one reason for doing so was that it had already been made public in another country.
As I indicated earlier, I have studied the document closely and I find many flaws in the policy, some of which I have already indicated to the committee. But as I have said before, I feel it is a good thing that some thought is being given to this matter. Instead of the minister making qualifying statements, I would rather see him taking an attitude indicating an aggressive desire on the part of the government to do all they possibly can to get something in the way of international direction of international civil aviation. It is a very important matter, and now that the debate is over and the minister has managed to answer all the arguments fired at him, I hope he will come back to the stronger position he took on the 17th of March, even if that does seem to entitle him to an honorary membership in the C.C.F.
Before I sit down, there are two or three questions which I rose particularly to ask. I think the minister will recognize that in all that I have said about this question of civil aviation, and indeed with respect to other matters of which I speak in this house, my concern is not a narrow or provincial one, because I think in terms of national policy and of things that affect the people as a whole. Therefore, I hope the minister will not impute any narrow provincial in-

War Appropriation-Transport

terest to me when I ask a question, concerning the airport at Stevenson Field in the city of- Winnipeg. As the minister knows, Winnipeg is almost certain to be a very important point on the world air map of the future. The people of Winnipeg are conscious of that and are keenly interested in anything that relates to the development and enlargement of their airport at Stevenson Field, which is under the jurisdiction of the St. James-Winnipeg Airport Commission. If that airport is to serve the airways of the future as it can, and we feel it must, it will require considerable enlargement. I have had the privilege of seeing diagrams which indicate the kind of extension that might take place, calling for doubling the length of the present runways. If that is to be done, some thought will have to be given to the purchasing of property adjoining the field on the east end and the south, and some property on the west where buildings are located. There is also an open area to the north which is separated from the present field by a branch line of one of the railways. Thus there are many matters that will have to be looked into if that airport is to be enlarged, and the people of Winnipeg and of Manitoba are interested in this matter, to which the St. James-Winnipeg Airport Commission have been giving a great deal of thought and study. I believe they are in fairly steady contact with the minister, and it would mean a good deal to the people of Manitoba if the minister would make a statement as to any plans which the government may have for enlarging the airport at Stevenson Field. I say again that I raise this question because I feel it to be of interest to the people not only of that area but of the whole country, because of the inevitable importance of Winnipeg on the air map of the future.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no question of the importance of Winnipeg on the air map of the present. It is the operating centre of the Trans-Canada Air Lines and the major overhaul base for Trans-Canada Air Lines. Stevenson Field is a very important airport. Trans-Canada planes going from coast to coast all stop there, and as far as I know it is adequate for any possible use that can be made of it. The largest planes that are flying stop there from time to time en route from the United States to Alaska. If at any time it becomes inadequate for the class of plane using it, I am sure that steps will be taken to enlarge the airport, but no steps are contemplated at present. The department has been asked to indicate how the field could best be enlarged when the time comes, and

a plan was drawn up indicating how the runways could be lengthened. That was done by the Department of Transport. There is no thought on the part of the government that any enlargement is now required. It is a first-class field in first-class condition, but if any time a larger field is required Stevenson's Field can and will be enlarged to meet such requirements.


Gordon Graydon: May I remind the minister of two questions which were asked by the member for Saskatoon City which have not yet been answered. One was in connection with the so-called leak, to use a common term, with respect to the publication in another country of the convention which the minister put on the record here on March 17. Prior to that time, as the minister well knows, the question was raised, if not in the house most certainly in the press, as to why the convention which the minister tabled had previously been made public in the United States. There was quite a bit of speculation about that matter, and finally- the government placed the convention on the records of this house. I think the minister overlooked that question, which I think deserves an answer.
The other question asked by the hon. member was as to what report the minister can make with respect to what occurred at the conference held by the minister and Canadian officials with Mr. Berle of the United States which took place at Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as the leak goes, no one knows how that occurred. The draft convention was prepared in Canada, was studied by the war committee of the cabinet, and was forwarded to the dominions office in the United Kingdom as a matter of information. That was the only circulation it had at the time. But a copy of it evidently came into the hands of an -aviation, daily, published in the United States. I have no opinion whatever as to the route by which the document came into the hands of that publication.
In reply to the second question as to what happened in the conversations with Mr. Berle and Mr. Warner, naturally I was a party to the conversations, and I cannot divulge any more than was released in the press statement mutually -agreed upon. My hon. friend will understand that conversations of that kind are necessarily private, and that they were purely exploratory. We learned the views of the government of the United States; the government of the United States learned our views, and discussions were held in the direction of reconciling the views. That is all I can say.

War Appropriation-Transport


Gordon Graydon: That I presume was an
official conference between the officials of the civil aviation authorities in the United States and the civil aviation authorities here. I believe the minister said, in answer to a question of mine some time ago, that that conference between Berle and Warner and the minister and officials here was the counterpart of the conference held by Lord Beaverbrook with Berle during the last few weeks. I take it that this conference was the conference in which there was an exchange of views, an explanatory conference between Canada and the United States, and now there is the conference between Beaverbrook and Berle as representing Great Britain and the United States respectively. Then the previous conference in Great Britain between the minister and the United Kingdom officials was preparatory to that and these two that followed. I presume that is the sequence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I dislike the word "conference" in connection with any of them. They were described as conversations. The first was a conversation within the empire. These are conversations between the United States and two countries of the empire. I understand that the purpose is to have other discussions between other countries that will eventually be represented at a conference of all countries interested in world aviation.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister
one other question arising out of that. Has a procedure been arrived at between Canada and the other countries whereby these agreements will be subsequently made between various countries with Canada? By way of clarification, perhaps I should say this. Canada is apparently the first nation in the world to publish what, she is prepared to do in the international air field. Is it proposed that the United Kingdom, other parts of the commonwealth, and the United States, and perhaps the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, shall do likewise to their people and to the world and then finally agreements will be made, or is Canada going to be alone in her experiment of publishing what she is prepared to do, while the other nations take an entirely different course?


Clarence Decatur Howe: How can I possibly know
what Soviet Russia or Britain or the United States will doi in that direction? I can only say what Canada has done. I have no idea whether the others intend to publish their views or not.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister
this question, and it is important. The thing that concerned me when the publication was made was simply this-and I may be assuming 100-1431
too much. I wondered why Canada should be the first to make public what she is prepared to do. It is perhaps the first time that this has ever been done where international affairs are involved, and one reason why I asked the question was that I took it that this was agreed upon first at the empire conference in London. May I ask the minister this question -he shakes his head and negatives that suggestion. Then Canada, in making public her position and what she was prepared to do in the field of international civil aviation, did so without consultation or approval or consent of either the United States or Great Britain or any part of the commonwealth. I do not want the minister to take that as indicating that there was any disagreement, but in any eyent Canada acted on her own.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I am surprised at the attitude now being taken. The hon. member for Lake Centre was demanding the government's policy on aviation. Now great surprise is expressed that we did bring down government policy in detail.


John George Diefenbaker: We have not found it out entirely yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing strange about it. Canada prepared a policy for civil aviation, prepared as nothing but a Canadian proposal. It was prepared with the knowledge of the views of certain other countries, but was wholly Canadian. Canada could do what it liked with its policy. It did, as a matter of fact, place it on the Hansard of the Canadian parliament. There may be two schools of thought on that. Was that a good thing to do, or was it a bad thing? There can be two opinions on that, but it has been done, and knowing the interest it has created in all countries which are interested in aviation, perhaps it was a good thing to do. That would be my opinion at the moment.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to clear up this point with the minister. So far as getting the policy of Canada is concerned, I am quite certain that it was the proper thing for the government to enunciate its policy with respect to international civil aviation. We asked for it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: We do not go back on that. All I am concerned about is this. Having done so, it seems to us that other nations perhaps might properly have done the sain., thing, to give us some idea of what they were proposing to do, as well as ourselves. I wibli to ask the minister this question, and perhaps he may not want to answer it. Was the leak in the United States, which in part put on
2266	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Transport
the public record what Canada was prepared to do, a factor in the publication of the policy of the government of Canada, or had the government the intention of making public to the nations of the world their policy first before other nations had agreed upon theirs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is hardly a fair question. The leak occurred and the government published the full document. Whether they would have done so anyway I can hardly say definitely.


Gordon Graydon: Was there any discussion at any of these conferences with respect to other nations publishing what they are proposing to do in the international field?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said that it was I who asked for the revelation of the government's policy in reference to aviation, and I have no apology for having taken that stand. What we have been endeavouring to do during the period the matter has been under discussion has been to ascertain what the government policy is; but in one or two matters, while we have received a considerable number of answers, many of them have been so equivocal as not to convey the information asked for. Before I ask certain other questions, in order to clear away a misapprehension created by two statements made by the minister, I should like to ask him the question whether the convention which was placed on Hansard on March 17 was prepared before the Beaverbrook conference or consultation or conversation, whatever is the proper description, or whether it was prepared after the consultations that took place among the nations of the empire.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is hardly a fair question.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What do you mean-was it typed before or typed after?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the usual way the minister has of answering. Was it prepared before the Beaverbrook conference?


Mr. STIRLING:: Was it born?


John George Diefenbaker: Was it born, the hon. member for Yale says, or was it conceived in the conference and born afterwards? That is what we are trying to find out, because it is very important that the committee-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Suppose I say "yes" or "no." What difference does it make?


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the minister is here for.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the hon. member here for?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is here to give us information in regard to this problem. It is material to know whether this convention was a convention representing Canada's viewpoint as presented to the Beaverbrook conference, or whether it was a convention based on the understandings arrived at, generally speaking, at the conference. I ask him the categorical question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest to my hon. friend that he assume that it was, and that it was not, and then expound both situations and tell us where he arrives.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister's
attitude is not the attitude of a minister endeavouring to give information on events. That appears to be a continuing attitude shown by the minister toward members of this house and toward the country as a whole. I am asking him the categorical question as to whether or not the convention presented to the Beaverbrook conference is Canada's attitude? I am asking the minister that question, for at one time during this discussion he made one statement indicating that the convention represented Canada's view and was available at the Beaverbrook conference; and at another time he indicated that it was the consensus of the ideas of the various nations of the empire. Surely we have the right to know which is correct, or whether he was misunderstood. -I ask the minister, was that convention Canada's stand before the Beaverbrook conference, and was it presented there as Canada's stand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In other words, you want to know the details of a private international conversation.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: One knows the
answer now, and the answer is that this convention was the stand that Canada took before the conference. I ask the minister to challenge that statement if it is not' true. I now ask the minister this question: was or was not Canada definitely opposed in this conference to an empire set-up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is building up the greatest piece of nonsense that I have ever heard in my life. I suggest he stop questioning me, make his speech and sit down, because I am not answering questions of that type.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the attitude that the minister has repeatedly taken in this house toward questioners. He speaks of nonsense, grousers, yappers of the maritimes, et cetera. He endeavours to treat members of

War Appropriation-Transport
parliament the way he might treat those who are under him in corporations. That is not the attitude that begets cooperation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not looking for
cooperation.


John George Diefenbaker: It is perfectly reasonable to-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend should understand that I am not looking for cooperation.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he is not looking for cooperation, but we are looking for information. The minister made a statement, and I am going to get answers to these questions which the people have a right to have answered. When I asked the minister this question in regard to an empire set-up last evening, he said:
Few countries would wish to be a minority shareholder in an international air line.
He did not directly say that an empire scheme had not been considered, nor would he say what the attitude of Canada was. This matter is one of the most important matters to come before this committee in so far as the future of the empire is concerned, and the people of Canada have a right to know what stand the government has taken with regard to this matter, binding as it will be on the people of Canada. We often hear it said in the House of Commons that there should be no reference to the empire, no flag-waving, as they call it. This is what Mr. Churchill said to-day in the British House of Commons amid cheers:
In a world of confusion and ruin the old flag flies.
Then he went on to point out the necessity for cooperation in this empire. One sometimes wonders whether we are arriving at a position in this country where it is not considered the proper thing to express pride in the empire and its future. To those I would answer that this is what Mr. Churchill said to-day in the British House of Commons:
Methods must be devised without haste to bring the nations of the British empire into intimate and secret council on world events not only during this war-because that is being done with great labour and efficiency-but after the war so that they will know fully our position and we know theirs in regard to the march of events and action which might have to come from them.
We ask a minister of the crown what stand the government of Canada takes in reference to an empire scheme, and the answer is one of contemptuous words. This is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman. We have endeavoured to place our viewpoint before the country and before the government-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tell us your viewpoint in a very few words.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked a brief question and I did not get any answer. The question was perfectly pertinent. We endeavour to find out whether or not the government's attitude in this empire conference was one of cooperation after the war, and the answer we get is to the effect that-well, we are not going to be given an answer. We have a right to an unequivocal statement from the minister as to whether or not the matter of empire connections, future communications in the empire in a world-embracing air scheme were favoured or condemned by the representatives of the people of Canada at that conference. There must have been some discussion and yet we have no information on it. I find the following appearing in the Australia-New Zealand agreement of 1944:
In the event of failure to obtain a satisfactory international agreement to establish and govern the use of international air trunk routes the two governments will support a system of air trunk routes controlled and operated by governments of the British commonwealth of nations under government ownership.
I ask the minister, what did take place in this regard at the Beaverbrook conference? Did Canada take a position different from that of Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom and South Africa? Did she oppose a set-up within the empire, not excluding the international set-up, which will be necessary? Did she take the attitude she would not participate in a system of interempire trunk lines? These are matters upon which we as representatives of the people ol' Canada have a right to receive information. We cannot force the minister to give the information. All we can do is, as representatives of the people of Canada, to ask him whether one stand or the other was taken before that conference. The press reported that Canada was opposed in certain particulars to 'the stand taken by other dominions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What press?


John George Diefenbaker: I referred to it last evening, and quoted it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What press? A United States journalist, was it not, writing from Washington?	*


John George Diefenbaker: I referred to it in detail last evening, and the minister heard what I had to say.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Time magazine, was it not?


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister could just refrain from interruptions! If he has a question to ask I will answer him, if I can.
War Appropriation-Transport


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was asking the hon. member what publication he was quoting from.


John George Diefenbaker: I gave the quotation last evening, and the authority, and there was no challenge from the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Give it again.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister was present then and I have not it before me at the moment, but the reference is in Hansard, and no doubt the minister knows it. I ask him this: Did Australia and New Zealand and South Africa and the United Kingdom ask for consideration of an empire scheme? Did the minister representing Canada refuse to cooperate in such a scheme?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did the press statement at the conference say? What did Lord Beaverbrook say?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, Lord Beaverbrook is not in this house. I am asking the minister in charge of the department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will give the hon. member the same answer as he gave me. My remarks are on Hansard. I once said that if my hon. friend would read more and talk less he would be much more accurate.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister would refrain from statements which are so loose as to be equivocal, there would not be any difficulty in passing these estimates. I am asking the minister a question which he can answer unequivocally, and it will be accepted. But the people of Canada have a right to that answer; they have the right to know what attitude the government is taking in reference to this very important matter, which concerns the future of this empire; and I ask the minister to elucidate it, and give us an answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Macleod has the floor.


Ernest George Hansell: If the leader of the opposition is calling on the minister-


Gordon Graydon: I am, for the moment.


Ernest George Hansell: Very well; I yield.


Gordon Graydon: I want to say to the minister that I do not think he has been quite frank with the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me ask my hon. friend this question.


Gordon Graydon: I do not want my hon. friend to get up while I am speaking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I merely want to ask him one question, which will save a great deal of time.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is not to ask me a question, because I want to ask him a question. I want him to sit down, because, after all, I have the floor. There is no reason why the minister and I should be at cross-purposes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: After the hon. member has spoken I have something to say, but I am in no hurry.


Gordon Graydon: This is another example of the attitude of a minister who said he did not want cooperation, and it is, in my opinion, one way in which it will be very difficult to get it. I am prepared to give the minister cooperation with respect to this matter, but I want him to answer frankly the questions which were propounded to him by the hon. member for Lake Centre. He sits in his seat and dodges the issue-if you want to put it in such terms as that-and then attempts to cross-examine those who are attempting to question him. That is not the way a minister should give information on these questions. It seemed to me, sitting here and listening to the debate which took place and the questioning of the minister, that there was not much reason why the minister could not give information to the hon. member for Lake Centre with respect to these very simple inquiries. As the minister knows, the hon. member asked what was the exact position of this government with respect to an interempire aviation scheme. Why should the public and- the committee be left so delightfully in the dark, by the minister simply refusing to answer? The minister knows my feelings are kindly toward him in connection with the matter, as are those of the hon. member for Lake Centre, but wTe should like to have the information. It is not a question of putting the minister on the spot. That, I think, is a despicable thing to suggest. We should like to have the information, and I myself am going to ask, in support of what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, that that information be given by the minister. If he refuses, that, of course, will be his responsibility.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say to hon. gentlemen opposite that it is the custom in an international conference of official representatives of governments to unite on a statement of procedure which is agreed to by all governments, and published. It is then quite

War Appropriation-Transport
improper for any member of that conference to issue information' about the conference which has not been agreed to by the other members. I would expect my hon. friend to know that. That is one other reason why [DOT] we should like to see in the house his extramural leader, who is familiar with the practice of conferences. Perhaps I have given the reason why I cannot disclose the contents of an international conference beyond the point that those present agreed to disclose the information.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is the item carried?


John George Diefenbaker: No. Mr. Chairman-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. The hon. member for Macleod has the floor.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want to interrupt the continuity of an argument.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If the hon. member
lakes his seat, he yields to the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not wapt to take a lot of time. I spoke on this matter once last night. Some hon. members have spoken on it several times. But just for a minute or two I should like to ask a question or two with respect to some remarks which were made last evening.
Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Vegreville spoke in terms of a loyal British subject, and with respect to the present international air agreement indicated that he was alarmed lest some of the sovereign rights of the people of Canada should be sold out to some international body. I followed last evening and pursued a similar line with some additional remarks. When the Minister of Munitions and Supply answered our speeches he said something to the effect that the foreign policy of our party was like the old Conservative British imperialism. I do not know exactly what he means by that. I am not posing as a profound student of political history, but I know that embodied in the British crown are the great principles of freedom, justice, righteousness and equity, and it is British policy that wherever the British flag flies those principles should be adhered to.


Clarence Gillis: But never have.


Ernest George Hansell: I admit, of course, that
in the very weakened democracy and under the very weakened leadership of that democracy which we have had, a good many injustices have been done; nevertheless it is not the fault of those great principles for which the British empire stands. If by adhering to such principles as the love of freedom, justice, equity and righteousness we must be labelled
with a tag called "British imperialist," we cannot help it. I have sent for the dictionary- by the way, a dictionary is a good thing to consult once in a while-and I find that "imperialism" means the rule of an emperor. I do not think any one will doubt we have a king. Then there is the further definition: "Extension of British empire where trade requires protection of the flag." It is a great British tradition, that wherever the flag flies there must be liberty and freedom of mankind. I ask the minister if he believes that? If he does, then, according to the dictionary, he must be an imperialist.


Gordon Graydon: He cannot be C.C.F.,
too.
M-r. HANSELL: The leader of the opposition may have something there. Then, with regard to "imperialist" the dictionary says, "Adhering to an emperor." I should like to know if the Minister of Munitions and Supply is adhering to the King of England, Great Britain and the Dominions beyond the seas?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The chair must rule
against bringing into the discussion in the House of Commons the name of the king or any member of the royal family.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not think the rule
applied to the mere mention of His Majesty. However, I do not need to go farther in that respect. I believe the minister is just as loyal to the crown as we are. I have no doubt about that, and I do not relish at all his flinging some term across the floor which is designed to discredit the Social Credit group, when we are only trying to be loyal to some of those great principles of British democracy. I shall not deal with that farther.
I cannot quite understand why there has been all the hurry in signing international agreements of this kind. It seems to me there must be some vying for position, while the world is in a turmoil. It would seem that somebody somewhere wants- to get in on the ground floor. There is a war going on, and we do not know when peace will come, although we hope it may come soon. But the invasion of Europe is not even started, and it is anybody's guess when the war will end. It is also anybody's guess what ldnd of peace table we shall have, or whether we shall have a peace table. Yet, while the war is in this state, nations gather together and begin signing agreements with regard to post-war air routes.
We do not know what the outcome of the war will be, in all its details. We know, of course, that we are going to win, because we vrill fight until we do win. But we do not know what the alignment of nations will
War Appropriation-Transport

be after the war is over. Italy is on our side only because she is in process of being conquered. There was a time when she was not with us. There was a time, too, when Russia had an agreement with Germany, and that was at a time when we were fighting Germany. The alignment of nations . has changed since then, and we do not know what changes will take place before ultimate peace comes to the earth. The whole picture may be changed.
Yet the Canadian government has to rush somewhere to bring about an agreement concerning which the people of Canada know very little. I do not wish to be too suspicious, but there is a feeling in Canada that there is something underlying these actions, and the way they are done. What difference would it have made, or what difference could it possibly make if this whole thing were deferred until peace comes, and the nations settle down to a better understanding? Would there be any harm in waiting until after the war? Would it alter our position at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There will be an awkward situation at the end of the war, if no international agreement is in effect. The air lines of various nations are flying over the world to-day in a manner which is suitable in a time of war, but which would involve great difficulties in peace time. For instance, British Overseas Airways maintain a military service flying around the world, over a great many countries. For that service Great Britain has no peacetime air convention. The United States flies to almost every section of the world. Canada operates a war-time service across the Atlantic, for which it has no peace-time franchise. To sort out these various services, so as not to cut off air communication entirely, requires an elaborate system of agreements. I believe it is highly desirable that, if possible, a comprehensive agreement be evolved before the end of the war, or before the termination of war-time aviation agreements.
For example, aircraft flying across Canada are operating under a permit for the duration ,of the war, and six months thereafter. At the end of that time Canada will be hard put to it to deal with the situation, unless agreements have been arrived at. There seems to be the suggestion that this draft agreement is ready for signing. I suggest that it is a long way from that stage. Preliminary negotiations are in progress, and I think one would be very optimistic indeed if he believed that these negotiations would not extend over several months. I feel we are not starting too soon to discuss this very important problem.
fMr. Hansell.J


Clarence Gillis: I had really wished to ask the minister something respecting the future of present airports in the field of civil aviation. However, I have sat here for the past eight days and listened to this discussion, pro and con, and I have heard some members make almost the same speech on at least four different occasions. To-night I heard one man read into the record about forty minutes of talk that I have heard nine times since I came to this house-and it had very little bearing on the question before the committee.
When the hon. member for Macleod said last night that he was going to" talk on something he knew nothing about, I believe what he said might be applied to practically everyone I have heard discuss this question, including myself. I shall not attempt to discuss the matter in all its details. However, I agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, when he states that if we are to achieve the objectives for which we are fighting, then there must be some international understanding with those people we term our allies in the fighting of the war. I agree with the position taken by the minister in trying to arrive at some understanding as to the future of aviation. Anyone reading the press, for the past eighteen months particularly, must be aware that those who have been in favoured positions for the last fifty years, those who have held imperialistic views and have controlled the cartels which have controlled production throughout the world, those who have controlled the machine which has strangled the world for the past fifty years, that small group in Great Britain and the United States, that powerful group which has had a monopoly of everything in the past have been endeavouring to achieve the same monopolistic position in regard to our airways.
I think the minister was well advised to have this tentative agreement drafted in such a way as to attempt to protect the rights of the people of Canada. I think this is the first step that has been taken in connection with any industry to protect the future of the people of this country. An effort has been made to protect this industry from those who were slowly but surely getting hold of it. The Canadian Pacific Railway were quite prepared to take over all airports and meteorological services. The complete development was carried on by the government with the taxpayers' money; the job of organization was done and the job of exploitation was about to begin.
The hon. member for Macleod and others have expressed their own opinions, but I think they are confused when they believe that the rights of the people of Canada are being given away under this agreement. For the

War Appropriation-Transport
first time our rights are being protected. I hope the time has passed when somebody in the United States or Great Britain can draft an agreement and bring it to Canada and have it accepted. I think this agreement is a step in the right direction. I am not going to say that I will agree with the minister or the government as to the manner in which this is to be put into operation. I am sceptical of some of the people who are behind the scenes or who will be in responsible positions when the organization is completed.
The hon. member for Lake Centre quoted a statement made by Mr. Churchill in the British House of Commons to the effect that in the midst of a confused world the flag still flies. The world is not so confused to-day. For the first time in some time the road ahead is beginning to look somewhat clear. Lines are being sharpened. World imperialism plunged us into the war, but the picture is becoming clearer. The peoples of the world who have been reading and thinking and hoping for a break in monopolistic imperialism see a much clearer picture to-day. We are not disagreeing with the fact that the flag stands for many great principles, but those principles have never been implemented. If this group is given the opportunity we intend to see that the principles for which the flag stands are fully implemented, something that has not been done, at least in my lifetime.
In spite of all the confusion that seems to exist about the action that is to be taken, may I say to the minister that I think he is on the right road. He should stick to his guns. I hope he will be realistic in the national picture when it comes to taking complete control of aviation in the future and will give due regard to seeing that the men and women who are to carry out the administration of this policy do it in the interests of the Canadian people.
I should like to ask a question about the use that will be made of our airports in the future. Many of these airports were established by small community groups and the local people have some equity in them. Many of these fields were taken over for military purposes, although I do not know whether they were bought outright or leased. They have been greatly extended and are in a position to do an important job in future aviation. I am wondering what will happen to the equity which these local groups had in the air fields prior to their being taken over. Will these local groups be compensated for the investment they have made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The municipal air fields were leased to the Department of Transport for $1 a year, under an agreement which provides that the department would become responsible for
the operation of the airports, and for any capital expenditures required to fit them for war purposes. The ownership of the airports still rests with the municipalities. Such extensions as have been made will revert to the municipalities when the present arrangement is cancelled, unless some other disposal is decided upon by agreement. The ownership has never been disturbed. I presume the leases will be brought to an end and the properties again operated by the municipalities. There is always the possibility that by agreement with a number of municipalities a different policy may be adopted, but at the moment nothing has been done toward that end.


Grote Stirling: If I understand him aright,
the minister takes the position that since he was Canada's representative at a set of conversations in London last October, and since a press statement was issued at the end of those conversations, he cannot go behind that statement or amplify it. That would appear to me to be a perfectly tenable position. A statement was made in a responsible United States newspaper, which was referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre, to the effect that Canada's position was said to have differed from that of England, New Zealand and Australia; that the mother country and those two dominions share a common view. Since that statement has been made we should like to know whether or not it is accurate. If the minister takes the view that because of the position he occupied he cannot go behind the . statement which was issued, that is a tenable position and we must be content with that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I say that the official statement of the conference as well as the statement made by Lord Beaverbrook in the House of Lords on behalf of the British government, would make it quite impossible that the statement referred to, which I understand is taken from a United States publication not greatly noted for being reliable-


Grote Stirling: Oh, yes; it is a Washington dispatch in the New York Times.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought the hon. member said it was from Time. Nevertheless the New York Times was not represented at the conference, and those who prepared the press statement, and Lord Beaverbrook, were there. ' Therefore I think my hon. friend would be well advised to accept the official statement and the statement of Lord Beaverbrook.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister place on some phrases that he used the same interpretation that I did? I listened to these sentences when the minister uttered them and
War Appropriation-Transport

was not at all sure whether I got his meaning. At the bottom of page 2193 of Hansard of yesterday he said:
Canada is active in that direction. It must be recognized that no group of small countries can have any great influence on the final outcome. I think we must question the wisdom of attempting to group the small countries together as a bloc to go into a conference of that kind.
When he made that statement I wondered whether that to a considerable extent explained the position which the government takes with regard to the empire attitude. Is he there referring to small countries, Canada being one of them, the other commonwealth nations of the empire being others, including the United Kingdom, and does he question the value of those nations coming together for discussions in the hope of arriving at a common policy? Does he question the wisdom of that being done on the eve of a consideration and conversations which will be under-.aken by a far larger number than the nations of the commonwealth?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does my hon. friend think? If he will read back a little he will find that I was referring to a suggestion that came from his left, that Canada should join with other small countries. That had nothing to do with the empire. My hon. friend, I am sure, cannot be serious in suggesting that I considered Britain a small country or Canada a small country. I assume that this is a serious discussion, and I think my hon. friend should ask serious questions.


Grote Stirling: My question was most serious. I listened to the minister with great attention yesterday.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope I have definitely cleared my hon. friend's mind on that point.


Grote Stirling: Right,


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Were the possibilities of expansion into long runway airports taken into consideration when choosing the sites for the original airports in the commonwealth air training scheme when it was started in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 'We thought of everything, yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Some of them will be rather queer long runways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3. Civil aviation: Canadian government transatlantic air service, $400,000.
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister with regard to the matter of the chosen instrument. He has told us in his statement that he and the government believe rMr. Stirling.]
in a chosen instrument to operate the international air lines, and I presume they will be founded on the basis of the present transAtlantic air lines. Is it the government's intention to have transoceanic air lines operated on a round-the-world basis or on a regional basis?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a difficult question. Would my hon. friend elucidate what he means by a round-the-world basis?


John George Diefenbaker: I mean a world basis. What is the basis of Canada's post-war international air service to be? Is it to be on a regional basis whereby Canada will operate air lines in only certain parts of the world, or is it to be on a world basis?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend wants a categorical answer to his question I shall have to ask him to elucidate a little more. What does he mean by an aeroplane operating on a round-the-world basis and one operating on a regional basis?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, all I have to say is this, that the Canadian government has decided on a system of the chosen instrument and intends to operate international air services. My question is are these international air services to be operated on a regional basis?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just what is a regional basis? Where do we go when on a regional basis?


John George Diefenbaker: Just a minute.
This is one question on which I am going to get a categorical answer. Are these international air services to be operated on a regional basis whereby certain areas will be allocated to Canada under international agreement, or does Canada intend to operate air services in all parts of the world on a transoceanic system? Under present conditions the situation in Great Britain is that she has a chosen instrument. Canada has taken a stand in favour of that policy. The United States has not a chosen instrument policy. The importance of this question arises in connection with the question whether we in Canada can operate international air services on a transoceanic basis, whether we have the necessary ability to do it unless we operate within an empire or some other international system.
I am endeavouring to ascertain from the minister what the plans are with respect to air transport on a world basis.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may be overoptimistic, but I think Canada has the ability to do whatever any other country can do. We are operating across the Atlantic at the present time. I do not know whether that is on a regional or on a round-the-world basis. I am still

Warf Appropriation-IFar Services
mystified by my hon. friend's terms. Would he say that across the Atlantic would be on a round-the-world or on a regional basis?


John George Diefenbaker: Facetiousness is
never an answer, even from a minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Really, I am not trying to be facetious. Regional is an odd expression. We expect to operate across the Atlantic and we hope to operate across other oceans.


John George Diefenbaker: Across the Pacific?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We hope to, yes, and we hope to operate into the south Atlantic. I do not know whether such operations would be round-the-world or regional. Perhaps my hon. friend would know. Perhaps he will be satisfied with that explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $90,907.
Mr. MacINNIS:: Is the minister going to follow the example of the other ministers and make a statement before there is a general discussion of the item?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe it is the feeling of the committee that there should be a general discussion first.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): The same question was put to me last year, and I then said that I did not intend to make a general statement but that I would give any information required as we came to the particular votes. The Department of National War Services is not organized to do any one particular thing but to do a considerable number of different things. I suggest to hon. members that they can obtain information more readily by dealing with each item separately. The item that you have just called, sir, is a normal item. It is slightly lower than it was last year. It is a few hundred dollars less than the equivalent vote for the fiscal year ending March 1, 1944.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister explain the increase of $5,000,000 under auxiliary services?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I shall be pleased to do so when we come to it. At the moment we are on the $90,000 item.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is administration?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not know whether the minister expects us to discuss the work of the department eo-mi-ally under this item
or to take each item as we come to it. I think it would be more satisfactory if we had a discussion of the work of the department as we usually have at this particular stage. It is unfortunate that the minister is not prepared to make a general statement regarding the work of his department. Can he tell us just what the organization of the department is, how it is organized as compared with other new departments? It is a war department. Last year we did not get a general statement nor did we have a general discussion, and I would appreciate it if we knew what this department comprises, what its functions are, and if we could get some general information about it before going into the items.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes, but I would repeat that I had thought of doing this year as was done last year. I may remind the committee that lengthy statements about the department were made in previous years. During the last fiscal year the department has grown to some extent, there being now nearly 300 more employees in it than in the previous year.


Thomas Miller Bell: What is the total number of employees?
Mr. LaFLECHE: About 1,300. There are a number of departmental activities, and they are very well set out under the separate votes given in Hansard of February 11, 1944-War Charities Act, salvage, the civilian Canadian fire-fighters overseas, the committee on cooperation in Canadian citizenship, censorship with its subheadings, information and records branch, postal censorship, censorship of publications, telegraph and cable. There is an item here for the short-wave station of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is under construction at Sackville, New Brunswick. This is nothing new; it is merely to carry on.


Gordon Graydon: When does the minister expect that to be finished?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I replied to a question in the house about a month ago. The officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation then told me that the buildings would be completed next month as a matter of fact, in May, and also that they hoped to be able to use the new short-wave station at Sackville late in this coming fall. There had been a delay, but it was an anticipated delay, the trouble being in getting the required equipment from the manufacturers. The delay itself was caused by the difficulty in getting favourable priorities over other war requirements. On that point I am quite satisfied that the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have done excellent work in going after priorities. There will still be a delay of

War Appropriation-War Services
perhaps four months over the opening date as originally anticipated, or as anticipated last year at least. I think they have cut that by two or even three months. Then there is the national film board, and we have the women's voluntary services, the government economies control, and the next-of-kin of prisoners of war branch of my department. I am only too happy to meet the pleasure of hon. members in attempting to give information, but I shall take the liberty of saying again that I think the best way to get information concerning my department is to take it up by sections such as represented in Hansard, pages 397 and 398, because we deal with such a large variety of matters between which there is no possible similarity.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to ask the minister under which item the discussion will come in regard to educational services.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Under the next, auxiliary services. That is a large amount, $12,000,000.


Major James William Coldwell: On Monday, or when we take this up again, perhaps the minister will be prepared to tell us something about the auxiliary educational services. I believe that this is one of the best things being done in connection with our war services at the present time, and I should be glad if the minister could give the committee a detailed story of what is being done in regard to both prisoners of war and our own young men overseas. It would be a good thing for the country and the house to get a complete picture.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I shall be pleased to do so, and I thank the hon. member for suggesting it. I think there is a nice story to tell.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 24, 1944