1944-06-19

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What amounts of money have been paid to Mr. D. G. MacKenzie iby the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	What are the details of services rendered
for the amounts indicated in the answer to question 1 ?	.

Questions


Mr. ABBOTT:: 4.	Travelling
Fiscal	and living
year	Fees expenses Total
1942/43	 $ 1,685 71 $ 367 43 $ 2,053 14
1943/44	
10,257 10	3,309 19	13,566 291944/45	
485 69	143 14	628 83*

* Payments April 1, 1944, to June 14, 1944.
2. Mr. D. G. MacKenzie serves with the industrial division at headquarters of the wartime prices and trade board. A consulting engineer, Mr. MacKenzie has been carrying out these duties on a fee basis, receiving payment for such time as he actually spends on board business.
Effective July 1, 1944, Mr. MacKenzie will become a full-time member of the board's staff as chief of the industrial division, and on a salary basis of $8,000 per annum.


MOUNTED POLICE-SEIZURE OF ILLICIT STILL AT STE. THERESE, QUE.
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seize a still at Ste. Therese, county of Terrebonne, Quebec, in the section known as "les cent maisons"?
2.	If so, (a) when; (b) what was the capacity; (c) what was its value; (d) how many houses were used in connection with such industry; (e) what are the names of the owners or tenants of such houses; (f) what is their occupation?
3.	What are the names of the person or persons involved in this matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member informed me that this question was intended to have to do with events subsequent to January 1, 1944, and on that assumption I have prepared an answer, as follows:
1.	Yes.
The seizure of an illicit small drip-type still was effected by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Ste. Therese, P.Q., but it is not known if 23 Bertrand street is in the section known as "les cent maisons".
2.	(a) May 10, 1944.	(b) Two-gallon boiler
capacity, (c) Approximately $2.	(d) One.
(e) Tenant-Norman Notter,. Owned by Wartime Housing Limited. (f) Norman Notter has been employed for approximately two years as general supervisor of Defence Industries Limited, Bouchard Plant, Ste. Therese, P.Q.
3.	Norman Notter previously mentioned.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	What amounts, if any, have been advanced by the government to the vegetable dehydrating plant operated by Broder Canning Company at Lethbridge, Alberta, in respect to, (a) buildings; (b) machinery; (c) other purposes?
2.	Is the said plant in operation at the present time?
3.	If it is not in operation, why is this the case?
4.	What arrangements have been made by the government in respect to repayment of advances, or future disposition of plant or machinery?


RASPBERRY AND STRAWBERRY PULP
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	In what provinces is raspberry and straw' berry pulp placed under allotment for sale to
manufacturers in 1944?
2.	Can fruit pulp be shipped as pack becomes available? If not, who will finance the pack until shipment?
3.	Are manufacturers compelled to pay a minimum price for jam strawberries and raspberries ?
4.	Are the maximum prices allowable for strawberry and raspberry pulp lower than 1943? If so, how much and why?


ROBERT FOWLER
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1. Was Robert Fowler engaged on the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations?
_ 2. If so, what amount of money did he receive in, (a) salary; (b) expenses?
3.	Was Robert Fowler engaged on the Hong Kong commission?
_ 4. If so, what amount of money did he receive in, (a) salary; (ib) expenses?
5.	Is Robert Fowler employed by the wartime prices and trade board?
6.	If so, what amount of money does he receive in, (a) salary; (b) expenses?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: For a copy of the older in council providing for payment of a subsidy on Canadian grown potatoes, together with a copy of authorized press, radio and food bulletin notices advertising this subsidy; a copy of all forms on which application for subsidy were to be made to the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation; of all correspondence between the corporation and those who were paid subsidies, together with a copy of any reports made to the corporation by officials of the corporation or government charged with the responsibility of investigating the conditions on which subsidies were received.
Motions jor Papers


Mr. ABBOTT:: Mr. Speaker, this motion will have to pass with some reservations. The first part is all right; but the hon. member has asked for "all correspondence between the corporation and those who were paid subsidies, together with a copy of any reports made to the corporation by officials of the corporation or government charged with the responsibility of investigating the conditions on which subsidies were received." As I pointed out in the house the other evening at some length, the reports referred to are confidential interdepartmental reports and privileged, and similarly the correspondence is privileged in so far as it reveals the private competitive position of different firms. With these reservations the motion may pass. I spoke to my hon. friend about it the other day.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-CANADA COMFOBTER COMPANY

["It had better go to the public accounts committee rather than the war ' expenditures committee."]
Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda and reports, in the possession of the Department of Munitions and Supply, leading up to the launching of a prosecution against Canada Comforter, Limited, as indicated on page 3610 of Hansard for June 8, 1944.
Also for a copy of any correspondence, memoranda or reports, in the possession of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, made available to the Department of Munitions and Supply in connection with the above case.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: There is an objection to this motion also, on the ground that the correspondence and reports sought by the hon. member concern a matter which is now before the courts. It is the practice of the house to refuse to produce papers under these circumstances, and I am objecting to the passing of this motion for that reason.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Has this case been proceeded with?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it in the courts?


Lionel Chevrier: It is now before the courts. Charges have been laid.


Thomas Miller Bell: And not withdrawn?


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding is that they are proceeding.
Motion dropped.



Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports and other documents in the possession of the Department of Finance or the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation regarding the recovery by the said corporation of subsidy pay-

ments, or any portions thereof, made to manufacturers of mattresses or other bedding products.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A similar reservation will have to be made with reference to this motion as was made to the motion of the hon. member for York-South (Mr. Noseworthy); that is, that interdepartmental reports will not be produced, as being privileged, and correspondence or other documents which reveal the total amounts of subsidies paid to individual firms will not be produced. Subject to these reservations the order may pass.


Thomas Miller Bell: Since this is the position of the government, may I suggest that this case should be referred to the war expenditures committee? The information I have would warrant that proceeding.


Mr. GRAYDON:: It had better go to the public accounts committee rather than the war ' expenditures committee.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I desire to direct to the Minister of National Defence a question of which I have given him verbal notice. What are the reasons of security which prevent the Canadian people from knowing the extent of the casualties in France, having regard to the fact that Lieutenant-General Bradley, at a press conference on the beachhead on June 17, disclosed to the war correspondents present that American casualties for the first eleven days of the invasion totalled 16,883, including 3,283 known dead, and 12,600 wounded? If there is to be one rule for the people of the United States and another for the Canadian people, I think the position should be clarified, and we should be given convincing reasons why they disclosed the casualty figures and the Canadian government refuses to do likewise.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I wish my hon. friend and the house to note that it was not the United States government that made the statement which was given; it. was the field commander. As a result of arrangements which were made prior to operations in the Mediterranean in July last year, it was agreed that the actual number of casualties would be released only if and when the commander in the field who is responsible for the conduct of the operations feels that such release will not prejudice the progress of the operation. I have always considered this arrangement binding, and I have never per-

Dominion Coal Company
mitted a release of casualty figures which might be regarded as in any way endangering the security of our forces. Any releases authorized by me have been the subject of prior consultation with our allies.	_
When the hon. member asked the question on Friday I told the house that nothing but security reasons prevented these figures from being announced, but that I would have to consult our allies before an announcement could be made. I must say I was very much surprised to learn on Saturday morning that an announcement had been made from the field respecting United States casualties. The house will recognize, I am sure, that I would want to take instant action in respect of it. I cabled Canadian military headquarters, as I indicated on Friday that I would do. I stated that since the totals had been announced for the United States I did not see why we could not announce the Canadian casualties as well, and I asked that communication be made with the appropriate officers so as to ensure concurrent statements on matters of this kind in the future. The reply I received this morning gave the circumstances under which the announcement was made by the field commander, which I will not disclose. The reply does, however, state that there is an agreement that no additional statement will be made public at present and that we shall be advised regarding any further announcement so that a simultaneous release can be made in Canada.
When I received this reply this morning. I telephoned to Canadian military headquarters and pointed out to them the incongruity of one country issuing a statement and others not doing so. And questioning whether an agreement should be made under these circumstances, they advised that the request had come from responsible officers connected with the combined operations, and very strongly advised that it would be definitely regarded by those who are in charge as a breach of security if figures were released by Canada at this time. I may say that figures have not been given by any of the other principal allies, that I have heard of. -I have given full consideration to the matter and under the circumstances I am not prepared to overrule the judgment of those who are on the spot, who are closer to the position than we here can possibly be. They know the detriment which might be caused to the troops -and that includes Canadian troops-and to the success of the operation itself by the giving of this information. I can only ask the house and the public to accept their judgment, as I do, and to await the announcement of the number of casualties whenever it is considered, by those in charge, that they may be safely released.
May I say further that casualties, no matter how limited they may be, are always too many. However, there are two statements I can make which I think should afford considerable relief. In the first place, in these almost two weeks of fighting in France, the Canadian casualties are moderate and below the total number estimated for the initial phase of the operation. That is gratifying and must be given at this time without amplification. The numbers will gradually disclose themselves by the publishing of lists as time goes by; but, as they explained to me, what they want to avoid is the giving out of the number of casualties for any particular phase of the operation.
The second point is that in this operation the system of reporting individual casualties is functioning, I think, with maximum efficiency. I can assure the house that almost every casualty sustained up to Friday last has been reported directly to the next of kin, and they are being kept informed of the progress of those who are wounded. It is proposed that this service shall continue to be given to the next of kin without interruption. I think we can be sure that they as well as the public are conscious of the security restrictions and would not insist that casualty figures should be given out if responsible authorities on the ground consider it inadvisable.



REFERENCE TO PARTICIPATION OF MAJOR HUGHES LAPOINTE, M.P., IN LIBERATION OF FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence on behalf of the rump. Has it been brought to the attention of the minister that one of our members, Major Hugues Lapointe, M.P., son of the late Hon. Ernest Lapointe, former Minister of Justice, has distinguished himself in the liberation of France?


James Layton Ralston: I have noted the statement which
has appeared in the public press to the effect indicated by the hon. member. I may say that we all join in congratulating our fellow-member on this recognition of the success he has achieved and on the fine service he has rendered to the allied cause.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the
Dominion Coal Company

Minister of Munitions and Supply arising out out of a telegram received from Local' 4530, United Mineworkers of Nova Scotia, protesting against the action of the Dominion Coal company in leaving their mines idle on Saturdays. In view of the anticipated fuel emergency in the coming winter, as exemplified by the minister's warnings to the public to get their fuel stocks early, will the minister check with the Dominion Coal company as to the possibility of continuous employment in the mines, including Saturdays? Secondly, is he in a position to take any action with respect to the second part of the telegram, namely, the miners demand for remuneration for the time lost through the company's action in keeping the mines idle?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The hon. member was good
enough to give me notice of the question, and I have obtained the pertinent facts, which I think should be placed before the house. I must give them at some length.
I must say at once that every ton of coal that can be mined in Nova Scotia is required to meet the present coal shortage. The record of coal production in Nova Scotia during past months has been anything but satisfactory. The Department of Munitions and Supply and the Dominion Coal company as a whole are making desperate efforts to improve the situation. The salient points remain and can be noted as follows:
1.	Daily production is declining from a normal 18,000 tons per day; the average at the present time is nearer 12,000 tons per day.
2.	The output per man per day has decreased from 2-67 tons in 1939 to 1-73 tons per man per day for April of this year.
3.	Absenteeism has increased from 14-9 per
cent in January of this year to 29-7 per cent for the month of May.	,
As a further example of the difficulties encountered, when retroactive wages were paid out on May 15, 1944, covering the order of the national war labour board, absenteeism reached a high of 41-4 per cent. This figure has mot been included in the above averages.
Another case is at No. 24 colliery (Caledonia) ; the mine was idle for four days, the reason given that the miners were looking for a woman who had wandered away from home. It was found that the number of men looking for this person, out of a total labour force at this mine of 468, did not amount to more then twenty on May 11 and about eight on May 12. There is no record of any men seeking the lost person on May 13 and 15,

and the mine was idle for the four days and not one man asked permission to absent himself from work.
A recent survey of mining labour in the Cape Breton area indicates that there are over 600 men who are either qualified to obtain second class certificates as miners or who already have certificates but will not transfer from datal work to contract work at the coal face. The management have not to date induced these men to take over the actual productive labour in the mines, yet a substantial number of alternate workers could be found to take the place of these qualified miners now on non-productive mining work.
In an endeavour to remedy the situation the management sought permission to establish a five day week at certain of the collieries to see whether or not it would improve matters. This resulted in a telegram sent me by the Caledonia local asking that the government pay them for the shifts lost on Saturday, June 3, and Saturday, June 10.
The facts of the matter are: the company have attempted to work Caledonia mine on Friday afternoon and Saturday morning shifts against increasing absenteeism indicative of the reluctance of the producers to work on these two shifts.	The average week-end
absenteeism producers during May at the Caledonia collieries on Friday afternoon amounted to 64-5 per cent and on Saturday morning shifts 45-5 per cent.
All mines work a shingle shift on Saturdays. Caledonia could produce one thousand tons in that shift, but during May the Saturday morning shifts averaged from 337 tons to 5S1 tons.
On May 27 only 63 producers out of a possible 120 reported for work. The tons produced per man on that day amounted to three-quarters of a ton compared with over two tons on a normal day.
Week-end absenteeism is but a more acute condition of non-attendance at work affecting the whole week. If producers would work steadily five days weekly, output could be increased 22 per cent over actual six day performances during May.
As indication of the attitude toward Saturday work, I may state that No. 16 colliery has worked only on two Saturdays this year because men did not turn out for work. Sydney Mines collieries, Princess and Florence, have not worked on a Saturday since February 13, 1943, for the same reason.


Clarence Gillis: May I inquire where the
minister got his facts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I got them from the coal
administrator.

Department of Veterans' Affairs


Clarence Gillis: I thought so. That is not a statement of facts; it is a propaganda statement. I hope I shall have-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: There is no "oh" about it.
I hope I shall have the privilege of putting the other side of the story on the record.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend promise to do that, covering exactly the same ground?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I will.


Mr. REID:: May I ask the minister whether the men were successful in their search?



VETERANS' AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 16, consideration in committe of bill No. S3, to establish a department of veterans' affairs

Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre)'-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 5-Duties, powers and functions of minister.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health):	Section
5 was stood over on Friday evening. When the section came before the committee for consideration the hon. member for Vancouver South expressed the opinion that instead of the words "of any person" being used to give general jurisdiction, it would be more appropriate to specify the particular persons with whom the bill is concerned, namely, former members of His Majesty's forces. As a result of this suggestion this section was allowed to stand. Since then the matter has received further study, and I am now advised that there would be no diffi.-. culty in attempting to meet the suggestion of my hon. friend. The following amendment has accordingly been prepared:
That the words "of any person" as they appear in the seventh line of section 5 be struck out and that there be substituted therefor the words "of any person who served in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty, any person who has otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to war, and of any other person designated by the governor in council, and to the care of the dependents of any such person."
Richard Burpee Hanson: Wherein do they differ?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South is a broadening out of the terms of the words "of any person" included
in the draft bill now before the committee.
I am accepting the suggestion and move the amendment accordingly.


Mr. BROOKS:: Are munition workers included?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. STIRLING:: And the designation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If they are designated they would be included.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7 (renumbered 6)-Power to make regulations.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In discussing this section in committee on Friday it was suggested that paragraph (b) of subsection 1 thereof was hardly wide enough to allow for the provision of care, treatment and training of a person in his own home.
I appreciate this suggestion and I feel that it has considerable merit. Accordingly the following amendment is proposed. That this section be amended by striking out the words "other institution" where they occur in the third line thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the words "or elsewhere".
I have already given notice of my intention to move an amendment of this particular paragraph in other respects. Therefore the paragraph as proposed to be amended will read as follows:
Respecting the care, treatment or training to be furnished in any hospital, workshop, home, school or elsewhere, and providing for the care, treatment or training therein of persons entitled thereto under any statute or order of the governor in council administered by the minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is in lieu of present paragraph (b) ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MacNICOL:: On Friday last I made some observations in reference to paragraph (g), under the impression that if the minister had the power under the bill which I was given to understand he had, relief would be given to numbers of veterans who for one reason or another have not been granted pensions. I should like to know if the minister is going to have increased powers in that connection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When this subsection was drafted it was the intention that in special cases, such as widows'
Department of Veterans' Affairs

allowances, which are governed by special appropriations by parliament, the minister would have certain powers as a result of that action by this house. But the hon. member for Vancouver South pointed out, I think very properly, that this might lead to possible abuses; that the minister would be given powers to which really he was not entitled, because the pension commission is an independent body and I think should remain so. I do not believe any minister of pensions should have the power to award pensions; I say so very sincerely and very directly. So that after listening to the suggestions of the hon. member for Vancouver South, and after talking it over with my departmental officials, we are going to move to have that subsection deleted from the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think everyone will be in agreement with that declaration of policy by the minister, that no minister should have power to grant pensions. Not only is it in the interests of the minister's peace of mind, since it will relieve him of a tremendous burden that otherwise would be cast upon him, but I think it is in the interests of the whole spirit of our pension legislation.
What I rise to speak about and protest against is the growing practice of ministers, in bringing down new legislation, to take authority to legislate, because that is what they are doing. In the bill referring to the disposal of war assets-and I hope hon. members will consider this when we come to discuss that bill in committee-tremendous power is vested in the Minister of Munitions and Supply to do almost anything. He can override the corporation and the associated committee which is set up-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To which section is the hon. gentleman referring?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
directing my remarks to section 7 of the bill; at the moment I am giving an illustration. That makes the minister a dictator. If hon. members will examine the aeronautics bill which is now before this house they will find that again the Minister of Munitions and Supply is arrogating to himself all the powers of a dictator, when as a matter of fact the whole subject matter of the regulations in connection with aeronautics ought to be vested in an independent board.
Having said that may I refer to section 7(1), which reads:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council-
-which of course is very largely a formality, since the minister makes the recommendation. 
-the minister may make such regulations, from time to time, as he may deem necessary and advisable-
If the section were to stop there of course it would be impossible for parliament to delegate such power to a minister, and I am sure no minister would ask for it. In the succeeding subsections (a) to (1) both inclusive there is an attempt to limit the subject matter in connection with which the minister may make regulations. I invite hon. members to read carefully the provisions of those paragraphs. They will observe, I think, that they cover practically the whole gamut of the powers that are to come under this new department of veterans' affairs, save and except the awarding of pensions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have been there for twenty years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, its antiquity does not make it any better. This, Mr. Chairman, is just a repetition of what Lord Hewart many years ago eloquently described as "the new despotism," and this practice has gone unchallenged until now members of parliament are accustomed to having ministers bring down legislation of this kind, and to being told that because it had been done previously times without number, therefore it was all right. That doctrine does not appeal to me, and I do not think it should appeal to the membership of this house. It is a rule of law, of course, in delegating powers, especially in the municipal sphere, the municipalities being creatures of the provincial legislatures, that authority may be granted by the provincial legislatures to cities and incorporated towns to make by-laws and regulations respecting certain subject matters. If hon. gentlemen have had any experience in municipal law, and I presume there are members of the legal profession here who have had such experience, they will know that the courts always construe those delegated powers very strictly; that unless the thing was within the ambit of the delegated authority, it does not become legal. Many by-laws have been passed by municipal legislators under such delegated authority which have not stood the test of the courts. But I venture to suggest that there is no such restraining power on whoever may be minister under this bill. Who will come into court; what opportunity will there be in any given case to test the validity of the powers exercised by a minister under this delegated authority? There will be no one. In the first place, these regulations are usually applied to veterans-which, by the way, is not defined in the act, and before this bill passes I should like to know who is to be a veteran-and these men are in no position to

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
contest regulations made by the minister which might have detrimental effects upon their fortunes. Certainly the taxpayers of this country, who have to foot the bill, have no locus standi in the courts to contest the validity of any regulations the minister may make. The result would seem to be, and I think this is apparent, that within the ambit of section 7 of this bill the minister becomes a law unto himself, and he is passing legislation. In principle I condemn that practice. It ought never to be delegated by parliament, except in its most plain and administrative features.
Here the minister is granted authority. Authority is delegated to him to exercise not only administrative but also executive functions, and, I venture to say, judicial functions. Has the minister ever looked into that situation? Did his advisers, when they drew up this bill, have in mind the fact that once it passes parliament they are given full control over everything and can do about it as they please in the days to come, in respect of the great responsibilities of the situation which will be created after this bill becomes law? The well-being of numberless men is left to the tender care-I am willing to use that expression in its proper sense; I am not satirical when I use it-of the minister. That means it is left to his advisers.
I do not like this type of legislation at all. I do not think the country will like it when it is fully seized of its implications. And I do not think any administration ought to ask parliament for authority of this kind. It is on a par with government by order in council, which never sees the light of day until after its enactment into law under the War Measures Act.
The whole thing is bad in principle; it is wrong in practice, and it ought not to be followed out by parliament without at least a protest. That is what I am making to-day. I make that protest against the underlying principles and theories of this legislation. I hope I shall receive some support. I do not for one moment, of course, hope to change the minister's opinion. And yet I know that in his heart he will admit that the theories I am trying to advance are sound in law, in fact, and in principle.
Therefore I do protest as strongly as I know how against parliament's delegating to ministers, not merely the powers of administration-because I think they have to have those powers-but powers executive and judicial which should never be vested in an individual minister.
This is a repetition of what has gone on for more than twenty years, by all governments, and it is time to call a halt. I could illustrate by an analogous case I have in mind, going back many years ago to the time when the government of this country was operating Canadian government railways, among which was the old Intercolonial Railway. This was before the days of the board of railway commissioners, now known as the board of transport commissioners. A man who was opening up a new class of shipments- to be exact, the first movement of pulpwood from New Brunswick to the state of Maine- applied to the traffic manager of the Intercolonial railway to fix rates. The rate was high-even in those days it was so considered, despite the low level of wages, salaries and operating expenses. It was so high that having regard to the price of the commodity at its destination this would-be shipper could not see his way clear to move the goods. What did he do? He went to the minister of railways of that day, who happened to be a good personal as well as a good political friend. The minister of railways, under the authority vested in him under the old act, fixed a rate which was below the cost of operation to the railway. I give that only by way of illustration.
The minister is going very far in asking for the authority which would be vested in him under section 7. If the request were limited purely to administrative matters, I would not have so much objection to it. But I do object to giving the minister executive authority to legislate, and authority to exercise judicial functions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am really and truly amazed at the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); Anyone in the committee would think that the Minister of Pensions and National Health was introducing something drastic, something new, something revolutionary, in this legislation. Except for the removal of restrictions in regard to persons who served in the great war which commenced in August, 1914, this provision is identical with the language which has been used in legislation in the last twenty-five years of parliament. It is identical with language which my hon. friend has supported time and again in the House of Commons and in committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think I ever did.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); This legislation is not partisan legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know it is not.
Department oj Veterans' Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then why introduce this new principle in connection with a non-partisan bill? The fact is that these regulations are going to be necessary. They are almost entirely for the purposes of administration. The minister must have this power; otherwise a bill would have to be passed at each session. He must have power of regulation if he is to administer. Any minister must have that power-I do not care what government is in office. This is not a new principle. There is no departure from theory which has been accepted in parliament for the last twenty-five years. And this tirade by my hon. friend takes me absolutely by surprise. It is a most amazing departure, even by my hon. friend. The wording here is identical with the wording used in the past, by the union government of 1019, and other governments since.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not mftke it sound.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why did not my hon. friend change it in those years?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not here then.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He has been in the house and outside the house for many years. Why become an eleventh hour convert in regard to principles which he refused to recognize in former years, when he had the power to make changes?
No matter who the minister of pensions and national health is going to be, he must have power to make regulations. I have known the ministers for the last twenty-five years, and I know that not one of them has abused that power. This provision is for the purpose of helping out those who are going to help, through this legislation, the veterans of the first great war and those of this war. Ministers must have that power, and this will give ii to them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I resent the suggestion that I entered upon a tirade. I was simply endeavouring to explain some honoured principles. The fact that this power to make regulations has been in pension legislation, and other acts the minister mentioned -or did not mention-does not create any great impression upon my mind. I was striving to establish a sound principle. And the fact that there is antiquity behind this procedure does not impress me at all.
When the minister accuses me of having supported this kind of legislation I can say to him that in the last four or five years, and on

every occasion I can remember, I have protested against this procedure in connection with the delegation of authority.
The minister referred to what was done by the union government. Certainly I am not going to be called upon to answer for their sins. Neither the minister nor I was here at that time. But the position would be exactly the same, no matter who it was, because I believe it is bad in law and bad in principle to delegate the ministers anything but the merest powers of administration. That is the objection I take. It is in respect of the judicial position, or the judicial examination of a given case, and the exercise of judicial authority and executive authority, that I contend the bill goes too far. The fact that a thing has been done before and some people have not protested against it is no answer at all. It is just a tu quoque argument; it does not get us anywhere.
I should like to see the minister defend these regulations one by one. I never suggested that he would exercise the powers in a partisan way. Nothing was farther from my mind. So far as I know, the present pensions ministry, including the commission charged with responsibility has not been partisan. I do not for one moment think there has ever been any suggestion-certainly I have never made it-that there was anything partisan about the administration in this respect. Suggestions have been made as to appointments made to the commission. I have not altogether agreed with them. I remember a certain gentleman who was appointed as chairman of the pensions commission and charges of partisanship were made with which I did not agree. I thought a man of high character had been appointed. I do not know anything about the members of the present commission, and I am not suggesting for a minute that there is partisan administration of the commission or of the department itself. I will go that much farther.
I think the minister has really misapprehended the position I am taking. I want to reaffirm the principle of the supremacy of parliament; that is all I am seeking to do. It is about time that somebody in this house, some member of some group on this side or, if I may make so bold as to say, some member on the other side, protested against the continued practice of delegating parliamentary authority to ministers.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, hot being a lawyer I do not see the same difficulties that the hon. member for York-Sunbury has referred to, but practical common sense tells me that everything should have a head and

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
that somebody should have responsibility. I hope the minister will be the minister who will have the opportunity of putting this legislation into practice. Ever since the resolution was introduced I have been grateful for this legislation.
However, there is one thing that makes me a little anxious. I hope that the district pensions advocate will still hold his position. I should like to ask the minister if it will be possible for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to instruct the pensions advocates to advocate in the interests of the pensioners and not in the interests of the government or the taxpayers of Canada. Some years ago I sat in when a committee was in session in Fort William, and I must say that I became very anxious for the pensioner. These pensions advocates should be instructed to advocate in the interests of fair play. That is all the returned man wants. If he gets that he will be a happy man. This is the information I was going to ask for the other day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I assure my hon. friend that the definite duty of 'every pensions advocate in Canada is to argue and fight for the returned soldier and not for the government or the treasury in any way whatsoever. If there is any doubt about the situation we can certainly issue further instructions to every pensions advocate in Canada to that effect.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have not had time to go into this bill, because I have been away for two or three weeks. The minister has been entirely sympathetic to the veteran and to the returned man generally. During my visit to Saskatchewan I ran across some cases on which I expect to have notes in a day or two. These would seem to indicate that perhaps some of the officials are not giving the sympathetic treatment to the veteran of the present war that I think the minister would wish. I find that there has been great delay in the cases of men who have been discharged because of wounds, in obtaining the necessary treatment and pay.
I ran across a lad from my own constituency called Tony Woodbine. He had been wounded in Italy in the hip and had lost an eye. He came to me after my meeting in Saskatoon and told me that he had not been able to get what was required to maintain himself and his wife in decency. The legion in Saskatoon had taken up his case, but so far they had not been able to do anything. I notice that this has been contradicted in the papers, but people
who knew this lad at Lucky Lake in my constituency told me that he was a reliable boy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will look that up right away.


Major James William Coldwell: There was another case, that of a man whom I met in Tisdale. He told me he had been let out because of rheumatic fever and a heart condition, following which he had received a pension of $30 a month for some few months. He was then reexamined, told he was fit for work, and given a card for a position in the penitentiary at Prince Albert. When he presented the card he had to undergo another medical examination, whereupon it was found that his heart was in such a bad condition that he could not be employed. The result is that this lad is without a pension and without a job. There would seem to be some lack of consideration in a case like that.
One of the aldermen met my train at Winnipeg and told me that at the present time there are some eight men on relief in Winnipeg who are veterans of this war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sure that that is not correct, because I checked up every single case in Winnipeg.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to know the minister has checked that up, but that is the information I was given. -1 just take this opportunity to bring these cases to the attention of the minister. I am convinced that in this particular instance it is not the minister who is at fault, because I think everyone in this house realizes that the moment a case is brought to his attention he has it investigated, and if there has been any injustice in the case of a veteran, it is looked after immediately. I think perhaps the minister might go into this matter with some of his officials and see what is wrong. These returned men should not be subjected to any delay, and I think it is delay rather than anything else.
A word about the placement of these men, which would come under the Minister of Labour. A young man in Regina was let out after a double hernia operation. He went in with category A-l and came out with category E. Yet he was given a heavy job in a warehouse for which he was entirely unsuitecfc I hope to have an opportunity of saying something more about the placement of these men by the selective service branch. What we need are placement officers who really understand human nature.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The placement of disabled men is entirely our responsibility, and we are having great success
Department of Veterans' Affairs

in that regard. Other cases would come under the Department of Labour, and that department is cooperating most effectively. They are establishing veterans' sections in various offices, and this should meet the point raised by my hon. friend.


Thomas Miller Bell: The placement officers should be thoroughly trained, something that we have not had in the past. There are so many categories of jobs that this work is entirely different from what it was a few years ago.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Section 7, subsection 1, paragraph (e), reads in part as follows:
. . . and in the case of insane persons who are being or have been so cared for under this act, the assumption or authorization of guardianship in whole or in part in respect of such properties or moneys, and for the disposal of such properties or moneys to such persons or their dependents, or as may be deemed expedient or the disposal thereof to the estates of such persons if deceased.
I was wondering whether this would not interfere with the courts of the different provinces. People who are insane and are placed in these institutions usually have parents, brothers or other relatives who could very well act as guardians, just as they would if the man had not been in the army. There is no question that the department should look after these men, but just why it should take on the guardianship of any property I cannot just understand. Perhaps the minister could give us an explanation. It certainly looks like interference with the jurisdiction of the courts and provincial rights.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where there is a recognized relative we immediately admit that he is the proper guardian and cooperate in every possible way. We might have to assume guardianship of a citizen from another country, or a veteran without near relatives, who would be placed in such an institution. But of course if there were a relative in Canada we would cooperate in every possible way with that relative.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The statement is so general, it looks as though there might be some interference.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it has been there since 1919.	*


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to see that the minister recognizes that this is a question of property and civil rights and that there is another jurisdiction. He says that in a case where there are relatives-who are fit, I assume, to handle an insane person's

estate or affairs-the department would in every case authorize them to apply to their proper jurisdiction for appointment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is not implied in the section as it is now, and consideration might be given to including that principle in the latter part of the relevant subsection. I can well understand why the minister states that in the cases of nationals from other countries or those who have no dependents or relatives in this jurisdiction someone ought to have the authority to take charge, but may I point out that in nearly every jurisdiction in the common law provinces of Canada that I know anything about, there is an official, sometimes called the official guardian, who performs this very function. I do not myself see any great objection to having someone authorized to do this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We use the services of the official guardian in every possible case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is proper. The practice then is not as one would assume from reading the bill. I suggest that in the case of a man with dependents and relatives within a given jurisdiction, the provincial courts upon proper application would exercise that jurisdiction and displace any appointment that might be made by this department. It may not be a practical question. I would not think that many cases have arisen since 1919 where the department had to have one of its officers constituted official guardian for the estate of an insane person. .Therefore the matter may be purely academic; for that reason I would not stress it very much. I merely want to supplement what the hon. member for Royal has said. This is to be an invasion of a distinct provincial jurisdiction, which ought not to be invaded without proper cause and in a proper case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So far as I know there have been no cases of conflict at any time with regard to this section. The main purpose of it is in cases where there are no guardians to administer funds on behalf of the man himself.


Mr. HAZEN:: If there has been for years a section in the previous act similar to this section I assume there has been a regulation made under it. Would the minister give the wording of that regulation so that we may see just what it does say?

Department oj Veterans' Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a three-page order in council which I would like to table for my hon. friend. It is lengthy; I do not think he wants it to be read now.


Douglas King Hazen: I would not insist on it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of the committee I table the order in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice
that in the Pensions and National Health Act, chapter 39 of the statutes of 1928, there is a whole clause-paragraph (d) of subsection 6 of section 1-regarding the detention of properties and as to moneys and receipts therefor and guardianship of the insane. Is there any change between that and the present bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no change from the old act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not think so.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: In connection with section 7, and the general omnibus clause which is given in paragraph (1) for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the bill with respect to any matter placed under the control and management of the minister, could a provision be included under which the war veterans' allowance would be made payable to imperial soldiers? I raised this point before, and I was not able to get an answer at the time. There are quite a number of eximperials in this country who find themselves in a destitute position and for whom no provision is made for payment of any allowance similar in nature to the war veterans' allowance. I should like to find out from the minister whether consideration has been given to the inclusion of these men and their dependents. Only to-day I received a letter from the widow of an imperial not in receipt of a pension at the time of his death. She is in destitute circumstances, and I know of no provision to-day whereby her condition may be alleviated. Is consideration being given to some award in the nature of the war veterans' allowances to such persons, or to their dependents?
There is another matter in connection with which I consider there should be an addition to the powers contained in section 7 to make regulations; I refer to a form of soldiers' insurance similar to that now in effect in the United States. So far as our pension department is concerned-and I am not inclined to hand out commendation unless I believe it is due-any matters I have brought to the minister's attention have received at all times
sympathetic consideration. If there is one thing more than another which we must endeavour to achieve in connection with veterans' matters, it is to remove them entirely from partisan consideration, and it is in that spirit that I discuss matters which I bring before the committee to-day.
In the United States there is in effect an insurance system under which any man who joins the army of the United States is entitled under the national service life insurance act of 1940 to apply for life insurance up to $10,000, for which the soldier pays at the rate of $7.70 per $1,000 per month for the period of hostilities. Should that soldier be killed in action or die while in the service of his country, payment is made for the period of two hundred and forty successive months at the rate of $5.51 per thousand dollars of insurance to the dependent or whoever is named. It would not be costly to bring in this system of insurance for the soldiers, and it would be conducive to the improvement of the conditions of the relatives of those who are killed in action. Many of those who die in the service of their country leave relatives -mother and father, we will say-who were not dependents but who in the later years of the soldier's life, had he survived, would have had the benefits which all sons confer upon their parents. I know of two families who in this war have each lost sons. To-day these people are almost in destitution, although they were not dependent upon their sons. Had there been in effect a system of national insurance such as there is in the United States, those parents would have been assured for a period of twenty years of a reasonable monthly payment,
I again bring this matter to the attention of the minister and the committee. It is not yet too late to bring into effect this system of national life insurance. I have endeavoured to ascertain in the past from various ministers what is being done, and each has taken the stand that the matter is being considered but that it does not come directly under his department. To-day, however, with the unifying of functions under a veterans' department, the matter will rest squarely on the minister. I would appreciate it if he would place before the committee the attitude of the government towards the establishment of a system of insurance similar to that in effect in the United States. I have here a pamphlet issued by the war department of the United States entitled "Personal Affairs of Military Personnel and Aid to Their Dependents" in which is set out in detail the rights of men and women in the armed forces of the United States and among'other things it gives full
Department of Veterans' Affairs

particulars of the insurance scheme. A similar kind of booklet might very well be considered by the minister and published here in Canada for the benefit of the troops.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that the GJ. bill?


John George Diefenbaker: It was published on April 1, 1944. It is an unusually useful book. It deals with suggestions for preparation, transportation of dependents and military personnel, medical assistance, emergency relief, shipment of household goods-in the United States where personnel are moved from one place to another the dependents are entitled to free transportation as well as freight on their household goods to one change of place during the period of the war-pay and allowances, and so on.
There is another matter to which consideration should be given. There is a hiatus between the death of the soldier and the payment of any allowances made. In the United States, regardless of whether a man is entitled to a pension or not, immediately he appears in the casualty list as killed in action a death gratuity of six months is made payable, the purpose being to ensure that there shall be no hold-up in monthly payments to his dependents. Up to the present various publications have been issued by the Canadian government, but it is surprising the number of men in the armed services who write to members of parliament asking what their rights are to-day and what they will be after the war. No one can complain that there is any political or partisan significance in a pamphlet or booklet such as this. It is written dispassionately and objectively, and contains information that ought to be available to the men in the forces.
To sum up, I would like the minister to advise of his attitude toward the question of making war veterans' allowances available to imperial soldiers. Secondly, I would ask what decision has been arrived at as to whether there should be available to our soldiers in Canada insurance for veterans at cost only for the period of the war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am grateful to my hon. friend for the constructive suggestions he has made. The first point was the question of veterans' allowance for imperial soldiers. This has been a contentious question in Canada for a number of years. It has been a subject of discussion at all Legion conventions, all conventions of ex-service men, and in the last four or five parliamentary committees dealing with pension problems, veterans' allowance, and similar questions. The great difficulty of course is that it is limited at the present time to

Canadians who saw service in a theatre of actual war, except in a limited number of cases where pensions are paid.
Speaking personally and not as a member of the government, I think the first step to be taken is to broaden the scope of veterans' allowances to Canadians who serve elsewhere than in a theatre of actual war.


Gordon Graydon: Is that the policy of the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am speaking as member for Vancouver Centre. I think that before you extend the veterans' allowances to imperials who have served in the front line in a field of actual war, you must extend it to Canadians who have served anywhere. I think it will be necessary to do that.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister think he will be able to induce the government to do that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will help me, I am sure.
Mr. GRA\ DON: I have tried before to help the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The second point was the question of soldiers' insurance. This is of two kinds, insurance for those in the service and insurance for those who have returned from service. In regard to the latter, we had a returned soldiers' insurance act after the last war, and we have now a committee-that is part of the demobilization plan-who are giving careful consideration to measures to be recommended for returned soldiers' insurance.
In regard to the legislation in the United States mentioned by my hon. friend, who made a very fine speech a year ago, which I recall very well, there are two different methods of approach. One is the actual initiation of national policies, which has not been very widely accepted in the United States. As a matter of fact, we had figures on it about two months ago, and I was surprised that the principle had not been more widely accepted than it was.


John George Diefenbaker: Were there not
770,000 policies taken out?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That may have been my hon. friend's information. The alternative method would be the protection of premiums on policies already in existence. That is one of the greatest dangers I see for those who are serving, and that should receive definite consideration. As a matter of fact we have given it a good deal of consideration, but what the ultimate policy will be I cannot say at the moment. We have

Department of Veterans' Affairs
been considering both these phases of insurance. The third point was in regard to the hiatus between the death of the soldier and the payment of benefits, and that should receive every possible consideration from any government.
I can only assure my hon. friend that the matters he has mentioned will not be forgotten. Indeed they are now actively receiving the attention of various departments, and I trust that before the session is over some announcement will be made respecting some *of them at least.


Clarence Gillis: When I spoke on this question before I emphasized the importance of the welfare officers located in the different communities across Canada. I wish to direct attention for a few minutes to another phase of that particular problem. I understand now that the It.C.A.F. are giving courses with a view to men acting as personnel counsellors;
I believe it is their intention to train certain personnel back from overseas on the station with the end in view of sending them overseas to meet returning personnel and to give them *certain instructions before they come back to *Canada. I think that that arrangement is all to the good; it is exactly what should be done. However, there is one exception I have to take to it. It would appear to me that the men selected by the R.C.A.F. for training as personnel counsellors are exclusively officers. They are confined to the office branch. I have had two specific complaints.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that so? I did not know that.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. I can give the minister two cases. The first was that of a warrant officer No. 1. He had been overseas since 1940. He returned and was actually taking the course. He had all the educational qualifications necessary. He was very popular with the men. He was notified that he must discontinue the course because he is not of officer rank.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must say I have never heard that before.


Clarence Gillis: They are not appointing any new officers because they have sufficient. In my opinion that is bad legislation. It is class legislation, and should be corrected immediately. Whether it comes under the Minister of National Defence for Air or not, this bill seeks to set up a department of veterans' affairs that is to be all-inclusive. It is going to take the responsibility of directing the whole show7 regardless of the branch of the service the men are in. If a warrant officer, a pilot who has been overseas
for some years, or one who served in the capacity of an air gunner, comes back and has all the necessary qualifications, he should be allowed to take the course regardless of the rank he held.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There will not be the slightest doubt about that.


Clarence Gillis: It is not being done now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: After discharge?


Clarence Gillis: It is not done now, and it is creating terrific resentment. Within the last few days I have had men at the station at Rockcliffe who recently returned from England come to me in a very bad state of mind because they were being refused the right to take a course of that kind. They were already on the course and were being taken off.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is before discharge?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, before discharge. I
suggest that the minister should consult with the ministers of national defence for navy, army and air and have it corrected.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I should like to discuss a question which comes under paragraph (g), section 7-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That paragraph is being deleted.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is it? Well, the general remarks I was about to make are applicable to the whole bill. I take exception to the use of the word "pension" as applied to members of the armed forces who have suffered disability on service. I do not think the word "pension" is the accurate one to use in that case. I know that there is great difficulty in finding another word; but generally speaking, a pension is something that is paid to an individual after long service. After *men in the permanent service have served thirty-five years or have devoted their entire life to the services of their country, they receive a pension, whereas a citizen soldier who enlists and receives a wound or disability also receives what is called a pension. I have heard some people criticize the use of the word "pension" there. It is not really a pension in the sense of a pension for long service; it is a compensatory grant for a definite disability caused on service. I wish , the minister would give some consideration to differentiating between a
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

definite pension for long service and the grant for disability caused by actual wounds or injuries in combat service.
My next point has come up before in this committee. It has to do with the differentiation between the rates of the United Kingdom pension and the Canadian pension. I have taken up with the minister several cases of imperials who were rated on a definite percentage of disability. I have had correspondence with him in respect of one case where the individual was rated a hundred per cent disability. He was badly gassed and suffered from tuberculosis. He was able to do only light work and was just getting by. He fought with the imperials in the last war. Although he had some claim to Canadian domicile before that war, it has not been allowed either by the United Kingdom authorities or by the Canadian authorities. Because he served in the United Kingdom forces his pension is on the United Kingdom basis. There is no complaint about his being a hundred per cent disability. AH the Canadian pension boards who have seen him have agreed that he is a hundred per cent disability; but because he happened to serve in the United Kingdom forces the actual cash pension that he receives per month is on the United Kingdom rate, which is very much lower than Canadian rates; consequently he finds great difficulty in getting by. Although he has not had to appeal to charity, he is almost in that position. There must be hundreds of cases of the kind. The first thing that the minister who is in charge of this department should do is to make some reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom authorities so that when a veteran emigrates from the United Kingdom we may be prepared to take on the differential between the United Kingdom pension and the Canadian pension.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was this man domiciled in Canada before?


Agar Rodney Adamson: This man was domiciled in Canada. I have corresponded with the minister about it. I shall not mention his name to the committee, but he had some domicile in Canada. Actually he had served in the Canadian hydrographic survey. There was some question about his domicile, and the authorities ruled against him. However, he was definitely living in Canada prior to the last war. I bring up this case as an example. He had a greater claim than many others have. We should pay the same rate to these men as we pay our own.
I should like to know how much insurance held by members of the Canadian armed forces has lapsed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In this war?


Agar Rodney Adamson: In this war. Is there
any way of getting that information? Several men who have quite large insurance policies, definite obligations towards their families, have come to me after enlisting, and nearly all have expressed worry about whether or not they would be able to continue the premiums on their life insurance. What are the figures in that respect? I take a strong stand against the lapsing of any man's insurance policy because he joined the armed forces. One of the things this measure should guard against is the lapsing of a man's life insurance because he has joined the army. That is only the minimum of fairness we must hold out to our service men. I should like to know if the minister has any figures in that regard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reference to the last point raised by my hon. friend, I think that is the key point in regard to insurance, the protection of the premiums of those serving overseas. We took up that question some two months ago, in regard to these lapsed policies, but we were not able to get the information referred to by the hon. gentleman. We had a conference with some of the insurance company heads in regard to this whole question.
Another point raised by my hon. friend was in regard to the use of the word "pension". I am quite aware that for years the amputations association has advocated that a different word be used, something like "disability compensation" or similar words. The difficulty would be that you might have a word which would apply to a disability pension but not to a dependent's pension, I know there is a substantial advocacy of the point raised by my hon. friend in that regard, but I am afraid it would be difficult to get a suitable word.
The third point raised was in connection with an imperial who had been living in Canada, but who must have left this country before the war with the intention of residing in the old country. If he had been domiciled in Canada and had intended to maintain his domicile here, he would be entitled to the higher rates of pension given by the Canadian government.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I shall resubmit the file to the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you. It is very interesting to note that pension payments by the British government to 1,192 Canadians who were serving in the imperial forces during this war totalled $365,360, while the amount added by the

Department of Veterans' Affairs
Canadian pension commission to bring those pensions up to the Canadian scale was $775,974, or more than twice as much. That shows that the people of Canada have been very considerate in their pension scale as compared with the old land, and I say so with respect to my native country.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But could not some
reciprocal arrangement be worked out in connection with the imperials? I think we all admit that living is more expensive in Canada; at least it always has been considered more expensive to live on the continent of North America than in Europe. I believe we should take that into consideration and work out some arrangement for the imperial veterans.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have been giving a great deal of thought to that very point, not only in connection with the United Kingdom but also in connection with the United States. The associate deputy minister, Mr. Woods here, and I, went to Washington some months ago to tiy and get some reciprocal arrangement with the government of that country in regard to certain treatment for their men here and for our Canadians down there, but you will never get reciprocity in pension matters until you have social security legislation in the various parts of the empire more or less on the same pattern. That is the only way you can get reciprocity in connection with pension treatment and consideration.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is one reason why I think we should have an imperial council; that would be one of the questions to be discussed.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must remind the committee that we are on paragraph (e) of section 7 of the bill, and I would ask hon. members to keep within the ambit of that paragraph, if possible.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Following up a question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the minister may have given this information previously, but since unfortunately I was not here all the time I should like to know exactly where the department of veterans' affairs takes over and the Department of National Defence leaves off.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On discharge.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister say something about the coordination of the activities of the various defence departments and of this veterans' affairs department? I understand, and it was mentioned also by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that the air force in particular is outlining certain
extensive preparations which are being made to deal with the men before they are demobilized; the Minister of National Defence for Air made certain suggestions when his war estimates were before the house. I should think that this would certainly duplicate, if not conflict with, many of the plans envisaged by the department of veterans' affairs. Would the minister say exactly whether or not there is duplication in the air force, and perhaps in the army and navy as well?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not know whether my hon. friend was here last Friday when we were discussing the second reading of this bill. At that time the Minister of National Defence (Army) dealt at length with the very point the hon. gentleman has raised, in regard to the service committees now functioning in relation to what might be called some of the predischarge and rehabilitation preparations, and also as to what would be the functions of the interservice committee. There is also an interdepartmental committee, on which pensions and national health is represented together with the services, to coordinate the work of the various sendee departments and what I might call the post-discharge department, pensions and health or, as it will be before long, veterans' affairs. There is no duplication. As my hon. friend has suggested, some personnel counselling is done in the service, and it is the responsibility of the eervice departments during the transition or waiting period, before repatriation is effected, to render all possible service by educational courses and otherwise to prepare, the men for rehabilitation. Once a man reaches the demobilization centre or depot in Canada, however, the officers of this department will be there to advise in regard to vocational training, land settlement, educational training, and the various other activities of the department. They will be able to advise the men who have made up their minds already as to what they intend to do. So that there is no duplication; the one is preparation before discharge, during the time of transition, while the other is the post-discharge work of the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But it would seem that the failure to discharge a number of men from the air force has been due to the fact that they were not prepared to take up their projected civilian occupations, and therefore had to be given certain schooling and training while still on the active strength of the air force. I should think that would come more properly under the department of veterans' affairs, so that there is duplication in that
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

connection. I understand the men are being intentionally held in the air force, and not being demobilized, because it is desired to give them certain specific training. I am given to understand further that the air force feel that because of their youth, and because of the hazardous occupation they have been following for the last three, four or five years, their men are entitled to special treatment. I have no particular objection to that, as long as the men of the other services are treated fairly, as long as all efforts are coordinated, and as long as no unnecessary expense is entailed. It does seem to me, however, that at the present time men are being purposely held back from demobilization in order to give them training.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not heard that suggested before. On March 2 the Minister of National Defence for Air fully described the policy of his department.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Yes, but I think he mentioned four or five alternative proposals, and I do not believe any conclusion was reached at that time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think they have been retained for training purposes only.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The regulations should be as definite as possible. My general criticism of this bill is that it is sketchy in its various sections, instead of outlining matters with more particularity.


Mr. BRYCE:: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to members of the women's services who may require pensions. At the present time they are paid eighty per cent of what the soldiers are paid. Will that ratio be applied when it comes to granting a pension to one of these women; will she receive only eighty per cent of the pension that would be paid a man?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The pension now paid is on the basis of the army pay, which was two-thirds and is now four-fifths of a soldier's pay.


William Scottie Bryce: That is unfair. It costs a woman as much to live as it does a man.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am inclined to agree.


William Scottie Bryce: The argument has been that a woman did not do as much work as a man in the army, that she did not carry a bayonet or anything like that. However, it seems to me that if a woman is good enough to offer her life to take the place of a man, at least 
she should receive the same pension that is paid a man. Does the minister not agree with me?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In a personal way I do.


William Scottie Bryce: Then, if the minister agrees,, he should see to it that such a provision is put in the regulations.


Mr. McLARTY:: I move.
That paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of section 6 be deleted.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is the new number-section 6.


Grote Stirling: How does the minister purpose handling the cases which were to be handled under paragraph (g)? He referred to the way in which merchant seamen, fire fighters and various others would be cared for under that paragraph. How will he now do it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Merchant seamen are now protected by order in council, and will be protected by a statutory provision in the Pension Act as soon as that act is consolidated and all these orders in council are embodied in it.


Grote Stirling: And they will be taken care of by orders in council until such time as the Pension Act is amended?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: ; Yes; they are cared for in that way now.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: With respect to paragraph (i), is it the intention of the government to bring down any additional legislation in connection with sheltered employment, or is it going to do the whole thing by regulation? I understand that in Great Britain they have a disabled employment act which provides for workers who are unable to use all their limbs, or who have not ordinary facilities. This act also applies, I believe, to civilians. It is an important measure, and I think the committee in this instance should know exactly what the government intends.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This does not deal with any new project; it is just to continue the power of the department to carry on the old vetcraft work, which we had been doing for years-work ;'i connection with the manufacture of poppies, and the like. If there were further legislation for sheltered employment it would not necessarily come within the ambit of this paragraph.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is it the intention of the government to consider bringing down further legislation to provide sheltered employment? '

Department oj Veterans' Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not in a position to say, one way or another.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Under this paragraph does the department intend to take over the administration of the Last Post fund?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is covered now by order in council through this department, and the arrangement will continue. There are the most friendly relations, and splendid cooperation exists in connection with that fund.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The other day I spoke to the minister about war graves overseas. I understand the matter is looked after here in Canada by the imperial war graves commission. Under this measure will the work be done here by the department in Canada, or will it be handled by the imperial war graves commission?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will be handled by the imperial war graves commission, unless there is some change in policy. We have in Canada a director of military cemeteries. That is in Canada only. Then there is a committee which meets from time to time, on which the services are represented, and which looks after securing proper accommodation for the burial of those who will be interred in Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That will be connected up with this department, will it? At the present time it is under the Department of National Defence. I understand that in future this new department will look after the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; but we have an association with that commission.


Agar Rodney Adamson: We are rapidly approaching the time when wre shall have a large number of veteran warriors in Canada who will not be able to undertake regular work. In many instances they will not have dependents to look after them. In other instances it would be unfair to expect the dependents to look after those men, who have served their country so well. As is well known, there is in England the Royal Hospital at Chelsea. The Chelsea pensioners are well known, both in peace-time and war-time London. It occurs to me that in years to come we must give some consideration to finding a location for the old veterans who cannot be left-as they are in many cases-as a burden upon their children or their dependents. The minister might give consideration to the establishment of such an institution, whereby these old veterans could be looked after and could
maintain their self-respect, in the same way as have the veterans at the Royal Hospital in Chelsea.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I entirely agree with the hon. member in what he has said respecting homes for old soldiers. We have two of them now, one at Toronto and the other at Vancouver. I wish hon. members could see what is done in the one at Vancouver. I know that those men received good care-the very finest treatment in the world. It is my hope that these homes may be- extended across.Canada. We should have possibly two in every province. If hon. members could see the work done in these homes they would be tremendously impressed.
In connection with handicapped veterans, we are cooperating with the amputation society and the institute for the blind. They have specialists who act as placement officers on our behalf, and they see that these men are properly adjusted into civil life. Generally speaking these handicapped cases prefer being absorbed into industry rather than being placed together at any central point. The work that is done by amputation cases is nothing short of amazing. Their courage is wonderful, and what they are able to do industrially is almost startling. Possibly the keynote of accommodation of this kind is found in what I have said. There might, first, be accommodation for old soldiers-but not necessarily for the purpose of sheltered employment. Then, secondly, there would be absorption into industry of men with disabilities but who are anxious to do industrial work.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is a scheme similar to the one I described on Friday, as it applies in California.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):
Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What machinery have we? Do industries cooperate?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):
Yes, they do.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is there a pool or clearing house? For instance, what happens to a man with a single amputation, or to one with a double amputation?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):
We have a special officer in each hospital under our jurisdiction in Canada to handle cases of that kind, and have them properly placed.
Mr.	ADAMSON:	And do	industries
cooperate?
Department oj Veterans' Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, a hundred per cent.


Agar Rodney Adamson: With the officers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, the cooperation of industry has been magnificent in the last two or three years.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Paragraph (i) deals among other things with free transportation. It has been brought to my attention that this free transportation should be extended to the immediate dependents of the veterans. Would the minister give consideration to the matter? -because this paragraph mentions free transportation to those who have suffered certain disabilities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is only for the escorts of those who are totally blind or totally incapacitated. A man's wife might be acting in that capacity.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: She would be acting as an escort, but I am thinking of the case where it is necessary to move a disabled veteran from one section of the country to another. It would also be necessary to move his family; should not the transportation expenses be provided?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We do not do that now, but it is something that might be considered.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I understand that there are cases of hardship in that connection.


Grote Stirling: The minister has referred more than once to orders in council which will take care of certain situations until the amending of the Pension Act. Under what act are those orders in council passed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They would be passed under the War Measures Act. Some day when the war is over there will have to be a complete consolidation of the Pension Act, so that the rights of these people can be permanently protected. They should not have to continue under the uncertainty of the War Measures Act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Paragraph (j) is a very important one. I think it was in 1942 that a special committee on canteen funds was set up. That committee made a report, and I should like to ask the minister if any plans have been formulated to look after these canteen funds after the war, and whether those plans have the approval of the united services.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In drafting bill No. 83 the officers felt that the reference to the administration and disposal of canteen funds should be taken out of the
TMr. Adamson.]
section and placed separately, inasmuch as the matter was not one subject to an appropriation of parliament. The only reason for continuing it in the new bill is that the Canteen Funds Act, chapter 34 of the statutes of 1925 and the Canteen Funds (Canada) Act, chapter 14 of the statutes of 1928, contain the provision that a report shall be made at the end of each year to the minister of soldiers' civil reestablishment-now the Minister of Pensions and National Health-by the provincial boards of trustees and by any other bodies or organizations to whom allotment has been made, under the aets, or organizations to whom allotment has been made setting forth the work accomplished during the preceding twelve months, the amount expended and the balance in hand.
Inasmuch as this provision was placed in the Department of Pensions and National Health account, even after the canteen funds arising from the great war had been disposed of by the acts of 1925 and 1928, it was decided to retain the clause in this bill, but the action was not taken with any view to having any canteen funds arising from the present war necessarily administered by the minister of veterans' affairs. I recall the report of the committee but I do not think they recommended that any immediate action should be taken. The advice that I received from my officers was rather against taking immediate action before the termination of hostilities.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think that is correct.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Could the minister
give us a general idea of what the canteen funds from the last war were used for?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Allotments were made to the various provinces, I believe on the basis of enlistments. If I -recall correctly, committees were set up. I know in British Columbia the committee was made up of three returned soldiers who administered the funds and used them for cases of hardship among old soldiers. I believe the funds were all exhausted some years ago. My hon. friend will recall that in one province there was unfortunately maladministration of the canteen funds, but with that one exception the administration has been constructive and helpful, generally speaking, in assisting cases of hardship and distress.


John Horne Blackmore: Who set up the
committees?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The provincial governments.


John Horne Blackmore: Was that done with the advice of the soldiers' organizations?

Surplus Crown Assets


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot speak for the other provinces, but I know in my own province the soldiers' organizations were consulted by the provincial government.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The special committee suggested that the disposal of canteen funds remaining from the war, either from profits or from the salvage of stock and equipment, required intensive study before any policy could be laid down. I assume that the minister intends to wait until some definite decision has been made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Mr. SENN:: Am I right in assuming that the Veterans' Land Act and the Soldier Settlement Act come under the provisions of this bill?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Mark Cecil Senn: Paragraph (1) reads:
For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act with respect to any matter placed under the control and management of the minister.
Why could it not read, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of these other acts?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think section 9 will answer that question.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Referring to subsection 2, on Thursday last the hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggested that these regulations should be published.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was just going to suggest an amendment, as follows:
That subclause 2 of clause 7 (now clause 6) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Such regulations shall forthwith, after approval by the governor in council, be published in the Canada Gazette and laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then w-ithin fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof."


Norman Alexander McLarty: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On Friday I moved that section 6 of the existing bill be deleted but there is no record in Hansard. Perhaps I had better make a formal motion now.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It was passed.
Section 7 (renumbered 6) as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive (as renumbered) agreed to.
Bill reported.



SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 13,
consideration in committee of bill No. 137, respecting surplus crown assets-Mr. Howe.- Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Sections 11 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17-Accounting system.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will all this information in connection with the corporation's dealings be made public? It seems to me that further on the report of the minister is limited, and the whole thing does not seem just to "add up." I am anxious to know whether we are to have a full report, or whether the report is to be dictated solely by the minister, without, parliament having anything to say as to the information we should receive.


Lionel Chevrier: Section 18 provides for
a report, such as my hon. friend suggests, a report which must be made as soon as possible after the 31st day of March in each year, and in any event within three months, and tabled in parliament.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, but I would point out that in the clause to which the parliamentary assistant refers the wording is that the corporation shall "submit an annual report to the minister in such form as he may prescribe and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament." I do not think parliament is interested in having merely the information which the minister may prescribe; it should be a report as laid down by the parliament of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member will look at subsection 4 of the section we are discussing, he will see that "The accounts of the corporation shall be audited by the auditor general of Canada and the audited statements of such accounts shall be included in the corporation's annual report."


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, that is all very-well; audited reports will be given to parliament, but we shall not get them until two years after the transactions have taken place.

Surplus Crown Assets

That will be too late. What we want is a yearly report, really, before the auditor general gets it.


Lionel Chevrier: I can think of no greater protection than the two sections to which I have referred: section 18, which we have not reached yet, and section 17, subsection 4, which I think answers the hon. gentleman's objection.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then I will have a suggestion to make when we come to the next clause.


Mr. HANSELL:: With respect to this
section 18-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are still on section 17.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this has gone rather fast. The minister was not even here in time, since the bill has been proceeded with so quickly. There are some references which I should like to make; and while I dislike having to suggest it, I wish to refer, with the leave of the committee and your permission, to some of the sections which have been passed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Without any discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may now make some references to those sections, I should like to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: May I suggest to the
hon. member that he could make his remarks on section 23, which is a sort of all-inclusive clause. However, if he wants to make them now I do not think there is any objection.


John George Diefenbaker: It is immaterial.
The suggestion of the parliamentary assistant is acceptable to me.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Annual report.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I suggest that the wording of this section be altered to require the corporation to submit an annual report to the minister in such form as "the parliament of Canada" may prescribe and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament. I do not think the minister should have the power to prescribe the report; that power should belong to parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I ask the hon. member to state exactly the machinery which parliament would use in specifying the kind of report it wanted. There is no great objection to his proposal, but I hardly see how it would be practical.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The only thing I have in mind is this, that often in days gone by, when members of parliament asked questions, we were told, "It is not in the public interest that this information be disclosed." I do not think it should be within the sole discretion of the minister as to what shall and what shall not be reported.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say, as I stated earlier in the debate, that the operations of this company will be carried on as in a goldfish bowl, with full disclosure of every transaction. I can assure the hon. member that any question which any hon. member may care to ask about the operations of the company will be answered in full by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to find that the minister has reached the point where he is actually going to answer in parliament when questions are asked. Everything is to be wide open and answers are to be given. It was because of a tendency that he has adopted in so many cases in the past of refusing parliament information that I scanned this bill carefully. The minister says that the intention is now to have all these transactions under this legislation follow the principle of the goldfish bowl. That is most commendable. Furthermore, he says that he is going to answer for the transactions that take place and give full information. That certainly is an advance, a statement far beyond anything that has characterized the minister's attitude heretofore. It is only four or five weeks ago that I asked a question in this house as to the price of coal per ton sold to the Dundurn camp and the answer given was that it was not considered in the public interest to give unit prices. Very often members have received the answer that it is not in the public interest to furnish information, and it is natural therefore that we should go through the bill and scrutinize it carefully to assure that parliament shall insist on a full accounting.
As to the necessity for this legislation, we on this side of the house accept as a fact that it is necessary, in other words, that a War Assets Corporation should be set up. But we do decry the method whereby this corporation is being set up, for in effect it constitutes a body appointed by and responsible to the minister. I point out first that under section 10, subsection 2, the War Assets Corporation:
. . . shall consist of a board of not less than six directors appointed by the minister with the approval of the governor in council.

Surplus Crown Assets
To show the powers of the corporation, section 11 says:
The board, -noth the approval of the minister, shall designate one of the directors to be the president and one of the directors to be the vice-president of the corporation.
And section 12 says:
Subject to general or specific instructions given by the minister the corporation may, when so directed by the minister, (a) sell, exchange, lease, lend or otherwise dispose of or deal with surplus crown assets either gratuitously or for a consideration and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as the board may consider desirable.
In other words, this board, purporting to be an independent board carrying out the activities prescribed by the legislation, is in fact an automaton under the control of the minister. It will have no extensive authority unless it has the approval of the minister.
Let me pass on to section 17:
The corporation shall establish and maintain an accounting system satisfactory to the minister.
Then subsection 4:
The accounts of the corporation shall be audited by the auditor general of Canada and the audited statements of such accounts shall be included in the corporation's annual report.
I pause here to mention that the auditor general's audit, however, would not carry detailed references to transactions; it would deal with amounts without dealing with individual transactions. Then section 18 says:
The corporation shall . . . submit an annual report to the minister in such form as he may prescribe and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament.
However good the intentions of our present minister may be in regard to giving full answers to parliament, under this bill, parliament having abdicated its rights, could properly be refused any detailed information with regard to the transactions. In fact, looking over this bill and taking it in conjunction with the Aeronautics Act, I see a trend which I believe is dangerous, and the abdication, by legislation passed bjr parliament, of parliament's right to full information. People want to know that this legislation will be administered fairly, definitely and openly or, so that all who run may read.
We believe that the principles under which this measure should be administered-and they represent the attitude taken by the government of the United States-are that sales should be made as early as possible witho<ut disrupting normal trade; that there should be no sales or rentals of crown property to speculators and certainly none to promoters; that sales should
be made in the goldfish bowl manner, with records always available to public inspection. Furthermore, in the disposal of these assets the public should be so protected that the assets shall not fall into the possession of monopolies, and all businesses should have equal access to the surplus.
I believe, too, that in order to protect the rights of the people of Canada in some four billion dollars worth of assets there should be a representative of the Department of Justice on the board. In fact, I think this is one board upon which either the Minister of Justice or the deputy minister of justice should be a member so as to prevent monopoly in the disposal of these assets.
As I look over this bill, full as it is of loopholes, I think it should be submitted again to a committee for changes to be recommended. As a nation we have accepted bureaucracy in war time. This measure has to do with the activities of a government corporation to operate in peace tme, and as at present constituted it does not provide for control by parliament. It purports to do so in the letter of the law, but according to any strict interpretation, if at any time within the next three or four or five years any member of the house rises in his place and asks how a particular plant was disposed of, what was done with a certain surplus, the answer that tire minister can give, if this measure is passed, may be that all the information he is required to place before parliament is the annual report of the corporation and no more, and in any event that as he is not a member of the corporation, the informaton asked for is not available. Before we grant power to the minister to take such a stand I feel that this committee and the country should realize the purport of the legislation as it now stands.
As I look over this bill and examine it together with the aeronautics bill I believe I can safely say that these two bills are deliberately or unintentionally colliding head-on with parliamentary and responsible government. We have accepted bureaucracy for the period of the war. This bill shows that bureaucracy is to be continued in time of peace. I believe that the time has come when parliament must limit and check government in manifestations such as these that indicate a trend toward the exercise by government corporations of unlimited power and a failure to recognize their responsibility to parliament. The minister says to-day: "I will furnish the information at any time." The bill does not indicate that some subsequent minister not so well-intentioned as the Minister of Munitions and
Surplus Crown Assets

Supply would do the same thing. Put in its simplest form this bill permits of the establishment by parliament of a corporation designated by the minister responsible not to parliament but to the minister, with the minister in the position of being able to say, *when questioned in parliament, that what was done was done by a corporation and that he had no knowledge of what that corporation had done.
I suggest that this bill as it now stands requires that certain further provisions be added to it to curtail the powers of this corporation, to require it to account to parliament, and to permit and to demand in fact, that this corporation shall make a report to parliament fully setting out in detail each and every transaction. If the minister is prepared to accept a suggestion I would say that any objection lo this bill can be removed by making provision in section 18 whereby in the annual report that is laid before parliament full details shall be given of all transactions that have taken place during the year being reported. If the minister will accept that suggestion then I feel the other objections I have raised will not be as tenable as they otherwise are.
What the members of this committee want is to control the activities of corporations that are nominated by the minister to the end that I he people of Canada shall be assured that in I he administration of the disposal of billions of dollars' worth of assets, the property of this dominion, proper principles shall be followed and that preference shall not be given by the corporation in favour of anyone; that the largest possible returns shall be insisted upon and that the War Assets Corporation shall not be vested with absolute power by reason of parliament abdicating the right to demand a full and proper accounting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I stated a few moments ago that it would be the policy of the government to make full disclosure with regard to any and all transactions of the corporation being created by the bill that is now being considered by this committee. My hon. friend stated that he doubted whether a full disclosure was to be made because the department had refused to give the unit prices for the purchase of coal at Dundurn camp. May I point out to my hon. friend that the difference in the two transactions is that the government is a buyer of coal. It buys coal by open tender. The objection to giving the prices is that the prices could be of no value to a member of parliament, but they could be of great value to another coal dealer. The Department of Munitions and Supply is a buyer of a vast

number of things, and has adopted the policy of not disclosing tenders. That I think has saved the government money. Any coal dealer who desires to obtain the Dundurn contract must sharpen his pencil and put in the lowest price that he can possibly put together. If he does that he has a chance of getting the business. If the unit prices of the lowest tender were disclosed, they would be a guide to any dealer, and the chances are that that dealer would not sharpen his pencil as much as he would if he did not know the objective he was trying to reach. That is the difference between the government as a buyer and the government as a seller. As a seller the government should gladly make known its prices, because there the position is that the government desirps to get the highest possible price for its equipment and there is everything to be gained from disclosure, whereas nothing is to be gained by disclosure where the government is a buyer.
The hon. gentleman objected to the responsibilities imposed upon the minister. At that stage I thought he was making a speech in favour of bureaucracy, for he seemed to object to the minister setting the policy of the corporation, and to the provision that all transactions should be made either by direction of the minister or with his approval. The latter, of course, is parliamentary responsibility. A corporation cannot be responsible to parliament; there is no machinery for that, except through a minister of the crown. Under this bill the minister must keep himself advised of all major transactions and must direct the selling policy of the corporation. The minister sits in parliament and is subject to questioning by parliament. Under the terms of this bill he can never fall back on the answer that the corporation is not directly answerable to parliament through him. I believe that is made clear in the bill, and I think those who read the bill will agree that is does not set out to establish a bureaucracy. Then my hon. friend said that, the bill followed the United States practice, but I think he has the sequence wrong there.


John George Diefenbaker: I never made any such statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that this bill followed the United States practice.


John George Diefenbaker: I never did; it is quite a different thing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then I will simply say that the Canadian practice was established before the United States practice. Those responsible

Surplus Crown Assets
in the United States visited Canada and discussed with us the system that had been established here. We felt rather complimented when the practice established in the United States followed so closely the practice that had been established in Canada previously.
Then the hon. gentleman denounced the bill as another example of bureaucracy. As I said before, the bill is drafted with the thought that bureaucracy will not be in control. A great many technical problems are involved in handling the multiplicity of items that will be included in the requirements surplus to the needs of the Canadian government, and the purpose of the corporation is to combine a number of talents and experiences in the directorate of the corporation, which will be a guiding force to the corporation and the minister in working out the various problems involved. The personnel of the corporation covers a wide field of activity, including labour, farming, merchandising, real estate, mining and a number of special types of knowledge. We believe that gathering together experienced men as directors of the corporation and giving them responsibility under the minister will ensure that the best possible advice will be brought to bear on the problems that will confront the corporation. The hon. gentleman suggested that a representative of the Department of Justice should be added to the board. Certainly we would have no objection to that, but the Department of Justice drafted the bill, and I am sure that if they felt they should be represented on the board, provision would have been made accordingly. The corporation will retain legal counsel, possibly an officer of the Department of Justice or possibly private counsel, and will take such precautions as are common with business men to make sure that its transactions comply with all legal requirements. I see no reason why the bill should not be passed. It has been thoroughly considered and discussed in this committee, and I think the consensus is that it is well designed to carry out its purpose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the United States
liquidating agency finally been set up, with all powers and regulations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure whether the
legislation has been finally approved. The agency is functioning now; Mr. Will Clayton occupies the position in the United States that Mr. J. B. Carswell holds in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And they are in conference occasionally?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; but I cannot say whether or not the legislation in the United States is complete.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then the minister would not know whether the regulations of the United States liquidating agency call for the submission to congress of the accounts and all the various acts of liquidation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that. The term "all transactions" is rather difficult to follow. There would be a great many buyers of these materials, probably many thousands of buyers, and I cannot say just what break-down would be required to give a statement of all transactions. If a lot of goods, such as blankets, for example, were sold to a great many buyers, I do not know whether the report of each individual transaction would be important. If they were all sold at the same price I presume one report of the transaction would be sufficient. I hardly think we can be more specific than the statement in the bill, which will bring about the desired result.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not looked at any particular section of the bill in reference to this question, but does it contain provision for submitting to parliament all the transactions carried on by the corporation we propose to set up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It calls for a report to parliament in such form as the minister may prescribe, and it would be my thought that this would be a complete report; perhaps not of every individual transaction, but certainly a report showing the nature of every transaction.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the report of the
meeting of the United States chamber of commerce at Washington in 1943, the statement in reference to a United States liquidating agency contains this sentence:
This liquidation agency should be placed"in operation as soon as possible, and should be accountable to congress. Only in this way will there be sufficient precaution against repetition of mistakes made after world war one.
I am inclined to agree with that statement. That is one provision in our legislation which I do not like; the minister has overwhelming control, and apparently under the bill a report to him would be sufficient. That does not seem to be in line with the consensus of the United States chamber of commerce, which asked that the liquidating agency should be accountable to congress.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The report to the minister, to be tabled in parliament, is a report to parliament, so far as I know. I know of no other machinery for making a report to parliament.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The minister mentioned the sale of blankets to a
Surplus Crown Assets

number of firms. Would it not be the intention of this corporation to sell to as many people as possible, instead of to one or two individuals?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Ernest George Hansell: With respect to this section, which deals with the annual report to parliament, it appears to me that this is the usual section which one finds in legislation of this kind. So far as I am concerned, I do not think it amounts to very much. The procedure is that a report is placed upon the table of parliament by the minister responsible. The fact of the matter is, however, that the report is never opened for discussion, unless at some future time an opportunity may be afforded when some other item is under discussion.
We have a number of government corporations or institutions. Sometimes they are called arms of government. Sometimes they are described as government corporations, and sometimes as institutions. These various institutions make reports to parliament, and have in their acts sections such as the one now before us. The Canadian National Railways is a government organization, and reports to parliament. Its report is placed upon the table of the house. In respect of that institution a special committee of parliament scrutinizes very carefully its operations.
Then we have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, another government institution. While there is no standing committee on radio broadcasting, radio has grown to a place in Canadian life where it has been found advisable to have a special committee to deal with the annual report of that corporation.
We have another institution known as the Bank of Canada, which lays its reports upon the table, through the appropriate minister. But when is that report discussed by parliament? It is never discussed. It is all very well for the minister to say, "There is an opportunity to discuss it when the budget is under consideration." I say we cannot scrutinize a report in that way. I mention the report of the Bank of Canada, because I believe the same thing would happen under the section now before us. When was the last report of the Bank of Canada scrutinized by parliament? It has not been scrutinized.
Here is another government corporation about to be set up. Its report will be made through the appropriate minister. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre that the report should contain everything possible in respect of the company's operations. Even if it does that, still I say the provision is not wide enough. Parliament will not be able to

scrutinize the report. True, one may put a few questions on the order paper; but that is not discussing a report.
I say that the only sensible way to do this is to have a special committee of parliament charged with the responsibility of scrutinizing the annual report of this company. If we wish to include further terms of reference, and permit the committee to look after several such corporations, all well and good. But to my mind that is the only way it can be done.
The standing committee would make its report to parliament on the basis of its findings. Concurrence would be moved, and a discussion could take place. To my mind that is the only sensible procedure. I do not know that a provision of that kind could be put in this legislation, or that we could add anything to this section which would set up a committee. I suggest, however, that the government should bring down the appropriate legislation having for its purpose the setting up of a standing committee for the purpose of scrutinizing the activities of corporations' of this kind. That would be my suggestion for the solution of this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: There was one
question the minister did not meet when he replied to me, namely, whether he would consent to an amendment to section 18 whereby parliament would be assured of full information. At the present time, as the section now stands, parliament is not assured of that degree of information to which it is entitled. War Assets Corporation is to be the greatest corporation in Canada, administering property of the people of Canada to a value of four billions of dollars. The people expect us to assure them of something more than is provided for under section 10 (6), which states that the corporation shall be responsible to, and be subject to the direction and control of the minister. It must be made responsible to parliament.
What is the position under the section as it is now drafted? The corporation set up by parliament, and appointed and directed by the minister, shall submit an annual report to the minister in such form as he may prescribe. Let us suppose that the corporation might render a report condemnatory of certain proceedings, or a report which contained information which the minister might feel might not wisely be brought before parliament and the country. Would parliament receive that report? It would not, if the section remains as it now is; because the report which comes before parliament from the corporation set up by the minister, and responsible to him, will contain only those things which the minister himself prescribes.

Surplus Crown Assets
Human nature being what it is, one can well understand that the prescription would not consist in having placed before parliament and the country such information as the minister might feel might not be in the interests of either himself or the department presided over by him.
I asked the minister the simple question as to whether he would consent to an amendment which would assure parliament and the country of full information and that the minister did not answer. He said that the design and purpose of this bill was to assure that bureaucracy should not be in control. Bureaucracy is in control when its actions are not subject to the direct control and scrutiny of parliament. I therefore move:
That all the words after "report" in line 36 of section 18 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"to parliament which shall contain full particulars of each sale, disposal or other transaction completed by the said corporation and that said report shall forthwith be referred to the public accounts committee."
The section would then read:
The corporation shall, as soon as possible after the thirty-first day of March in each year, and in any event within three months thereof, submit an annual report to parliament which shall contain full particulars of each sale, disposal or other transaction completed by the said corporation and that said report shall forthwith be referred to the public accounts committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is some objection to the form of the amendment. All boards report to the minister and through the minister to parliament, as is provided in this bill. It is not customary for a board to by-pass the minister and report direct to parliament. Committees of both houses sometimes do that, but it is not customary for a board to handle business in that way. It is suggested that the report be referred to the public accounts committee, but the purpose traditionally of that committee is to investigate wrongdoing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would be practically placing an open charge.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister will recall that last year I asked that the public accounts and the auditor general's report should be submitted automatically each year to the public accounts committee. That suggestion was accepted by the Prime Minister and the report and the public accounts were . submitted to the committee. This year the Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the government, referred the auditor general's report and the public accounts of Canada to the committee and suggested that from now
on that would be done automatically. There was no suggestion of making charges of wrongdoing. The minister will find that the public accounts committee has met from time to time to go over the auditor general's report and the public accounts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is true that the public accounts committee examines the auditor general's report and the public accounts. When this report is presented to parliament, any member may move that it be referred to any standing or special committee. I am anxious to meet the wishes of hon. members in any reasonable suggestions they may make, and I have written down the amendment I would suggest. It reads:
That all the words after the word "thereof" in the third last line of the section shall be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"submit an annual report to the minister in such form as the auditor general may prescribe, containing in reasonable detail particulars of surplus crown assets, sold or otherwise disposed of during the accounting period, and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament."


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister the opinion of the Department of Justice on the form of the amendment?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a very innocuous amendment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is all for parliament and against the minister having responsibility. That is a new kind of British administration. He wants to change the entire British parliamentary practice in this particular bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I know as much about parliamentary practice as the minister. We ought to have the balance sheets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The report would give the balance sheets.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister intend that the section will still retain the words "and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes, I intended that.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I understand that the parliamentary assistant has a subamendment to move to the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre.
Surplus Crown Assets


Lionel Chevrier: I have given some
thought during the recess to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and my contention is that the amendment, in the last part thereof, is out of order. The amendment as I have it would strike out in line 36, section 18, certain words and substitute therefor the following:
. - . . submit an annual report to parliament which shall contain full particulars of each sale, disposal or other transaction completed by the said corporation and that said report shall forthwith be referred to the public accounts committee. .
It is the latter part of the amendment which, I submit, is not in order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What part?


Lionel Chevrier: That part which would refer it to the public accounts committee. My authority for that is citation 679 of Beauchesne, third edition, clause (a), which reads: Amendments are out of order if they are (a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope, governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that while the first part of this amendment is in order, the latter part offends against the words in citation 679. "beyond its scope.'' It is the practice in this house at the beginning of each session to set up standing committees and by special motion to set up the public accounts committee, to which are referred by this house certain matters from time to time; and to include in a motion amending a section of a bill that the latter be referred to the public accounts committee is, I submit, not in order.
I wish at the same time to refer to citation 528 of Beauchesne, third edition, the fourth and fifth paragraphs, which read as follows: The motion for the appointment of the special committee to prepare the lists of the standing committees is made as soon as the speech from the throne has been reported by the Speaker on fhe return of the house from the senate.
This committee reports the selection of the standing committees without delay and the report is generally adopted immediately after its presentation.
This is the relevant portion of the citation:
It is then moved that the said standing committees be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon with power to send for persons, papers and records.
If we were to include the latter part of the hon. gentleman's. amendment, I submit, with deference, that this house would be tying the hands of any future parliament or session of parliament with reference to this particular report. On the construction of citation 679,
[The Chairman.]
read concurrently with citation 528, I submit that the latter part of this amendment is out of order.


Gordon Graydon: I have listened with
some degree of intentness to the argument which has been advanced by the parliamentary assistant to the minister, but for reasons which I shall now attempt to describe, I have not been greatly impressed with it. First, he speaks of the tying of another parliament's hands. If this were to be accepted as a logical argument, of course it could be applied to any single item of the bill which is now under discussion. No parliament is bound by the decisions of a previous parliament, because legislation passed by one parliament may be, and frequently is, amended by another. The point raised by the parliamentary assistant seems to me an ingenious method of attempting to rule out an amendment which has as its aim to give parliament some supervision and some powers of inquiry and investigation with resepct to the matters under review.
The difficulty which most hon. members, I think, find in section 18 as it stands is that the report is almost entirely in the hands of the minister, and that of course is what the hon. member for Lake Centre is attempting to obviate. In order that members of the committee may refresh their memory of the wording of the section, I will read it:
The corporation shall, as soon as possible after the thirty-first day of March in each year, and in any event within three months thereof, submit an annual report to the minister in such form as he may prescribe-
I ask the committee to consider carefully the purport and ramifications of the words "in such form as he may prescribe".
-and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament.
That section as drawn is capable of interpretations which, I believe, would render null and void the effect which this parliament desires to give to the corporation and to the report, because if the minister is to prescribe the kind of report which is to be made to him, the question arises as to what is the use of making a report to the minister in that form.
As the hon. member for Lake Centre very properly pointed out, we are not dealing just with this minister. This ministry is a continuing thing, and this minister may not be the minister-as has been pointed out, probably will not be the minister-by whom the report will be presented to parliament. For that reason the section should be strengthened to give protection to parliament and the public, because as the section now stands there is

Surplus Crown Assets
nothing to prevent the minister from prescribing any kind of report he likes. It might contain only three or four paragraphs; it might give little or no particulars; and with these possibilities in mind we should not give the minister the powers which are here provided.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. member for a moment? He is, of course, aware that before the committee rose at six o'clock the minister suggested that he was prepared to amend that portion of the latter part of section 18 so that the auditor general might prescribe further details of sales made by the corporation.


Gordon Graydon: The parliamentary assistant has not yet made it clear to us whether he intends to move such an amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I intend to move this amendment after the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre has been disposed of. But my contention is that the latter part of the hon. member's amendment is not consistent with the bill and is out of order. However, so that there will be no misunderstanding, it is my intention to move this amendment, a copy of which I shall be glad to let my hon. friend see.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would give the terms of the amendment now before moving it so that we might be in a position to know just where we stand in the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the committee should dispose of the hon. gentleman's amendment first.


Gordon Graydon: I have no objection to the parlimentary assistant taking that position, but he cannot have it both ways. I am asking him a question with respect to the only clause that is now before the committee. I do not know what he proposes apart from the suggestion that was thrown out by the minister before six o'clock, which the parliamentary assistant and he both said would be considered in the meantime.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the parliamentary assistant will read the suggested amendment perhaps the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) may be disposed to accept it,


Gordon Graydon: I suggest that he read it.


Lionel Chevrier: The amendment I have would read:
That section 18 be amended by striking out the words:
"submit an annual report to the minister in such form as he may prescribe and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament",
appearing in the last three lines thereof and by substituting in place thereof:
"submit an annual report to the minister in such form as the auditor general may prescribe, containing in reasonable detail particulars of surplus crown assets, sold or otherwise disposed of during the accounting period, and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament.
That is in exactly the same words as the minister read to the committee before the six o'clock recess.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any objection to the inclusion of the further protection that the report shall be referred to a parliamentary committee. Listening to my hon. friend's argument a moment ago, I was not able to see his point with regard to reference to a parliamentary committee. I know of no reason why this cannot be done. The citations he gave were not strictly to the point. He took certain parts which he then applied to this question to show that the suggestion was out of order. I was unable to follow that, because I am quite certain that an appropriate standing committee of the house could consider the matter. This parliament has a right, I contend, to submit to another parliament any statute, as we have suggested here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I support the point taken by the parliamentary assistant. I suggest that from the point of view of appropriateness, next year you might have an entirely different parliament and a different public accounts committee, and here you are embodying in a statute a direction to have certain matters referred to a committee which is not set up. It is not a committee of this year but will be a committee next year, whatever the parliament, or whatever the public accounts committee at that time may be. The practice of this parliament has always been to have a specific motion to refer specific matters to the public accounts committee or to any other standing committee, and that is the proper procedure. Here by way of amendment in a specific statute it is proposed that something shall be referred to a committee. The house is supreme and it is the house that refers these matters to the public accounts committee. Here is a parliament which is possibly in its last session directing a new parliament in a manner of this kind, directing the public accounts committee of a new parliament in a matter that should be within the - supreme authority of that parliament, to have that matter referred to the public accounts committee if it so chooses. As a matter of procedure, it is obvious that it is entirely unnecessary to do as is suggested, because the house 'is seized of its own powers, and the house next year can take immediate action on the first report submitted by the corporation. By its

Surplus Crown Assets

own supreme judgment the house can then refer reasonable details to the public accounts committee. I am appealing to the common sense of the house and asking hon. members if that is not the proper procedure to adopt.


Gordon Graydon: So far as the reference of this matter to the public accounts committee is concerned, our objective ought to be well known to this committee. We do not want to have this report simply lie on the table of the house. Having been once reported to the house


An hon. MEMBER:: That will be the time (o deal with it.


Gordon Graydon: We know what is happening in connection with many reports, and so does the minister. As the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has well pointed out, these reports simply lie on the table and are never dealt with. For that reason, unless the government so decides-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not the government.


Gordon Graydon: Well, that is what it amounts to, because the government has a majority of the members behind it and nothing can be done in the House of Commons unless the government supporters agree. The result is that the report may lie on the table and be never investigated. We are trying, however, to incorporate some sort of directive in the bill to ensure that a committee shall have an opportunity of going into the matter. More than that, we do not want to have it dealt with by a committee such as the war expenditures committee, if you like, because if you leave it to that committee, the minister knows what the temptation will be; the whole thing will be sent to the war expenditures committee and I ask hon. members what will happen then. It is for that reason that we desire to see to it that the activities of this corporation -shall be submitted to a committee where the light of day will be let in and there will be a public inquiry. That is our objective and that is what we are pressing for. For that reason the amendment was worded as it was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend must have precedents for this action. Can he tell me of one piece of legislation in the whole history of the Canadian parliament that provides that a report shall be automatically submitted to a committee?


Gordon Graydon: The minister, with all his constitutional precedents, is a new-found convert to parliamentary procedure, and if he expects that I am going to dig up all the

statutes in a few minutes he is proposing something rather onerous. The parliamentary assistant has not taken that attitude. He has pointed out what is the normal course, in his opinion, namely, that the rules prevent this sort of amendment being moved. I must ask the minister not to attempt to put me on the witness stand just yet. If he subpoenas me on some occasion I shall be glad to give evidence.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, this is a bill. It is not like an ordinary resolution. I have listened fairly attentively to the arguments advanced pro and con on the second amendment. The parliamentary assistant (Mr. Chevrier) has referred to citation 679, subsection (a), on page 233 of the third edition of Beauchesne's:
(a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope. . . .
There is no doubt that the first part of the amendment is relevant to the bill. As to whether it is beyond its scope, the parliamentary assistant made an argument in which he cited paragraph 4 of citation 528 at page 194 of the same edition of Beauchesne. Of course, this being a bill, the committee certainly has a right to make its own amendments, which may eventually become law. In the circumstances I feel that the first amendment is in order. The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stormont.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Gordon Graydon: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There are two amendments.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: There is only one
before the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: There is only one before the committee. At the request of the hon. member for Peel I read an amendment which had been suggested by the minister before the committee rose.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre.
Amendment negatived: yeas 21; nays 57.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is another amendment before the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friends opposite were rather insistent on the wording, but I do not

Surplus Crown Assets
know why I should offer the substitute wording. However, we have no objection to doing so.
I move:
That section 18 be amended by striking out the words: "submit an annual report to the minister in such form as he may prescribe, and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament", appearing in the last three lines thereof, and by substituting in place thereof:
"Submit an annual report to the minister in such form as the auditor general may prescribe, containing in reasonable detail particulars of surplus crown assets, sold or otherwise disposed of during the accounting period, and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19- Property and assets of War Assets Corporation Limited transferred to corporation.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This section reads as
follows:
The custody, administration and control of all property and assets belonging to His Majesty. . . .
And so on. If it becomes necessary after the war to dispose of the crown plant at Fort McMurray, will the new- control board have complete power to dispose of that plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The governor in council has the right to transfer to the corporation any crown asset that is declared surplus to the requirements of the government. My. hon. friend referred to the Abasand company at Fort McMurray?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government does not own that plant.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Who owns it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is owned by the corporation that has always owned it. My hon. friend knows that company very well; perhaps he will tell me the name of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Now-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Abasand company.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I certainly am at sea as to who does own it. If the minister says that the government does not own it, who owns it? It was taken over wholly from the Abasand company. I am not finding any fault with that at present, but the government has spent a lot of money on it and we may be asked to vote a lot more this year. Who owns it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The plant was taken over
from the Abasand company w'ith the consent of that company in order to permit the government to test out a process. Such changes
have been made in the plant, as are incidental to the testing out of the process. The test found that the process then in use was not suitable. Improvements have been made in the process, and the volume of the plant has *been improved to such an extent as to permit large-sized samples being obtained. That work has been done at government expense. The government is entitled to the products of the operation for a period, and at the end of the period has the option of either buying the plant or returning it to its owners.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This new crown company will have nothing to do with the disposal of the Abasand plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Mr. POULIOT:: What legal firm has incorporated that crown company or will incorporate it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill incorporates the
crown company and this bill was drawn by the Department of Justice.


Jean-François Pouliot: No legal firm in Toronto
will incorporate it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
On section 21-Civil servants' status preserved under Civil Service Superannuation Act.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask a
question on subsection 3 of section 21. This subsection refers to salaries. I realize that at the present time the War Assets Corporation would have to pay substantial salaries in order to obtain men capable of doing the work that is expected of them. I am not opposed to good salaries; in fact, I am in favour of them. I know a good deal about salaries at the moment. I know they -are much higher now than they were before the war or may be after the war in private institutions. May the salaries that are now set for capable men who are to do a good job not be wholly out of line w'ith the range of salaries after the war, or will the salaries now set continue after the war, or will they be subject to revision as salaries fluctuate up or down when the war is over?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The corporation is only being formed now, and there are not many salaried employees. I think all 'present employees came from other branches of the department and the salaries they are obtaining at the moment are the salaries they obtained in the depart-
3%2
Surplus Crown Assets

*ment. I would remind my hon. friend that salaries as well as wages were frozen in the early stages of the war. They are not by any means excessive to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This corporation is now being set up and therefore the minister can set any salaries he likes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This is a brand new corporation and has not been in existence heretofore. As I said a while ago, I am not opposed to paying good salaries, but I would not want to see the country seven or eight years from to-day having to pay salaries that may be twice as high as the scale. That may be the situation unless the position following this war will be wholly different from what happened after the last war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think we can leave it to the corporation and the government to make sure that the salaries paid are not out of line with the services rendered.


Mr. BURTON:: If I understand this section correctly the minister is making provision for certain civil servants who may be taken from other departments to assist in the work of this corporation, and at the same time is leaving the way open for other appointments which will not go through the civil service commission. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a corporation the employees of which are not- subject to the civil service of Canada. But if an employee is already in the civil service his position is maintained; he is allowed to continue under the pension fund and to enjoy all the privileges of a permanent civil servant. This clause is isually inserted in acts of the kind we are ionsidering this evening.
Section agreed to
On section 22-Execution of deeds, contracts )r other documents.


Douglas King Hazen: What is the reason for inserting the words, " other than a grant of land"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a rule of government that land cannot be'acquired or disposed of in the name of His Majesty without an order in council.


Douglas King Hazen: Earlier in the section the word "deeds" is used, and usually we associate that word with the conveying of land. What was in mind in inserting the word "deed" in this section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 'A deed is any document under seal; I do not think it refers necessarily to
LMr. Howe.]
land. Land is always transferred by deed, but I believe that other assets as well can be transferred1 by deed.


John George Diefenbaker: Why are specific
powers given to the minister or any one authorized by the minister to execute documents conferring title, in addition to the power which necessarily would rest with the officers of the corporation? What is the reason for giving the minister or anyone designated by him that power in addition to the ordinary powers which the corporation itself would possess?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may be contingent upon the status of the property being dealt with by the corporation. It is not mandatory to have title pass to the corporation and then from the corporation to the buyer. The title might very well remain in the government while the asset is being disposed of by the corporation, and the asset might pass direct from the government to the buyer.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not explain the situation as far as the minister is concerned. The section reads:
Either .the minister or any person or persons thereunto generally of specifically authorized by the minister or the corporation under its corporate seal and the hands of its duly authorized officers may execute-
-the documents named. Why is power given the minister to act on behalf of the corporation, of which he is not a member?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I should give my hon. friend another illustration. Surplus material might very well be disposed of to China without passing through the hands of the corporation. It might be included in mutual aid to China or to Russia, in which case the minister should have authority to transfer the title.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not this the answer, that this is an additional control by the minister in the disposal of the goods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Rightly or wrongly the minister keeps control; even though the corporation itself might be willing to dispose of the property in a given case, if the minister said " no," it could not do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; he is responsible to parliament.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 23-Governor in council.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I believe this is the section which was indicated by the parliamentary assistant as the one upon which

Surplus Crown Assets
general discussion might take place. I wish to say a few words on this section, in view of several letters I have received, some of them by air mail, since the first statement was made in regard to the disposal of these assets. I thought the minister made the point quite clear when he said, as reported at page 3728 of Hansard:
The purpose will be to sell the goods as directly as j>ossible from the government to the ultimate consumer. As a matter of practical administration there may be commissions given to a group of dealers, but there would be no outright sale to dealers for re-sale at any price the dealer likes to charge to the ultimate consumer. The purpose is to work directly from the government to the ultimate consumer.
I take it that the minister meant that there would be no direct sales from this corporation to individuals; that the corporation would sell through dealers but at controlled prices. Would that be the purpose of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I think it is hardly correct to say that there would be no sales direct from the corporation to the consumer. In connection with certain types of articles such sales would take place, but in connection with consumer goods probably it would be necessary to use dealers to obtain proper distribution. For example, we were considering a large consignment of safety razors surplus to requirements. Obviously safety razors could hardly be sold by the corporation direct to consumers; the logical way would be to place them in the hands of distributors, but to have the selling price to the consumer and the margin to the dealer agreed upon. That type of selling will be an important feature in certain lines. On the other hand sales of scrap have already been made direct from the corporation to the user; that is, to the primary producer of steel.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think there is a little confusion in the public mind, probably owing to a press report which appeared in this connection.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the press report is not a correct interpretation.


Charles Edward Johnston: I believe that gave people a wrong understanding. The report says:
Sell War Assets to Consumers as Far as Possible.
Surplus war assets will be sold directly from the government to the ultimate consumer as far as possible and not through intermediate contractors or dealers. . . .
Shortly after that statement came out, I had three letters from municipalities in Alberta in regard to this matter. I dealt with it in part the other day, when I was speaking about the disposal of these surplus crown assets.
There is a good deal of concern among the municipalities in regard to the disposal of some of these crown assets. That is especially true in regard to those municipalities, which I think would include, most of them, who have contributed generously to the war needs of the government by turning over municipal machinery for use in the construction of airports, by turning over buildings to be used as hospitals, and by giving services in many ways completely gratis to the government. They figure that now they should be entitled to obtain some of these war assets which would be useful to them on a lend-lease basis, or under some other satisfactory arrangement.. In these letters they point out that, having made these contributions to the war effort, as local self-governments, they should be given first consideration when it comes time to dispose of buildings within their jurisdiction, perhaps hospitals or storage buildings or air training buildings, or perhaps road machinery which a municipality might find useful. They are greatly concerned about this, and I think now would be the time for the minister to give the municipalities some further assurance that the local governments will be given first claim on any machinery or property under the control of this corporation which is now being set up. The property could be transferred on a lend-lease basis or under some other arrangement whereby the municipalities would gel satisfactory possession.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I covered the subject completely in an earlier discussion. I can say again that it is the purpose of the government to give priority to other governments. For instance, the first claim on material of use to a province would be the provincial claim, and the second would be the municipal claim. Priorities would be given as recommended by the committee, which is a feature of this bill. It is not the purpose of the corporation to give away anything. Its purpose is to dispose of government property in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole, and the only possible procedure is to place a price on the property or equipment and to give priorities where priorities are due, but to sell at one price to all. My hon. friend will appreciate that if the policy were to give materials to provinces, then to cities and then to others, the list of those willing to receive the materials or equipment without cost would be limitless and the distribution would hardly be in the interests of Canada. Governments of provinces and municipal governments have always paid for their equipment; they are well able to pay for it, and I think all that they can
Surplus Crown Assets

reasonably expect is that they be given first choice when the equipment goes on the market.


Charles Edward Johnston: I thank the minister for his very fair statement. The minister mentioned that it was mot the purpose to give away any of this property, but according to section 12 of the bill the corporation may
(a) , sell, exchange, lease, lend-
That pretty well covers everything but it goes on to say:
-or otherwise dispose of.
There might be cases where certain equipment would be given away. The corporation, for instance, might see fit to give certain buildings or other properties to local governments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only circumstances I can think of which would warrant the giving away of anything would be a disaster of some land, say a flood in a certain area. Then the government might help out by sending away certain materials as a gift. Or the circumstances in a devastated area might warrant a gift from the government. But the usual practice will not be to give material or equipment away.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would not the words: "or otherwise dispose of" cover such a case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I dare say they would.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister a question under this section 22.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are on section 23.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have not passed section 22.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may have been declared carried, but that is all.


John George Diefenbaker: The question I have in mind is this. As I read the bill, powers are conferred on the Minister of Munitions and Supply giving him the right to do as he pleases, regardless of what the corporation wishes or decides to do. I read first section 10, subsection 6:
The corporation shall be responsible to. and he subject to the direction and control of, the minister.
Then section 22 says that the minister, without regard to the corporation, may execute on behalf of His Majesty any deed, contract or document transferring title to any surplus
{Mr. Howe.]
crown assets other than a grant of land, and whenever such document has been so executed it is valid and binding upon His Majesty.
As I read those two sections they confer on the minister the right to dispose of any of the property of the War Assets Corporation without regard to the members of that corporation. If, for instance, the corporation wishes or decides to dispose of certain property to party "A" and the minister does not agree and says that the property should go to party "B", he may not only overrule the corporation set up by this parliament but proceed without regard to the officers of the corporation to execute the necessary documents giving title to the party chosen by himself. I think, with all due respect to the minister, that is conferring a power upon him never before conferred upon any minister in this or any other country. It gives him the absolute right to decide, regardless of the corporation, on the disposal of billions of dollars worth of assets. If that is the meaning, and I can see no other meaning, 1 think some limitation should be placed upon such absqlute power.
When you read the bill generally you see that the corporation is given certain powers, but then w'hen you read section 22 you find that the minister has the absolute and final say, regardless of the wishes of the corporation set up by this parliament. He may himself determine, without control and untrammeled the disposal of these assets. I do not know1 why such powers must of necessity be conferred upon the minister. It is a tremendous power to place in the hands of any one man. Not only is it tremendous in its implications, but when one considers the assets to be disposed of one realizes that it makes the Minister of Munitions and Supply more powerful than any other minister in any representative government, has ever been. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that better reasons than have been given should be given why this power, unlimited in extent and uncontrolled by the corporation, should be conferred upon the minister. If we confer such absolute power on the minister of any representative government we cannot complain in this parliament afterwards if the powers are exercised in a way that we did not expect. I submit that such unlimited power ought not to be conferred upon a minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is fair, because first he denounces bureaucracy and then he denounces ministerial control. He made quite a speech against bureaucracy, against giving the corporation complete authority. Now he

Surplus Crown Assets
denounces ministerial control, which is undoubtedly preserved by these provisions, and I think, rightly so. The powers of the minister are only exercisable with the approval of the government of which he is a member. If my hon. friend will read the bill carefully he will see that no assets of more than $15,000 can be turned over for disposal without an order in council, and the order in council specifies the means by which disposal shall be effected. The government must have the authority. If my hon. friend and I cannot agree on that, wTe have totally different conceptions of what parliamentary responsibility means.


John George Diefenbaker: We have. That is true.	'


Richard Burpee Hanson: (York-Sunbury): I wonder if this is the position. On reading the bill one would assume at first blush that the government was setting up a corporation and then allocating to it the duty of disposing of surplus assets. When one gets down to cases and specific instances one finds that this corporation is merely a selling agency, that there is an overpowering veto in the hands of the minister who, notwithstanding any recommendation of the corporation, may say, "No, you must not do that; you must do thus and so."
I do not understand why the minister desires to delegate authority, on the one hand, and pull it back, on the other. It may be that he visualizes situations arising where it may be necessary to do that, but if he has a company officered by outstanding business men in whom he has confidence, why should he not allow those men to proceed, once an order in council has been passed, in the case of surplus assets exceeding $15,000, and without an order in council, where they are under that limit? If those men are of the proper type, why not give them free scope to go ahead? I am not going to raise a row about the matter, but on the theories that I have advanced it is simply giving with the one hand and withholding with the other.
I would suppose that it would be better to have the disposition of these goods in the hands of men who are not influenced by any ulterior consideration such as might be imposed upon the minister by his followers or what-not. We know how those things happen. I just wish the minister would1 go a little farther than he has and state whether or not I have correctly visualized the position, that on the one hand he is designating an agent and on the other he is keeping control over what they will do. They may just as well be
considered as factors. That is all they would be as long as the minister keeps his hand on the situation.
I should like to call the attention of the minister to section 23 which contains some of the most extraordinary provisions I have ever seen in a statute of this kind. It states:
The governor in council may:
(a)	make such orders as he may deem necessary or desirable with reference to the organization, administration or management of the committee or corporation and to confer on the committee or corporation additional powers and duties.
I gather that those are in addition to the powers conferred by the bill itself. What is contemplated by paragraph (a) of section 23? What additional powers and duties are to be conferred on the committee or corporation? The next paragraph reads:
(b)	make or issue such orders, rules and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable to assist the minister to exercise and perform the duties conferred or imposed upon him by or pursuant to this act.
If you read it apart from the limiting clause the corporation can do anything. It looks to me as being redundant. The draftsman of this bill must have had something in mind and I am going to ask the minister to tell us frankly why those two clauses are interpolated at the tail end of this bill.
Has the minister given any consideration to the suggestion I made on the second reading that the net proceeds from the disposition of these surplus assets shall be devoted only to the reduction of the national debt? For the most part these goods have been bought and paid for with borrowings which have been added to the public debt, and the proceeds should not go into consolidated revenue fund. I think that is a basic financial principle which the minister will at once recognize and accede to, but there is nothing in this bill to cover that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to the first point raised by my hon. friend may I say that in my opinion there is nothing worse than authority without responsibility, or the reverse, responsibility without authority. Since the minister must necessarily retain the responsibility for all the acts of the corporation, he should not divorce himself of all authority, particularly the authority of veto. The purpose of the corporation is to gather together men possessing information and experience which no minister could have, to guide the minister in the proper administration and sale of these assets. I think that purpose will be served with the bill as it is drawn to-day.
Surplus Crown Assets

My hon. friend is inquiring as to what additional authority will be required. Section 12 of the bill gives the corporation powers which are considered to be adequate, but this bill is providing for work of a type which has never been previously undertaken by a crown corporation, and it has been thought well to give the governor in council authority to confer additional powers on the corporation if experience proves that they are required.
The third matter raised is as to how the funds recovered from the sale of the assets will be used. Under this bill the minister is to pay these funds into the consolidated revenue fund. It will be a matter for the Minister of Finance of the day, or the government of the day, to determine how the funds so realized will be used. I do not think my hon. friend can expect the minister designated to administer this measure to decide how the funds shall be used.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not suggest that, but I suggest that parliament should now give him a lead. We should put in the bill the provision that that is to be done. I think it would be bad for public financing if the net proceeds from the sales of these surplus assets, either through the agency of the corporation or through the activities of the minister, were to be allowed to go into consolidated revenue fund and then be paid out for any purpose which parliament might subsequently vote. These moneys have been borrowed and interest is being paid thereon. The public debt has been increased. These are capital assets in the true sense of the word, having regard to their origin. The proceeds of the sale of these capital assets should be earmarked for debt reduction and I challenge anybody to contradict the soundness of that theory.


An hon. MEMBER:: Move an amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not intend to move an amendment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not intend to quarrel with my hon. friend, but I would point out that these assets were created, partly from the proceeds of borrowings and partly from the proceeds of taxation. I agree wholly with the principle he suggests, that the funds obtained from the sale of these assets should be considered as capital, and used for debt reduction. I sincerely hope that that will be the case, but I could not take the responsibility of directing the Minister of Finance in the use of these funds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that position considered in drafting the bill? Did the question arise? I think if it did arise,
[Mr Howe.]
the minister who now agrees thoroughly with the principle I am trying to contend for, would have had it put in the bill. I think it ought to be mandatory. I am not going to move an amendment because I believe I have done my duty when I point out what I consider a lack of policy in the bill. Having regard to the statement he has just made to me, that he considers the point I have made well taken, I think the minister ought to put it in the bill and not leave it for some future Minister of Finance to determine. Such a minister may need money and this money may be switched to purposes other than those of debt reduction.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the point just raised by the hon. member for York-Sunbury may I say that I believe the course being followed in the United States, at least the one recommended in the Baruch report, is that the proceeds from the sales of war assets shall be applied to the reduction of the national debt.
When I suggested to the minister that he was being given limited authority he said that I had lost sight of the fact that in the case of the disposal of assets over S15,000 the approval of the governor in council is necessary. I wish to ask him, where there is any such provision in this bill to that effect? I have not been able to find it; but the minister states that his power is limited, and I can see no provision in the bill before me which makes any reference to the fact that such a limitation is in effect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will find that the authority for transferring property to the corporation is in the minister with the approval of the governor in council, which involves the obtaining of an order in council. As a matter of practice the same , method is followed in the sale of property as is followed in the purchase of property; transactions under 815,000 do not require an order in council in either case. That is simply an administrative arrangement, and can be changed by subsequent governments if they so desire.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister is saying is that it is a practice which has grown up and has the sanctity of custom; that is all it is.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has
now admitted in effect that there is no legal control on the disposal by himself of property over 815,000. There was a control until recently under order in council P.C. 4013, which had reference to War Assets Corporation Limited, and it provided in that order

Surplus Crown Assets
in council that no consignment or transfer of surplus materials or articles having a value as estimated by the Minister of Munitions and Supply in excess of $15,000 should be made without the prior authorization or approval of the governor in council. No such order in council is now in effect, and there is no limitation on the minister, for by section 19, subsection 3, the charter of War Assets Corporation Limited is cancelled and the company is dissolved. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ascertain from the minister where there is to-day any control on his absolute power of disposal. A while ago he answered me that I had not read the bill. I have read it, and there is no reference to any such provision. Now he says that it is the custom that no disposal shall be made or any purchase be made over $15,000 without an order in council. That is not enough. Under this bill as constituted we give the minister absolute control, regardless of amount, to dispose of these assets. If it were felt necessary in March, 1944, to set up a control by order in council to restrict the minister, now that we are passing a statute in the place of the order in council I ask the minister whether he will accept or will suggest an amendment whereby he will be controlled against the disposal of assets in excess of $15,000. If that is not incorporated in the statute, unlimited power is given to the minister. That is the point I made a while ago, and now it appears that the point was well taken.
I suggest to the minister that there must be that limitation; otherwise parliament is conferring rights upon him such as were never before conferred on any minister-absolute power to dispose as he pleases, regardless of the corporation, which he controls. He may even go to the point where he can dispose of assets and afterwards ask the corporation to approve his act, and the corporation, being under his control, must do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I W'as trained as an engineer,
but it seems to me that since I came to Ottawa I spend a great part of my time in explaining the law to lawyers. If the hon. member will look at section 9 of the bill he will see that the section outlines the ministerial power. The clause begins:
With specific or general authority from the governor in council, the minister may. . . .
Then there is a list of the things the minister may do. My hon. friend will note the preamble; the minister must obtain "specific or general 'authority from the governor in council." As the situation stands at the moment, he has general authority for transactions under $15,000, but he must obtain specific authority for transactions above that figure.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the order in council which makes provision for that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The order in council which my hon. friend held in his hand a few minutes ago makes provision for the general authority. The specific authority must be obtained as occasion requires.


John George Diefenbaker: No; the general
authority is only in so far as War Assets Corporation Limited is concerned and, as I pointed out a while ago, by virtue of section 19, subsection 3, that corporation is no longer in existence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the exact moment when War Assets Corporation Limited passes out of existence a new order in council in the same terms will be passed, providing for the new corporation.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I might point out to the minister that not only is power left to the minister, but, if he reads section 22, he will see that it is left to "the minister or any person or persons thereunto generally or specifically authorized by the minister." Not only can the minister, I take it, ask War Assets Corporation Limited to do it, but he can, having asked them, do it himself, or he can appoint another person or other persons either specifically or generally to dispose of it. Beyond that how much farther could he go? He has power absolutely to ignore War Assets Corporation Limited and to sell things independently of them or to authorize other persons to do so. There might be some argument why the minister should reserve himself the right to do so, but I cannot see any argument in favour, not only of reserving the right to himself, but also of setting up some other corporation or of giving somebody else specifically or generally the power of disposal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was his argument?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was evident that in his submission to the committee he had made a much more exhaustive inquiry into this bill than any of the rest of us had. I congratulate him upon his zeal and knowledge. I have been thinking over what the minister has said, that an order in council will be passed along the lines of the previous order in council which applied to the present body that will be out of business as soon as this bill is passed, and I have been saying to myself that this new corporation, if I properly
Surplus Crown Assets'

understand its set-up, will have to do with the disposal of properties like the Polymer in which the government has invested approximately fifty million dollars, and that is a vast amount of property to dispose of without proposals being submitted to anyone but the minister himself, unless, of course, the order in council to which he referred has already been passed. Why not, as the hon. member for Lake Centre suggested, avoid the trouble of asking for an order in council by incorporating in the bill that the disposal of war assets of a value of over $15,000 must come under the same scrutiny as the disposal of war assets of a value of under $15,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is already provided in the bill that all acts must have specific authority from the governor in council, unless included in the general authority. The general authority covers only small transactions. The general authority is given. It may be varied by governments from time to time; they may wish to cut back to the public works limit of $5,000, or they may wish to go up to the larger limit: that is a matter for the government of the day to determine. The present government has decided that the limit of discretion for the minister should be a transaction of $15,000 and under, but for transactions of over $15,000 the specific authority of council must be obtained.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then why not incorporate it in the bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in the bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understood the minister to say that after the bill is passed the governor in council will pass an order in council to conform with the previous order in council. The hon. member for Lake Centre suggested that that be incorporated in the bill, that such and such would have to take place in connection with a sale of property over $15,000 in value.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The law as now framed requires an order in council for every sale, but makes provision for orders in council general in terms, and an order in council general in terms which was passed with regard to the former corporation provided that the minister had discretion up to transactions totalling not more than $15,000.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the section carry?


Gordon Graydon: On division.
Section agreed to on division.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Section 24-


Gordon Graydon: Not section 24, Mr. Chairman. I do not think anyone desires to be technical, but some of these sections were passed rather quickly and discussion perhaps was denied because of that. In reference to section 22, discussion did take place and our understanding was that discussion was being held on section 22. It was on that section that the Chairman asked whether it be carried or not and we objected to the carrying of it and called "on division". That was section 22.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Bow River was the first person who spoke on section 23 after section 22 had passed, but the hon: member for York-Sunbury reverted to section 22 and there was no objection from this side. Section 22, however, has unquestionably passed.


Gordon Graydon: I have no objection to the section passing, provided that it is designated as passing on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Section 25-


Grote Stirling: WTe did not agree to section 24.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If I may explain, section 22 was carried, and I called section 23-


Gordon Graydon: Section 22 was carried on division.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, on division. When we were discussing section 23, however, the hon. member for Lake Centre stated that he wished to make a statement on section 22 and I asked the committee to revert to that section, so that I did not have to call section 22 again. I called section 23 and declared it carried, and then I called section 24. Does the hon. member wish to revert to section 24? If so, I am satisfied. Section 24- Offence. Shall the. section carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall section 25 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now.


Gordon Graydon: On division.
Bill read the third time and passed.

Aeronautics Act



AERONAUTICS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of bill No. 133, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-New heading inserted.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to speak very
briefly on this bill and chiefly with reference to what the minister said in the one or two brief addresses he made on the subject of aviation generally in Canada. As I remember, the import of his remarks was that the present trans-Canada Air Lines are to have priority and full control over air traffic or transport from east to west. Am I right in assuming that? At any rate, that is what I understood, that Trans-Canada Air Lines were to have priority and full control. Here again in this bill, as in the last one, I am afraid we are not following the very best path. In the United States, when war broke out I believe they had twenty^three air lines or more. They had at least that number in operation. Their setup, I understand, is wholly private.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada at the outbreak of
war had some fourteen.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But they were under the control of the government. I am speaking of absolutely private control.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government controlled
one and the other thirteen were private. I think I am correct in my figures.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know that prior to the
war there wTere a number of private air lines in Canada, but as I read this bill they will be wdped out. Personally, I am in favour of private ownership. It creates competition, and the principle has demonstrated down the years that it results in expansion of business all along the line. The private lines in the United States have done a masterly job. When that country entered the war they were able to provide for war purposes a very large number of thoroughly qualified aviators who had flown back and forth across the continent in passenger and freight movements. They have also done a great job in the war. I fear that if all our private lines are either absorbed or wiped out in Canada, our post-war set-up will not be able to take its place in world affairs in such a manner as it would if we had a private set-up too. My observation has been
that businesses carried on by the government are costly to operate. The initiative is not nearly so great in government-operated plants of any kind as it is in privately-controlled enterprise. The United States have been giving a lot of concern to the problem of after the war aviation. The chamber of commerce of that country at a meeting held in Washington in 1943 passed certain resolutions. The one on air transport reads as follows:
Civil aviation has proved its growing importance in commerce for engineering and scientific purposes and for the national defence.
The reference there being to the fact that when they got into war aviators were available in such numbers that they were able to supplement very greatly the United States war effort.
The quotation continues:
It should be given all practicable opportunity for further development, and equipment should be made available so far as is consistent with urgent defence requirements.
Then one further paragraph:
No federal funds should be expended on commercial airports except under plans approved by the commission. Federal aviation funds should be used only for air-navigation and traffic control facilities or other work which meets the test of special national interest in specific cases and on conditions that local interests provide approved landing areas and necessary buildings, and observe proper standards of airport maintenance, zoning and charges.
I read over carefully the United States act of 1939. As far as I can see, that act is designed to assist in every way possible the development of civil aviation under private control. In this bill we are doing just the reverse because our bill gives priority to the T.C.A. I ask myself, how are we to develop private air lines from one end of Canada to the other and north and south across Canada if the T.C.A. is to have such advantage over every other line? That is diametrically opposite to what is being done in the United States. In that country private lines developed through private enterprise to such an extent from 1939 to 1943 that air traffic had arisen to a total of SI .400,000,000 for the latter year. The private companies there are planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars after the war to develop the United States to take its place in the air picture.
I wish to speak very kindly to the minister. He has given this subject a great deal of thought. I am often amazed at his capacity in so many different lines and along so many different avenues of commerce. But in this case I should have liked to see a wider opportunity for private ownership and private development of air lines in Canada. The minister, in the address he gave on June 6,
Aeronautics Act

outlined clearly from his point of view the objects of the present bill. Outside of the present bill being principally in support of government controlled air lines like the T.C.A., it contains much the same regulations as does the United States act. As I see it, the United States act encourages all air lines. Perhaps the minister may say that they have a much larger country in which to develop air traffic because of their great population; but I am convinced that the development of Canada, particularly our large unoccupied areas in the north where air lines will do so much to open up the whole north country, a country filled to overflowing with resources, can be greatly helped by private air lines. This will not be done by the government-owned lines unless they can make a profit out of it. If private enterprise were given the opportunity it would go in and open it up.
I do not wish to hold up the bill; I could not do so if I wanted to. But all over the world every country is giving a great deal of thought to air traffic after the war. I saw a dispatch in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 14. This dispatch appears under date of London, June 13, and reads as follows:
Sir Arthur Whitten-Brown, who was navigator of the first direct trans-Atlantic flight with Captain John Alcock, twenty-five years ago, to-day joined the advocates of post-war freedom of the air. At a luncheon commemorating the 1919 flight, he said:
"We fought in days gone by for freedom of the seas and made it a gift to a somewhat appreciative world. May we hope that freedom of the air may come through peaceful agreement, but that freedom we must have.
May always our air forces be powerful enough to maintain that freedom in peaceful security from the end of this war onward."
I am not sure whether I understood what the minister said about the control of air lines to and from Canada. I have been wondering what Trans-Canada Air Lines will be able to do in reference to carrying on commerce with Mexico. We shall have to fly over United States territory. The minister may have explained what will be necessary, but I have just forgotten. I doubt if they will be able to fly. over the whole expanse, from our boundary to the Mexico boundary without alighting; perhaps they can. If I am wrong, when the minister comes to explain our contact with Mexico or any other South American republic he will set me right. He will tell us whether we have any right to cany on our commerce outside our own country. I should like to know that. Certainly, after the war the passenger and commercial traffic of air lines will be of vital importance to any country and exceptionally vital, to Canada. I hope TMr. MacNicol.]
there is nothing in the minister's mind-there is nothing in the bill-that will in any way interfere with that.
When I heard the minister make a speech a short time ago about the position after the war in so far as traffic throughout the world is concerned, I became quite alarmed. I suppose that after the war there will be international meetings to arrange for routes and all other particulars about air traffic that will give Canadian air lines the same free passage in the air that our ships have on the sea to-day. I should think that would be what we would expect. As far as Canada itself is concerned I hope that nothing in this bill will prevent private enterprise from carrying on this work. Take, for instance, Canadian Pacific Railways; that is private enterprise. Are they to be permitted to develop through air routes in every direction? If the minister carries out his plan as I understood him to lay it down when he made his speech, I do not know how the C.P.R. will be able to operate air travel east and west from Montreal to Vancouver or from Halifax to Vancouver and Victoria. If the Canadian Pacific or any other company will not have that right, along with T.C.A., I am afraid the service will suffer. There is nothing like competition. In my experience in business for many years there was nothing like competition to spur the company with which I was associated to turn out the best possible line of goods. If there is not to be competition in air services across Canada I am afraid we shall not have the best service. In my experience competition has created business and made trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to make it perfectly clear that this bill does not in any way extend the functions of Trans-Canada Air Lines, nor does it prevent the expansion of private aviation in this country. It does have one effect; it deals with a tendency that has been evident, and that has developed very rapidly during the course of the war, toward the concentration of air service wholly in the hands of Canada's two transcontinental railways. The government entered into the business of air transport in 1936 for the reason that private enterprise was not prepared to go into that field on a scale in keeping with the developments of that day. In going into that field the government made it perfectly clear that it would establish a service from coast to coast which would be non-competitive in character. That provision is contained in the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, and the bill now being considered does not affect the position of Trans-Canada one way or the other, except in one particular. The act of 1937, I think it

Aeronautics Act
was, specified that the ownership of Trans-Canada Air Lines would be in the hands of the Canadian National Railways. That seemed' the logical arrangement at the time; but that arrangement has had a tendency to encourage the other competing railroad to acquire all other services in Canada. That is a result which the government believes is not in the best interests of the development of air transport in Canada.
My hon. friend lias referred to international aviation and the policy of the government toward aviation generally. The bill does not affect international aviation; it does not attempt to regulate international aviation. The bill expresses the announced policy of the government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would it not affect international aviation coming into Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, except that when any air transport line comes into Canada it must conform to Canadian law which will be this bill, when it passes this house. Other than that the position of foreign aircraft lines operating in Canada will not be changed by the provisions of this bill.


Major James William Coldwell: I was not here when this bill was given second reading, but I do not propose to impose any speech upon the committee because of that fact. I think my colleagues in this party placed our position before the house very well at that time, but I hope, the minister is not receding in any way from the position he and the government took earlier in the session. I realize, of course, that this bill does contemplate that there will be not only a national airways system in this country, but that it will leave room for certain other lines to be established. I understand perfectly that the minister is anxious that no monopoly shall be established by a private corporation, and that is why the railways are to divest themselves of the airways plan which they have been following. I think that is wise; in this country, with a population as small as we have, I think we can support only one efficient, air line. I would go the whole way and say that except for the small feeder lines, which we might even call taxi lines, the whole of the air transport of this country ought to be under a government organization and a government system. I noticed what the hon. member for Davenport said a few moments ago. I wonder if he would read again the speeches made in this house by the former leader of the Conservative party, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, wThen this matter was under discussion some years ago. To my mind it is all very well to talk of private enterprise, but the only transportation that many of our boys
had on the Canadian Pacific railway before the war was on the outside of box-cars. I would remind the hon. member, too, that in addition to men being on relief during the depression years the Canadian Pacific Railway Company went on relief to the extent of S60.000.000 without interest.
What I really rose to say is that I think there is something lacking in this bill. Included in the regulations and legislation in both Great Britain and the United States are comprehensive labour codes. We have established what I believe to be very good conditions for our staff on the T.C.A. I believe we have a competent and efficient staff. As one who uses T.C.A. quite often I am amazed at the efficiency, the safety, the comfort and the courtesy one receives on that line. I think it compares very favourably indeed with anything the private companies in the United States can produce: in fact I would go one better and say that I believe the efficiency, speed, courtesy and all the rest of it offered by T.C.A. is superior to anything to be found in the great country to the south. But I point out that both Britain and the United States have included in their legislation and regulations covering aeronautics comprehensive labour codes. As a matter of fact I have here copies of both, which I obtained some little time ago.	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are these in the aeronautics acts of those countries?


Major James William Coldwell: In section 401 of the civil aeronautics act of 1938 of the United States there will be found this:
(1)	Every air carrier shall maintain rates of compensation, maximum hours, and other working conditions and relations of all o-f its pilots and eo-pilots who are engaged in interstate air transportation within the continental United States (not including Alaska) so as to conform with decision numbered 83 made by the national labour board on May 10, 1934, notwithstanding any limitation therein as to the period of its effectiveness.
(2)	Every air carrier shall maintain rates of compensation for all of its pilots and co-pilots who are engaged in overseas or foreign air transportation or air transportation wholly within a territory or possession of the United States, the minimum of which shall be not less, upon an annual basis, than the compensation required to be paid under said decision 83 for comparable service to pilots and co-pilots engaged in interstate air transportation within the continental United States (not including Alaska).
(3)	Nothing herein contained shall be construed as restricting the right of any such pilots or co-pilots, or other employees, of any such air carrier to obtain by collective bargaining higher rates of compensation or more favourable working conditions or relations.
Aeronautics Act

(4)	It shall be a condition upon the holding of a certificate by any air carrier that such carrier shall comply with title II of the railway labour act, as amended.
(5)	The term "pilot" as used in this subsection shall mean an employee who is responsible for the manipulation of or who manipulates the flight controls of an aircraft while under way including take-off and landing of such aircraft, and the term "co-pilot" as used in this subsection shall mean an employee any part of whose duty is to assist or relieve the pilot in such manipulation, and who is properly qualified to serve as, and holds a currently effective airman certificate authorizing him to serve as, such pilot or co-pilot.
The British section is slightly different but really to the same effect. Section 18 of statutory rules and orders, 1938, No. 613, made under the navigation act of October, 1936, reads:
It shall be a condition of every licence that the wages, salaries, or other remuneration paid by the holder of a licence to all persons employed in connection with the operation of the services authorized by the licence, or paid to persons employed in connection with the operation of aircraft hired by him for the purposes of those services, and the conditions of their employment shall not be less favourable to them than the wages, salaries or other remuneration which would be payable and the conditions which would have to be observed under a contract which complied with the requirements of any resolution of the House of Commons for the time being in force applicable to contracts with government departments. Provided that if complaint is made to the licensing authority that the above-mentioned condition is not being observed, the licensing authority, if the complaint is not otherwise disposed of, shall request the ministry of labour to seek the advice of the industrial court and the licensing authority shall he guided hy the advice of the court in deciding whether the above-mentioned condition is satisfied.
The contracts with the British government lay down certain conditions which must be observed not less favourably by the air transport carriers under the British authority.
It seems to me that we should have in this bill a labour code which would guarantee to those who are engaged in the aeronautical service decent remuneration and proper working conditions. If we are to have private enterprise in this field we should lay down the conditions upon which private enterprise should operate. I believe, of course, that we should have a labour code generally for the various industries in this country. We need a national labour code laying down the minimum satisfactory labour conditions. Here we are starting something which is entirely new in the history of our country', and it seems to me that this is the time when we ought to be legislating to bring about conditions that are' desirable in this field. To my mind the bill is defective in that respect.
[Vr. Coldwell.)
There are several features of the bill which I shall discuss when the various clauses come before us. Besides wishing to emphasize what I have already said, I am most anxious to say to the minister that I believe, as the recent Gallup poll showed and as I learn from contacts which I have throughout the country and from conversations which I have had with people with whom I have met quite recently, that the people of this country will view with no favour the granting of permission to establish air transport in this country by private enterprise. We have had enough trouble with our railways. We remember how in the depression years attacks were made upon the railways in this house because of the high expenditures that were made for lines and services that were not being used on account of the depression. To-day, of course, we can be thankful that we have those lines. As I have said once before, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would give almost anything if the lines which it tore up east of White River had been available for use during this war. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. We can have an efficient up-to-date mainline air transport system run efficiently under government authority. No one can say that a government organization cannot operate efficiently after what we know is being done by the T.C.A. I know the minister himself takes a pride in that organization, and I think the establishment of this great service, safe, secure, sound, offering every courtesy, and convenience, is one of the worth-while contributions which the minister has made to this country during his tenure of office. I would like to see brought entirely under government control all the long distance air lines in the country, the northwest staging route, the route to Labrador, the routes from Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton. I believe that the employees would be better off and the public would be better protected if all these lines were under government control.
May I add that when we hear of private enterprise in this particular field, all that private enterprise is doing in this field is running the planes. The air fields, the meteorological service, the teletype, the beacons, the emergency landing fields and all the other facilities are provided by the government. It is just as though we said to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company: We will lay the rails of your system, establish the stations, and do everything else that is required, so that all you will have to do is to put the engines and the cars on the lines, run the trains and collect the revenue. That would be comparable.

Aeronautics Act


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is the same way in the
United States.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not care what they do in the United States. I am not worrying about what they do there. I am interested in Canada, and as long as we are interested in Canada let us set up an organization on a sure foundation, without reference to what they are doing in the United States or in any other country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I like to look at what they are doing in all countries.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact there is great controversy in Great Britain in regard to this matter, and the point of view expressed by the minister in this house in April is very much the point of view held, by a large number of people in Great Britain. I have no doubt that even if people do succeed in setting up privately owned airways in this country and elsewhere it will be only a short time before governments will be compelled to take them over and operate them as great public transportation systems, so that in order to avoid the difficulties which otherwise are bound to arise in the future let us establish now our own publicly owned and publicly operated airways system.
I just want to repeat in conclusion that I wish there were a labour code in this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In regard to what my hon. friend says about a labour code being put in the bill, each country has its own method of handling labour matters. It has not been the practice in Canadian legislation to enact labour codes in bills general in character. For instance, we have no labour code in the Railway Act or in the Transport Act. We have a labour code in this country but it is a separate enactment. I do not think the railroad employees have ever been handicapped because there was no specific labour code in the Railway Act. The railway employees are highly unionized and have been for a great many years. Their labour relations with their employers are perhaps a model for other industries. Similarly the air lines have a collective bargaining agreement with their pilots. All the commercial pilots, I believe, are members of the pilots' association, and the relations between the pilots' association and their employers are happy. The pilots' association has recourse, as all organized labour has, to the duly constituted authorities. In my opinion the addition of a labour code to this bill would neither strengthen the position of the employees nor improve the bill.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Chairman, with a great deal of what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said I am in hearty accord1, but, after all, there are in this bill certain principles which the members should consider seriously before the bill is passed. My own view regarding the centralization of power at Ottawa is the same as I have expressed on many occasions. Despite the fact that the minister says that under this bill no private company will be debarred from entering into business within a province I cannot help thinking that once the bill becomes operative and the board is set up, it will be given a great deal of power and authority.
We speak of international flying between one country and another. That is quite desirable, but do not let us overlook the fact that under this bill we are putting into the hands of three men the power of making rules and regulations affecting every province. Has it been decided whether the dominion government has power over the air over the provinces? So far as I know, that has not yet been decided. Under this bill the dominion government is to have the say as to what company or individual will be allowed to fly within a province. I think the committee should realize the import of a question of that kind before it passes this measure. Has the dominion government complete control over the air?
Suppose that a man in New Westminster wanted to inaugurate a flight from that city to Victoria or to the northern part of British Columbia. Under this bill he would have to apply to the board at Ottawa. As I said in a speech made in the house not long ago, we from British Columbia have had painful experiences in coming to Ottawa to appear before boards. The provinces are handing over power to the dominion government. We must bear in mind that a lot of the power of the provinces has been filched from them during this war, and I am just wondering if that power is to go back to the provinces. During the last war many of the powers which were filched from the provinces were retained at Ottawa, and I think we had better be careful before giving these powers away to the dominion government.
I am particularly interested in the question of whether the dominion has the right to regulate or prevent the setting up of air lines within a province. We know that in so far as railroad transportation is concerned a railroad may be started within a province, although there have been instances where the dominion, perhaps to get some right on behalf of
Aeronautics Act

another railroad, has passed an act of parliament designating such provincial railroad to be for the good of Canada. That is my first question.
The explanatory notes contain the following:
The bill will add a new section to the Aeronautics Act dealing with the powers and duties of the air transport board. The Department of Transport will continue to administer those portions of the Aeronautics Act which deal with civil aviation and do not come within the scope of the board.
What is the scope of the board? I thought this bill was to give the board all power and authority, but apparently there are certain powers left out. They are going to split the power. The Minister of Transport is to have certain powers and the board will have certain powers. That is my second question.
My third question is this: Who is to administer this legislation, the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of Transport? When I have had answers to these three questions I may have something more to say.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no question about jurisdiction over the air. A reference was made, I believe in 1929, to the privy council, in connection with the Aeronautics Act, and it was ruled that the dominion government has complete jurisdiction over the Aeronautics Act and over railways generally. The hon. member asked, who is to administer this legislation? I have explained that on many occasions. This legislation properly belongs under the Department of Transport, but for purposes associated with the war it has been temporarily transferred to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Munitions and Supply under the Transfer of Duties Act, The transfer is temporary and the administration of the measure will be returned to the Department of Transport in the not too distant future.
All civil aviation comes within the scope of the board. Part II comes within the scope of the board; it will be administered by the new board, while certain parts of the bill remain under the direct jurisdiction of the minister.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am interested in feeder lines. The city of Peterborough has tried to get an airport but so far we have been unsuccessful. The country around that city is rolling and it is hard to put in an airfield. However, it can be done and I understand that plans are being made to construct an airport after the war. The presi-
[Mr. Howe.J
dent of the Toronto transportation commission sent me a letter which I should like to read to the committee. It reads:
June 12, 1944.
Forwarded herewith is copy of a letter which I have written under date of the 9th instant to the Honourable C. D. Howe, Minister of Munitions and Supply, with reference to the air transport bill just introduced in parliament, and its possible effect on the helicopter services which its commission hopes to operate after the war, through its subsidiary, Gray Coach Lines, Limited.
As your constituency is served either directly or indirectly by Gray Coach Lines routes, I thought the foregoing would be of interest to you.
It would be a wonderful thing if we could have a helicopter service to that district. The railway service into our city at the present time is absolutely terrible. If you want to come to Ottawa you must leave at twenty minutes to twelve noon or at 1.45 a.m. To return to Peterborough from Ottawa you must leave Ottawa at 9.20 in the morning to arrive at Peterborough at 5.15 in the afternoon or at 11 p.m. to arrive at Peterborough at 5 p.m., provided that the trains are on time. The letter from the Toronto transportation commission to the Minister of Munitions and Supply is dated June 9, 1944, and reads:
The commission and its subsidiary, Gray Coach Lines, Limited, are owned by the people of lorouto and in addition to operating practically all the local transportation in and about the city they own and operate the largest interurban motor coach operation in Canada.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the helicopter will shortly become a practical instrument for local air passenger transportation. It is also obvious that existing air passenger travel is not suitable for or equipped to supply local passenger demands. Indeed, the trend is the reverse, its goal being longer trips at faster speeds. Unless completely unforeseen developments arise, this involves longer runways and the maintenance of airports a substantial distance from the centre of the cities served. Obviously this situation makes no appeal to local passenger demand, nor is it likely that it would be commercially feasible for an air line to mix local passengers with its long distance passengers, even if it were willing to accept them and detract from the advantages of its service by making the local stops required.
It therefore follows that the helicopter and the aeroplane will not compete but will serve a totally different constituency. As far as the helicopter is concerned its constituency is almost exactly coterminous with that of the existing motor coach, but its advent will give motor coach patrons a choice of modes of travel and in many cases a quicker, more convenient, and possibly equally inexpensive service.
The motor coach industry knows local passenger travel needs and desires. It has all the local branches, ticket agencies, garages, repair shops and personnel ready to hand. The public will be best served by the coordination of this

Aeronautics Act
new travel agency with the motor coach, and this consideration must surely be the decisive one.
It seems to this commission that the air transport bill just introduced in parliament will, if press reports be accurate, prevent the use of the helicopter by the motor coach industry. This may mean the denial of this new method of public transportation to the people of Canada. It certainly will mean a postponement of its introduction in Canada and a costly and unnecessary duplication of function, which duplication, in the last analysis, is always paid for by the users of the service.
It is also important that Canada shall not lag behind the United States in its acceptance of this new mode of travel and what is planned in the United States is best exemplified by the extract from "Aviation News" which we are taking the liberty of enclosing.
This commission has on leave of absence many mechanics now engaged in the repair,- maintenance and servicing of aircraft operated by the naval, military and air forces, and who will return to their employment after the termination of hostilities. There are also on leave of absence many employees in the flying services of the armed forces of Canada and allied nations, many of whom, upon their return from service, can be qualified to direct, dispatch, navigate, pilot and operate the aircraft which it is proposed to operate.
The commission, therefore, respectfully submits that the bill in question is too broad in its scope and should be amended to allow for the normal and usual development of this new system of transportation which has such promise of usefulness to the citizens of Canada.
This submission is premised upon the theory that jurisdiction over this new form of travel resides in the dominion. This may be open to some question, as helicopters were not considered in the reference to the courts on aeronautics.
We are taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to the local members of parliament.
Yours faithfully,
Wm. C. McBrien, Chairman.
The extract from Aviation News under date of May 29, 1944, is as follows:
Greyhound Plans Helicopter Feeders
Post-war plans of the bus industry "to establish a non-subsidized, multi-scheduled helicopter-bus air service operating between bus stations in the downtown sections of approximately 1,000 cities and towns" were announced by Arthur Middleton Hill, President, Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, before the Institute of Transportation in New York.
Four hundred transportation executives attended the institute, held May 23-24, under sponsorship of the schools of law and commerce of New York university and the Transportation Association of America.
( The proposed helicopter service, Hill said, "results from a large demand for air service between 50 and 250 miles which, in volume, is greater than all of the present air and bus travel combined."
He said the helicopters would have approximately the carrying capacity of a small bus, and cost to the traveller would be "no greater than the operation of his private automobile".
He did not touch on the question of when such helicopters might be available but said: "Leaders of the bus industry who have conferred
with aircraft manufacturers licensed to build helicopters, and have witnessed demonstrations, are fully convinced that these aircraft are the means through which a post-war coordination of bus and air transportation will become a reality."
The reason why I bring this up is that I feel, as I know a number of other hon. members do, that opportunity should be given to such companies as these to feed the transcontinental air lines. I hope the minister will not exclude these private corporations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may at once answer this comment, I would say that the article read by my hon. friend is a perfect example of the need for taking care not to give out prematurely valuable public franchises. I point out to my hon. friend that the commercial helicopter is yet to be invented, and if my guess is accurate-and I have followed fairly closely the progress of the art-it will be some years before the invention is brought to the point where it can be used commercially. The government has had applications over the last two or three years from, with few exceptions, every bus line in Canada for franchises for helicopter operations between points served by bus systems. I suggest that these applications were probably made in good faith, but a less kindly person might suggest that they represent an attempt to prevent competition with surface transportation.
The position of the government is that if the helicopter has merit-and we hope it will have-it should be permitted to develop as an independent system of transportation and not be limited in its scope or confined in the area which is served by a form of surface transportation. It is with that thought in mind that this bill has been drawn, and the responsibility of the federal government for regulating the use of the airways will be exercised in the matter of the helicopter just as it is being exercised in the control of the aeroplane.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the present bill
permit or prevent the use of the helicopter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would make it very difficult for the helicopter to be owned by a bus line, or by any other form of surface transportation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I personally feel that towns and cities away from the main transcontinental lines should have some ways and means of getting down to the different points where these transport planes cross the continent. If you cut out these small companies or bus lines, what chance have these cities and towns? They have not any chance at all, because the minister knows
Aeronautics Act

that it will be years and years before the service will be furnished otherwise, and if the government try to do it they will in many cases lose money. These firms are willing to see if this form of transportation can be operated profitably; if it cannot, they are prepared to lose the money. That is the chance they take.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the opinion of the government, and my own opinion, that the development of the helicopter is much more likely to be sound and its use extended to give the service which my hon. friend desires, if franchises are not given out prematurely, and if its development is separated from the confines of surface transportation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then should it not be put in this bill' that provision will be made when helicopters come into practical use? I might mention that it is some seven years ago since I had a trip in one of these gyroscope machines. It landed in a space not half the size of this chamber. I had a very nice ride, and I thought at that time, and I still think, it is a coming means of transportation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The art of the gyroscope is
exactly where it was when my hon. friend took his ride.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
know, but the helicopter has gone ahead; there are now new patents on it, and I understand that some helicopters have been built in the United States.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is jurisdiction over provincial aviation included in this bill? Is there jurisdiction over the helicopter lines W'hich would be in the province of Ontario?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The privy council has decided that the federal government has jurisdiction over the use of the air.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In support of what the hon. member for Peterborough West has said, I would point out what happened in Toronto in connection with buses. It was up to the city, not because they wanted to do it, but because it was necessary to give service to the outlying districts, and if it had not been for the transportation commission we would not have had that service. We had many bus lines going into liquidation, and the people in the surrounding country insisted on the Toronto Transportation commission giving the service. They lost a lot of money when they started and it will be exactly the same in the helicopter business. How much will it cost to incorporate one of these small companies

the minister is talking about, the one running between Toronto and Peterborough? How many machines will they have; what will be the capital investment, and where will they get the money, with all the things that go with it, all the organization that is necessary, and so forth? To my mind this business of small companies is so much eyewash. The work cannot be done 'as efficiently as it could in some other way. If a big firm like the Toronto Transportation commission wishes to take it on, it should be allowed to do so because it has the organization.


Grote Stirling: When the minister was
outlining the civil aviation policy some weeks ago he said, I remember, that it was not the intention of the government to entertain applications from those in another country who desire to set up a service in Canada unless the application came through the government of that country. I expected to find that in this bill but I do not find it. Where would such power be found, and is it still the intention of the government to follow that plan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That arrangement is by international agreement. It has been functioning between Canada and the United States during the last several years. It is purely a bilateral agreement that may be varied by mutual arrangement, but it has no place in this bill. This bill deals with aviation within Canada.


Grote Stirling: Is it the case that at the present time no application from an air-line company at present existent in the United States would be entertained by Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has Canada received any applications for entry permits into the United States at the present time? How many entry permits have we for aeroplanes into the United States from Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member asking
whether we have franchises to operate in the United States?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have one from Toronto
to New York.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How many from
the United States into Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Eight, I believe.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is there some quid pro quo as far as transportation between Canada and the United States is concerned? I submit that there ought to be. Are we to allow them to carry everything by nlane, or

Aeronautics Act
are we to have some part of that transportation? Something should be done to balance things up a little.
In connection with a report from Washington by Chester A. Bloom, I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. He has probably seen this report, which states:
Simultaneously with the issuance of a long list of prospective U.S. air routes to virtually every big city and capita] around the world, the U.S. government's civil aeronautics board on Tuesday gave notice of abandonment of the "chosen instrument" notion.
The board did that by stating it would call for applications from all the private air line corporations to fly the prospective routes- after they have been negotiated with foreign governments.
Does that mean that the United States is just going out to do all this? What position does it put Canada in? The report goes on to say:
The board, stated that it had omitted services from the United States and Alaska terminating in the contiguous countries of Canada and Mexico.
I suppose that means border crossing. Further:
Goose airport at the head of Hamilton inlet on the Labrador coast, was built since the war began by Canada on land leased from Newfoundland. During the war it has been used as a "ferry base" and from its 6,000-foot runways the biggest warplanes have taken off for the United Kingdom.
Airmen express preferences for Goose over the Newfoundland airfields since its weather is better, being almost clear of fog.
The C.A.P.-
That is, the coastal air patrol plans.
7 plans calls for stops at undetermined points in Labrador or Newfoundland on all north Atlantic flights which it has outlined. So far as is known, Goose airport is the only sizable base in Labrador at present and high R.C.A.F. officers and Canadian government officials have emphasized that Canada intends to keep this military field in operation after the war.
That means, I suppose, that Canada is going to keep that for herself after the war. Could the minister let us know what our position is in connection with this international air travel n view of this statement which was issued rom Washington on June 14?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill has no reference to aviation outside Canada; its jurisdiction is confined to this country. There is no reference in the bill to international aviation.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: This board has
nothing whatever to do with international aviation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Except as it may advise the government on aviation, the board has no power to make laws governing international aviation. Such matters are subject to international agreement.


Clarence Gillis: I do not wish to retard the progress of the bill but I want to emphasize what the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had to say with regard to the inclusion in the bill of some provision that would protect the employees of any company who might be licensed under this measure. As I see the bill, it is intended to regulate the field of transportation in the air in the future; that is all. It is setting up a board which will be responsible through the minister to the house. While the minister's observations in reply to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar may be to some extent reasonable, at least as applying to companies operated by the government, this board will, in my opinion, be granting licenses to many private companies, and under this bill some arrangement should be made whereby employees of the companies receiving licences should be protected. There should be a clause in the bill making provision in that regard. The minister's remarks on the whole matter of the labour code as it applies to industry throughout the country were not realistic. During the process of fighting the war the one thing that we lacked in the field of labour throughout Canada was some regulation of industry. I do not think the experience of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been too happy. The same can be said of other fields of industry where the government have some control over the industrial set-up. I have no desire to discuss this thing farther than to emphasize that point. Under this bill the board will be granting licences to a lot of people, and in my opinion there should be some clause to protect the employees.


Major James William Coldwell: The Railway Act has, I believe, some provision governing the issuing of passes to favoured customers and so on. Would it not be wrise to have some provision in this bill as well to prohibit the use of passes and cut rates to certain types of customers? I thought I should bring that to the attention of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a section of the Railway Act that governs the matter. The provision here is that the matter will be handled by regulations approved by the governor in council. It is difficult to write in the bill the exact provision. I may say that passes are very much more limited in the air than in the trains, and necessarily so, considering the limited carrying capacity of aeroplanes. The fact is that outside of certain employees who are allowed to ride, provided that the space is available, there are no passes in air transport.


Major James William Coldwell: I was thinking of the time when a number of private- companies

Aeronautics Act
are licensed. I know what is done in the Trans-Canada Air Lines, but this is the governing legislation for the future.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is right.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is what I was thinking of. These passes may be used by companies for favoured customers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: And something should be done-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree with my hon. friend that the regulations provided for in the bill must govern. I think more study would be required before a clause could be inserted in the bill.


Major James William Coldwell: But it is under consideration?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. *
In connection with the labour clause in the agreement, I may say that during my period as Minister of Transport I was asked to amend the Railway Act on many occasions, but I was never asked to put a labour clause in the act. I feel the position there is similar to the position in the airways. It seems to me that we have general labour provisions which are adequate and which would apply to the airways as well as to the railways and to other employees. I would hesitate to put into an act which is seldom revised provisions that to-day may be in conformity with general government policy, but which ten years from now may not be in conformity. I think there would be a conflict which would be unfortunate. I suggest that employees of the air lines have all the protection that they require in the general labour legislation of the country.


John George Diefenbaker: How many licences have been applied for for routes within Canada by provinces within the last year? In how many cases has the minister directed the board of transport commissioners not to consider applications that were before it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could not say the number of applications that have been made; there have been many. The second question was, in how many cases have we directed the board of transport commissioners not to consider the application. The answer is, never, or none, or whichever word is appropriate. I would, however, point out that a new route cannot be granted by the board of transport commissioners under present legislation until the route is established by order in council. In other words, it must be designated by the government as a

route under the Transport Act before the route can be allocated and a franchise given. The government has not allocated all the routes that have been applied for in the applications.	[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the minister will be able to furnish the information to-morrow?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The number of applications,
yes.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: I would point out one thing that requires elucidation from the minister in connection with the answer to the second question. It has to do with the application that was made for an airways route between the cities of Saint John and Halifax. The minister was asked a question in regard to that matter early in this session, and at page 125 of Hansard he gave an answer that is not in accordance with the answer that he has just given. The hon. member for York-Sunbury said:
My understanding is just this-and may I say that that is no reason-that they did not choose to deal with the application. Who told them not to do so?
The hon. member was referring to the board of transport commissioners. The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Howe: I did.
I should like the minister to explain the circumstances in connection with the application for that route; for apparently when he was asked the question some months ago he said that he told them not to deal with the application. His answer this evening is, in no case did he tell them not to. Could he explain what he meant when he used those words in Hansard in February last?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I had better not go into the circumstances. If Hansard reports me as having said, "I did," we will assume that was the answ7er I gave. As a matter of fact, Nova Scotia is a prohibited area in war time, and new routes would not ordinarily be authorized into that area. They never have been. There have been several applications, made from time to time, to operate a route from Saint John to Halifax. If my memory serves me correctly, the first application was from the line that operates from Moncton to Charlottetown; I think it is Maritime Airways. There was also an application for a route from Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Before either application was filed Trans-Canada Air Lines had announced they intended to operate a route from Blissville to Halifax, rvith connection from Blissville to Saint John and Fredericton by bus. None of the routes has yet been

Aeronautics Act
operated. The route from Saint John to Halifax has never been declared a route within the meaning of the Transport Act.


Douglas King Hazen: May I refresh the minister's memory again about-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor.
Mr. GILL1S: I wish to pursue the matter of protecting the employees who may be employed on the airways a little farther. The minister said that in connection with the railways there was no necessity for a regulation of any kind. He must remember that the men on the railways have trade union agreements.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what they have on the airlines.


Clarence Gillis: They fought for those agreements for many years and had a lot of difficulty in regard to them. If the men on the air lines had regular trade union agreements signed by representatives of the employees of the air lines in so far as the Trans-Canada Air Lines is concerned I am quite satisfied. But I am thinking about the future. I do not know who is to administer this bill. It puts a lot of latitude in the hands of the minister. We do not know who the board will be. The minister who will handle this bill will have a lot of authority and a lot of latitude in reporting to this house. We do not know who is to be in this house or who the minister will be. In putting through this bill, I think we should put in the hands of the people who will license air lines in the future something that will protect the employees without any guesswork about it, or any hope, or anything like that; we should be definite and insert the provision in the bill. If Britain and the United States thought it necessary in 1936 and 1938 to write definitely into their aeronautics acts the clauses which were read to-night by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I am sure we would not be doing anything wrong if we inserted a similar clause for the protection of the people who are to operate the lines and for the protection of the employees of those air lines in future.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are all cross-border routes to be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no provision to that effect in the bill, but the announcement of government policy made it quite definite that this is the purpose of the government.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the government received any applications for cross-border routes up to the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: From Canadians?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister one general question. Under the Transport Act the board of transport commissioners had very wide powers of a judicial or at least quasi-judicial nature. Now a change has been made, as far as air transport is concerned, and the new board under this bill is to have none of those quasi-judicial powers. In fact the powers of the board are to be very much limited and, in the main, under the control of the minister. What has occurred to make that change necessary? Why has it become necessary to alter the powers of the board as far as air transportation is concerned, to do away with their judicial functions and to place them in a position where their decisions may be limited or controlled by the minister himself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board being established under this bill has all the judicial functions of the board of transport commissioners; in fact it has more extensive powers than that board, in that it will work under a measure that is less restrictive than the Transport ' Act. This measure purposely has been left in an elastic form, subject to regulations which will be drawn by the board itself. The intention is not to set out jurisdiction which is restrictive in character but to allow the board to build up its own jurisdiction. If my hon. friend will read the bill carefully he will see that the judicial functions of the board are not subject to review by the minister. Provision is made for appeal to the minister in certain cases, but that is only an appeal, just as there is provision for an appeal from the board of transport commissioners to the privy council.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to ask another question about this labour code. Perhaps we would not be very far wrong if we inserted in this bill some protecting clause with regard to labour. I may be wrong, and, if so, the minister will correct me, but J do not think there is anything in this bill which would prohibit employees of this government-created airways company from belonging to any union of their choice; nor would there be anything in it barring them from signing agreements with any of the unions. I should like that made clear. Is there anything at all
Aeronautics Act

which would bar these workers from joining any union of their choice, or from making union agreements with the company? If there is, I think that is wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing in the bill barring employees from doing anything they wish to do. At the moment they are members of an international union. I think all pilots in commercial work in Canada are members of an international union; they have their agreements with their employers and are in exactly the same position as the railway men. To my mind the position is very happy, and I think we would only complicate the situation if we did what my hon. friend suggests. I doubt very much if the union itself would favour writing into the bill provisions which, is I say, may be out of date if the labour code is a whole should be changed. These employees are certified under the act as members pf a union, competent to appeal to the labour relations board of the dominion, and I think that is the position they would prefer to be in.


Clarence Gillis: They are certified now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: I am afraid that in future they might be classified as technical employees. The engineers across Canada have a claim before the board now-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend refer to railway engineers?


Clarence Gillis: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Professional engineers?


Clarence Gillis: Yes; they are tangled up on that basis. Just a short clause stating that they have the right to make trade union agreements and to organize would protect them. Of course, if they are certified now and have bargaining rights under the code, that is fine; but I should like to see it included in the bill. That code can be changed at any time.


Mr. HOW  E@: I doubt if my hon. friend is speaking for labour organizations now. I have never been asked to include a labour code in an act.


Clarence Gillis: I doubt if there is anyone in the labour movement in Canada who would not want a clause provided in connection with an industry that will be as important in the future as aviation, stating that the employees of this industry have the right to bargain collectively. That is all it amounts to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will say this, that the pilots' organization is very wide awake; the association nas had time to apply for the protection

my hon. friend suggests, but it has not done so. To me this is an indication that it is not greatly interested in having a clause of that kind inserted.


Clarence Gillis: They take it for granted that in the government set-up they will have that right. The people I am speaking of are those who may be employed by the feeder lines which this board will license and who will not come under the government set-up.


Charles Edward Johnston: I take it that they have that right now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have that right now.


Charles Edward Johnston: Anyone working on the line.


Clarence Gillis: But this board has the right to license other lines.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like that cleared up. I take it that all employees) whether they are on the feeder lines or on t'he government line, will have the right to join a labour organization and to carry on collective bargaining.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, they have the right to collective bargaining; they can be certified by the board, and the provisions of the labour relations act will apply. There is no doubt about that. The idea is firmly established all through the aircraft industry among the airmen, the mechanics and all other branches. It is well understood that there are recognized unions certified as bargaining agents, and that anyone who applies to be certified can qualify. There is no question about it.


Clarence Gillis: Does that apply to the C.P.A.
lines too?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: It does not apply to both railway lines. Certain employees of the Canadian Pacific have not bargaining rights, while comparable employees of the Canadian National have.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that, but certainly the aircraft men of both organizations have bargaining rights.


Clarence Gillis: The minister is quite emphatic about it as far as the main lines are concerned, but once this board is set up, supposing Maritime Air Lines, for example, a feeder line, makes application. The board grants them a licence to operate the line and they can suit themselves as to the treatment of the employees. That is private enterprise. You are placing the employees in a position where they will have to fight for organization

Aeronautics Act
of a union, taking a vote, getting a certificate under the code, and everything else. The code should be put in the bill to protect the employees. It would simply be inserting in the bill a principle which the government is giving effect to on the main -line to-day.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Writing a provision of that kind into the bill would place employees of air lines in a position which no other employees in this country enjoy. All employees throughout the country are protected by the government's labour code, under conditions set out in the code. The application of the code to the air lines is well established, and I see no reason why the employees of airlines should be placed in a different position from other employees throughout Canada. If we provide specially for them in the bill, then in years to come that measure might conflict with the general labour act of the federal government.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister stated in answer to my question that the new board would have the same powers as the old board. Looking over the bill, I cannot come to that conclusion. Under the Transport Act the powers of the board are set out in section 13, subsections 1 to 5, as follows:
13. (1) The hoard may, notwithstanding anything contained in the Aeronautics Act, subject to the provisions of this part, license aircraft to transport passengers and/or _ goods between specified points or places in Canada or between specified points or places in Canada and specified points or places outside of Canada.
(2)	The licence shall be issued in the name of the owner, lessee or other person entitled to engage in transport by air by means of such aircraft.
(3)	The licence may apply to one or more aircraft.
(4)	The board may in the licence prescribe the route or routes which the aircraft named therein may follow and the schedule of services which shall be maintained.
(5)	The board shall not issue a licence without being first satisfied that the proposed service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity.
As I understand it, this new bill alters in effect the powers of the board. I will refer to the sections in order to bring the matter to the attention of the minister with a view to securing an answer to the questions that I asked.
Under the new bill the only provision for the independence of the board is to be found in section 7, which states:
There shall be a board to be known as the air transport board consisting of three members appointed by the governor in council.
Subsection 7 of section 7 deals with the independence of the board and provides that
the members of the board shall not directly or indirectly engage in the manufacture or selling of aircraft, and so forth. The minister has stated that the board to be constituted under this bill has the same powers as the former transport board. The only section that gives it any powers at all is section 8, which provides:
The board may make rules for the regulation of its proceedings and the performance of its functions and duties under this act.
That section simply provides that the board shall have certain powers with respect to its own administration. But when it comes to the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers there are many alterations in the powers. Section 11 provides:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the board may make-

certain regulations, and I am not objecting to that at the moment. Section 12 is the important section. It states:
(1) Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may issue to any person applying therefor a licence to operate a commercial air service.
In other words, the board has not the wide powers that it previously had. Under the old act it was untrammeled in the exercise of its powers, but under this bill it may only issue a licence subject to the approval of the minister.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Read subsection 3.


John George Diefenbaker: Subsection 3 of
section 12 reads:
The board shall not issue any such licence unless it is satisfied that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity.
But subsection 3 I would point out, and I am sure the Secretary of State will agree with me, is again subject to subsection 1, where the approval of the minister is required before any licence may be issued.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is a definite restriction, as I think the hon member for Lake Centre will agree.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nowhere in this legislation is the minister given power to compel the board to issue a licence. The issue of the licence is subject to the approval of the minister, but the board can refuse to issue the licence. My hon. friend is trying to confuse the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not trying to confuse the committee. I am trying to ascertain the reason why these changes are being made. I want to know what has occurred to
Aeronautics Act

make it necessary to remove from the board of transport commissioners, in so far as air transport is concerned, the absolute power that it had under the old act.
Again subsection 4 of section 12 provides:
The board shall not issue any such licence unless and until an operating certificate has been issued by the minister to the operator of the proposed commercial air service certifying that the holder thereof is adequately equipped and able to conduct a safe operation as an air carrier over the prescribed route.
In other words, if the minister takes an arbitrary stand and says that in so far as any particular applicant is concerned he will not grant a certificate, the board is powerless to grant a licence.
In so far as the right of appeal is concerned, which the minister has mentioned, no licence can be granted by the board unless there is a certificate by the minister approving the issuing of the licence. Then provision is made for an appeal under subsections 8, 9 and 10 of section 12. After the minister has determined that he will approve the issue of a licence subject, we will say, to certain qualifications there is an appeal to the minister from the board which is responsible to the minister for determining in the first place whether or not a licence should be granted. In other words, what this bill says to-day is that a licence may be issued by the board only, with the approval of the minister, after a certificate has been granted by the minister as to the satisfactory nature of the qualifications of the company.
As I see it, under these regulations the board of air transport will have no independence. In the first place, it will be subject to the control of the minister in the issuance of licences. While the board may draft motions, under the sections I have mentioned it is subject to the final control of the minister. While it has all the outward appearances of being an independent body to administer the law in so far as air transportation is concerned, free and uncontrolled, it is in fact a body subject to the control of the minister. In this connection I should like to refer to the report by the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain covering the committee on ministers' powers. This committee reported in April, 1932, and condemned the setting up of boards with judicial or semi-judicial functions which were in fact controlled by a minister. I quote from page 7S of the report as follows:
We are of opinion that in considering the assignment of judicial functions to ministers, parliament should keep clearly in view the maxim that no man is to be judge in a cause in which he has an interest. We think that in any case in which the minister's department

would naturally approach the issue to be determined with a desire that the decision should go one way rather than another, the minister should be regarded as having an interest in the cause. Parliament would do well in such a case to provide that the minister himself should not be the judge, but that the case should be decided by an independent tribunal.
The board can grant a licence only with the approval of the minister; yet the appeal sections of the bill provide that where the board refuses to issue a licence, issues a licence which differs from the licence applied for, or attaches conditions to which the applicant objects, an appeal may be made to the minister. If a licence were not granted because the minister would not give his approval, what good purpose would there be in taking an appeal? As I read this new bill, it simply means that parliament is delegating authority to a semi-judicial body, while at the same time it is restricting the use and exercise of its powers. There are no safeguards under this bill against the objectional exercise or abuse of the minister's powers. The minister is being put in the position of being in control over the right of any individual to secure a. licence to operate air transportation services. As far as the board is concerned it can act only with his approval. Under this bill, if the minister were to refuse, wrongly or unfairly, to approve the issue of a licence there would be no means whereby the person aggrieved by the decision could have an appeal except to the minister himself. I submit that that is a dangerous principle. The individual would have no recourse to the courts for the preservation of his rights; however qualified he may be to have a licence, the final determinant of his rights is not this board with judicial or quasi-judicial powers, but is in fact the minister.
While the minister glibly brushes aside this argument, the fact remains that the bill in its present form confers power upon him to determine the right of a person to have a licence, however qualified that person may be, however qualified a corporation may be, to operate and to receive a licence. That person or corporation would have no recourse except to appeal to the minister. This is going a long way along the road whereby the minister becomes the determinant as to who shall or shall not operate air lines in this dominion. I should like to know why it became necessary to alter the powers which the board of transport commissioners held with respect to airways. The power of that board was absolute, subject, of course, in war time to the order in council that has been passed. Why is it necessary for the time ahead, for the days of peace which we believe are approaching, for the minister to

Petroleum Products
have such absolute powers? I submit that there is a great principle at stake and a further explanation should be given by the minister.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, June 20, 1944