1944-03-31

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) presented the second report of the standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government.

["Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) asked me what steps had been taken by the wartime prices and trade board regarding J. A. Forget, local representative of the board at Mont-Laurief. I am advised that the board has dispensed with Mr. Forget's services."]
Mr. RALSTON moved:: That Nos. 387, 388, 408 and 409 of the estimates for 1944-45, approved and reported upon by the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on March 24, in reply to an inquiry by the leader of the opposition, I said that the government had cordially welcomed the proposal that the council of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration should hold its next meeting in Canada. Hon. members will have noticed that the acting director general of the administration, Sir Arthur Salter, has announced in Washington that the next session of the council will open in Montreal on June 23. I am sure that the people of Canada are glad to know that arrangements have been made for this important international body engaged in a great humanitarian task to meet on Canadian soil. I feel that I can promise a warm welcome to the members of the council and the officers of the administration.


POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Peter Fraser, is reported to have stated in the New Zealand parliament yesterday that as an alternative to international ownership and control of post-war civil aviation New Zealand is prepared to support a system of imperial air trunk routes across the Pacific, owned and operated by British and dominion governments. In view of this announcement would the Prime Minister inform the house whether or not civil aviation will be one of the subjects on the agenda for discussion at the forthcoming meeting of commonwealth prime ministers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind enough to tell me that he intended to ask this question. In reply I would say that the meeting of prime ministers which is to be held in London will not be in the nature of an imperial conference at which subjects would be considered in detail, with the presence of experts and advisers, but will be in the nature of an exchange of views between the prime ministers of the different nations of the commonwealth on the general war situation, war policy and post-war problems.
I doubt if I should at the moment attempt to go further in indicating the general nature of the meeting.


Gordon Graydon: This would be a post-war problem, and perhaps it would come within the ambit of the discussion to be carried on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


BEEF CATTLE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I desire with the support of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) and other members, to direct a question to the acting Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that large numbers of heavy cattle are now ready for marketing, and of the inability of the producer to sell these cattle on existing live stock markets, will the Department of Agriculture through the meat board arrange to take our surplus beef off the market immediately for export at ceiling prices? Also will the govern-

Army-Beet Sugar Industry
ment refer the whole matter of marketing beef cattle and prices to the committee on agriculture for study and recommendations?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: I am not in position to give a definite answer to either of the questions asked by my hon. friend, but I shall draw them to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). In any case the latter part of the question could be dealt with after the Easter recess.


Mr. ROWE:: As the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone) has said, many cattle at this season are heavy and are finished and the farmers' feed is becoming exhausted, with market conditions unfavourable for selling at a profit. I would therefore urge upon the government that they give consideration to lifting the embargo on cattle going to the United States.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I can answer that, as it has to do with the wartime prices and trade board. The matter has been and is still under consideration.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): I have a question I should like to direct, to the Minister of Labour. I am sorry I could not get in touch with him at his office, but it may be sufficient if I refer to a telegram which I sent him the day before yesterday. This is a matter of urgent public importance, but I did not move the adjournment of the house because I thought it would delay the proceedings this afternoon. Perhaps if I read the wire the minister could give an answer. It is addressed to the minister and reads:
Many farmers holding important jobs in industry must return to farms end of this month. Impossible to get on land for some weeks yet. Cannot time be extended? Local officers say they have no power.
Can something be done in regard to this matter?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Action along the lines suggested by my hon. friend was taken before the receipt of his communication and directions have gone out to selective service officers to time the movement from industry to the farm in conformity with weather conditions.
100-129i


CANADIAN ARMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. The sugar beet acreage contracted for up to date in southwestern Ontario is only a quarter of the maximum acreage called for. This is due mainly to the doubt of sufficient labour supply being available to harvest the crop, and seeding time is at hand. In view of the rationing and scarcity of sugar I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he will release enough draftees with some farm experience from adjacent training centres to assure the growers that the crops will be harvested, if the Department of Labour are unable to supply sufficient help in the hoeing and harvesting season.
Mr. PERLEY'- Put it on the order paper.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Perhaps the question asked by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent should be placed on the order paper, but the leader of the opposition on Wednesday suggested that some latitude should be given because of the Easter recess. I agree, and I think perhaps this question might be answered now by the minister.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence)*: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to let me know that he intended to ask this question. This is really a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). However, I can say that representatives of the industry had an inter-, view with me and also with the adjutant-general. To answer my hon. friend's question specifically, the answer would be in the negative-that is, men in training centres could not be made available for this purpose. I can say further that the responsible officers, in conference with the Department of Labour, are exploring the possibility of arranging to make available a considerable number of prisoners of war. However, this would be dependent upon security arrangements being approved by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES FOR FARM WORK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Defence not give us an assurance that some of these B-2 and C men in the army will be released for farm operations in general? A great many men in those categories who are perhaps none too necessary in the army would be of great assistance to the farmers.
Chinese Nationals


James Layton Ralston: I think the parliamentary assistant made a full statement with regard to the position which the department takes, and I would rather hope that my hon. friend after reading the statement will realize that we are doing everything possible in connection with that matter. As a matter of fact we are going farther than we did last year. But my hon. friend will remember, of course, what year this is.


CHINESE NATIONALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: During the debate yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources which subsequently was partly answered by the Prime Minister. The question was based upon a communication stating that citizens of Chinese origin allegedly had been taken off trains when entering Canada. This matter formed part of the discussion yesterday but I do not think it was cleared up. It may be that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Mines and Resources can do that, but perhaps the Minister of Transport ought to look into the matter to see just what is the position of the railway companies. If there is something relating to international matters which should not be made public, I have no objection to the government's taking that position. But at the moment everyone is confused as to just what happened, and I think we ought to have a statement from one department or the other.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I stated yesterday that the lady had not been asked to leave the train by any Canadian government official. I would say further for the information of my hon. friend that she was not at any time on Canadian territory. The 'assumption therefore, although we have no definite information on this, is, it was by the railway officials of the United States line carrying her to the border point that she was asked to leave the train. Apparently no official of a Canadian railway had anything to do with the matter, any more than had any official of the immigration department.


Gordon Graydon: In other words, no Canadian had anything to do with it at all?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is my understanding.


Gordon Graydon: That is fine.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am advised definitely of this, that she was not on Canadian territory at any time, and if she was not on Canadian territory it is a reasonable assumption that she was asked to leave the train proceeding to the border probably by officials of the train.


Gordon Graydon: And it was an American train?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course, it was an
American train. .


PRICES AND TRADE BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) asked me what steps had been taken by the wartime prices and trade board regarding J. A. Forget, local representative of the board at Mont-Laurief. I am advised that the board has dispensed with Mr. Forget's services.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 28, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. McCann in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Air services branch-
3. Civil aviation: operation and maintenance of municipal (terminal) airports, $398,260.
Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, last Tuesday night I had risen to take part in the debate on civil aviation, although I had had no previous knowledge that it was coming up. There always seems to be a mystery as to when this subject will come up, yet there has never been a more urgent matter of national and international importance on which there has been such a wide division of public opinion. The minister and the government need not criticize the opposition, because, after all, what we are doing is submitting constructive suggestions. Let it not be forgotten that a whole year has been wasted in dealing with this problem, ever since April 2 of last year when the policy was announced in which the empire was not linked up at all as a unit. It will be April 2 next Sunday again, and in all that year nothing has been done about this problem. True, the

TFar Appropriation-Transport
minister did go to London last May and a conference was held there and an announcement made, but the announcement does not go far enough.
Between these two great wars, Mr. Chairman, the question of civil aviation has been almost a forgotten topic, and any work done in civil aviation has been done by private enterprise and by private companies with little or no support from the government, even in the old land. In this country civil aviation was left to private enterprise entirely. Those great war pilots, Bishop, Barker, Collishaw and Frederick Handley Page, were in Toronto after the last war and I discussed the matter of civil aviation for many days with them then and there and with Frank McGill. But as a dominion we seem to have forgotten all about civil aviation ever since the last war. We left civil aviation to struggle as best it could. Very little money was provided for it in the estimates; it was left, like John Brown's body, to hang on a sour apple tree. Then came the great war, and we have seen the glorious achievements in the air of the young Canadians who joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Air Force. In the battle of Britain our very existence was at stake, and we as a nation owe an unrepayable debt to those brave young men who went up by night and day to save the world and civilization.
In the domestic aspect of this question, in my humble opinion, mistakes have been made. In the period before the great war and between the two wars the national railways spent large sums of money on useless branch lines and duplication of facilities, while the rival road pursued the policy of private ownership. What I object to in connection with this particular policy of the government is that it is a small nation policy. I tell the government that the day of small nations is over, and that this war has shown it. Mechanized hordes have trampled down small nations all over Europe. Our resources as a people are limited; we cannot compete with the great powers; our only course is to play the game cooperatively, to lay all our cards on the table, and unite on this great problem as a unit with the mother country and our sister dominions. True it is that I approve, as I believe my party on this side of the house approve, of continuing Trans-Canada Air Lines. But one of the weaknesses of the government policy is that it omits entirely any reference to the empire as a unit, and little or nothing was said about the London conference

which had to be continued at Washington-except a quotation from Lord Beaverbrook. I have urged for four years a
unified empire policy. We as part of the empire should not forget that it is through Britain's command of sea power for the past three hundred years that the oceanic empire was developed. Let it be so again in the air.
I believe also that the Canadian Pacific Railway through its affiliations should be allowed to carry on its airways and continue the good work it has done. I do not urge this as an opponent of public ownership. I have been a real public ownership man all my life-not a supporter of public ownership in the sense that the national railways sometimes have been carried on in the past, but favouring real public ownership, for instance, of light, power and transportation utilities in the city I come from, where they were taken over and are operating at a large profit. I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway has done a great deal for the British empire on land, sea and in the air., and particularly in uniting the empire before the war through their magnificent ocean services.
So far as our domestic policy is concerned, there has been no interference by the mother country with the dominions. Each has its own status, its own sovereignty, its own autonomy. Under the statute of Westminster each dominion looks after its own home defence and domestic affairs along the lines indicated. Let us not forget that.
I repeat that we must regard the British commonwealth of nations as an air unit'. No part of that empire is more than two thousand miles away from another part. I am wholly in favour of developing an interlocking empire service. By so doing we shall forge a strong link to hold the empire together. This can be done in a whole-hearted cooperative way, and if that atttiude is taken I am sure the cooperation of the other dominions will be obtained. Mr. Fraser and Mr. Curtin, those two great imperial statesmen who are the prime ministers of New Zealand and Australia, have shown and led the way. But this can only be accomplished by subordinating sectional interests in the empire sense and not trying to gain local advantage for this country or that. Let us cut red tape and seek to deal with the matter on the principle of lease-lend, which has been so effective hitherto in this war. The dominions expect the mother country to take the lead, and if they are given an energetic lead all will be well. The position of Britain and of the empire and of this-country as a world power depends upon the place it holds in the air. The greatness of Britain as the centre of the commonwealth of nations arose from the fact that for two*
War Appropriation-Transport

hundred years she was predominant upon the sea, and she can be equally dominant in the air if only she rises to the occasion.
As regards air transportation, I think that our officers and men of the air force should be allowed to transfer to the civil organization. As regards management, I could never understand why a public ownership body like the Canadian National and T.C.A. had to go to private ownership for an air leader, nor do I understand why they should continue that policy in future. Why should they not look to the thousands of young men who are protecting us in the air overseas? Many of the best business executives we have in the country are serving us in the skies overseas. After all, who is paying for our part in this war but the Canadian taxpayer? In my opinion Trans-Canada Air Lines should be reorganized, and somebody put at the head of it who is a real public ownership man, who is not satis-a real public ownership man, who is not identi-support it from beginning to end.
It will be one year next Sunday, April 2, since the Prime Minister made an announcement of air policy. There are two or three things I like about it, but I oppose its isolation and lack of empire outlook.
Reference has been made to the selection of the Douglas DC-4 by the Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is obsolete. They say that the Lancaster is unsuited for civilian purposes, but it has been shown by Handley Page and others in the old land that some of the bombers can be readily adapted in a few days for use as transports, and also Lancasters by simple changes in design by research at Malton.
I do not believe that in connection with this aviation problem we have given sufficient attention either in this war or the last, to scientific research. As I said last evening, one needs at each large university a chair in this particular work. We know what science properly applied has done in the last seventy-five years in the utilization of oil, gas and falling water and many other agents of power and industry. It has won the admiration of the whole civilized world. Why? Because science argues from fact; it does not argue in the realm of doubt and opinion. Look at the progress which medicine has made in the last fifty years. Properly stimulated, similar progress could be made in research in the air. I believe that the government will waste a lot of money by utilizing the Douglas DC-4 for its civilian air service. A much better plan could be worked out along the lines I have indicated. Canada should try to take the lead in the field of design and should prepare a

definite policy for the next twenty-five years. Fundamental changes will occur in the future. Aviation in Canada is yet only in its infancy. Research, design and experimentation will be more important than ever. In Canada and in the empire we are on the threshold of a grand new age which will revolutionize aeroplane construction and the development of aeroplane engines. In this field high speed is essential to supremacy. Problems of all sorts arise; science and research will provide even lighter alloys and new types of wings, engines and parts which will withstand various climatic conditions the world over.
I do not think Canada should have a monopoly in connection with civil aviation, any more than she should have a monopoly in connection with design. No doubt immediately after the war improved aircraft for the transportation of passengers, emergency foods and many other articles will be absolutely necessary, because when the war is over the railways and other forms of transportation will be choked. So it will be of the utmost importance that there be close cooperation and mutual understanding between Great Britain, the United States and the dominions.
I believe this question, instead of being a secret with the minister and the government, should be considered by the committee on railways and shipping, which dealt with one aspect of this question the other day. It should hear all sides of the question. Trans-Canada Air Lines, Canadian Pacific Air Lines and private lines in this country, which carried on the work of civil aviation between the two wars, should be heard and a proper policy should be adopted. We are now embarking upon a policy of complete isolation from the mother country; we are going over the heads of Australia and New Zealand, and I say we are at the parting of the was^s. I warn hon. members of the danger; I say we should stop, look- and listen to the advice of those who have seriously considered this matter. When the young people come back from the war and look for employment, where will they find it? The other night reference was made to Russia. That country will have nothing to do with this internationalization of air routes; neither will the United States. Washington simply shudders, as does the Republican party, at the mention of any sort of internationalization which will lead to another war. I believe we should clean our domestic house first of all. We should solve the domestic air problem; then we should move into the imperial problem in consultation and collaboration with the other dominions. After that is done, and we have a real empire policy, we can move into the international sphere. The mother

War Appropriation-Transport
country led the world on the sea for two hundred years; she will lead the world in the air in the days that are to come.
I suggest to the administration that one of the most important things to be done is completely to reorganize Trans-Canada Air Lines. One of the greatest mistakes we made in this war as a people was to surrender too much military, financial, economic and social initiative to Washington. It is of the utmost importance that we should come to an agreement and understanding with the United States, our great ally, and I believe one can be reached quite easily; still I say we were asleep between the two wars. This empire came into being because of the sea and it cannot exist except by the sea. As far as the personnel of T.C.A. is concerned, I think both officers and men agree that after the war in Canada the civil service of the air should be a fine field for them, with steady work. The situation in regard to the management is most important also, and I hope the government will see that those charged with this duty will get the very best men available, whether it be left with the present minister or transferred to someone else or some other department.
Having laid down some principles as to policy, the first question to be considered will be that of the freedom of the air. The closed air doctrine following the last war gave rise to a great deal of trouble internationally. There seemed to be a great fear of allowing the passage of aircraft over countries, as by our navigation laws ships are allowed to pass over the waters of the oceans to our ports. The main point is that we should decide on the right policy and carry it through. At the present time this empire needs another Joseph Chamberlain to carry this great empire air scheme to the dominions. He was a pathfinder for the empire, and at the present time we need some great statesman as a pathfinder to deal with this air question, as it has been dealt with by Mr. Curtin in Australia and Mr. Fraser in New Zealand. The new empire in the world to come after the war is over will be held together largely through the air, and Canada will not be able to exist or prosper without a proper policy in that regard. There is no use starting out to hog all the rights in the air. The air should be free for all who wish to use it, under our domestic law; the laws of the air should be on the same basis as the laws relating to navigation by ships. Canada must not say, "We want it all in home affairs; we will not have any domestic competition." Competition is the life of free transportation, and there must be freedom
of the air under drastic regulation, in both domestic and international affairs. No one in Canada wants a mad race in connection with air transportation; that will only lead to the kind of waste we saw for thirty years in connection with rail transportation. If we follow that policy we will be back where we were in 1920 and 1922, when the two great railways in 'this country were so shortsighted that they did not see what highway transportation by buses and trucks would mean in the way of competition. These bus and truck lines would have been feeders for the steam lines if the problem had been faced intelligently, as the Toronto street railway solved it in 1921. So in the future world these small air lines and both our large ones will be feeders in connection with the air routes of the world.


Mr. HOWE:: My attention has been drawn to a statement made by Premier Drew, in the legislature of the province of Ontario, on Tuesday last. I have not read the complete text of the statement, but I have before me certain excerpts as contained in a press report of the Globe and Mail. Premier Drew stated that it was the intention of the Department of Munitions and Supply to place the contract for the manufacture of the DC-4 aircraft in the government-owned aircraft plant at Malton, Ontario, which is operated by the crown company, Victory Aircraft Limited. He charged, on what authority I have no way of knowing, that the contract was switched from the Malton plant to the plant operated by Canadian Vickers Limited in Montreal, because Mr. H. J. Symington, who is president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, which will be the chief user of the DC-4, is also an officer of the Royal Securities Corporation, a Montreal investment firm, which-and I quote Premier Drew's words-was heavily interested in the financing of Canadian Vickers Limited. Premier Drew stated further that, and I quote his words again:
Canadian Vickers Limited, by a recent deal, had passed out of the control of those who organized it and is not now controlled by Canadians, Britishers, or United States citizens.
I shall deal first with the charge that there was a change in plans on the part of the Department of Munitions and Supply with regard to the placing of the contract for the manufacture of DC-4 aircraft. A few months ago it was decided that we must undertake the manufacture of a transport aircraft for use by Trans-Canada Air Lines in services operated on this continent. It was decided, after very thorough investigation, that the type of aircraft most suitable for such service was the DC-4. Manufacturing rights
War Appropriation-Transport

were obtained from the Douglas Aircraft Company Inc., of the United States, and immediate plans were made for production. In selecting the plant in which the DC-4 would be manufactured, we had to be very certain that the production did not interfere with urgent war programmes. We selected the government-owned plant in Montreal, which is operated by Canadian Vickers Limited, because the programme on which that plant is now engaged will terminate late this year. The government-owned plant at Malton is just coming into volume productic"'. on a very large order for Lancaster bombers. The Lancaster bomber is, as I have already told the house, the airplane that now has the highest priority in Canadian production. We could not possibly have given consideration to the placing of the DC-4 contract in the Malton plant under these circumstances, and I may say that at no time was there any intention of doing so. The only interpretation I am able to place on Premier Drew's remarks is that we should have permitted the production of an aircraft for civilian use to take precedence over the production ()f a bomber aircraft which at this very moment is the most urgent of all aircraft requirements overseas, and this as a concession to sectional interests. Since Premier Drew has made reference to the question of employment I may say that the Lancaster programme in terms of dollar value is the largest aircraft programme we have undertaken. So far as we can now estimate, the dollar value of production at the Malton plant of the complete programme will be in the neighbourhood of 200 million dollars. The contract for the production of the DC-4 is a small contract as aircraft contracts go, having a dollar value in the order of fifteen million dollars. The employees of the Malton plant, to whom Premier Drew obviously has directed certain of his remarks, will appreciate the significance of these figures in terms of continuous employment. So much for the placing of the contract.
I come now to the second of Mr. Drew's charges, that concerning Mr. H. J. Symington. Mr. Symington is president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, a director of Canadian National Railways, and also power controller. In all these positions he has rendered distinguished service to Canada. I have no hesitation in saying that he has been one of my most valued advisers, both during my term of office as Minister of Transport and during the years I have been Minister of Munitions and Supply. He has never hesitated to undertake any public responsibility I have entrusted to him, even when this involved great personal sacrifice. I would remind the house that this is the second occasion on which Premier Drew has
[Mr Howe.]
made a personal attack' on Mr. Symington. The specific charge is that Mr. Symington has used his office as president of Trans-Canada Air Lines to further the interests of a private corporation with w-hich he is associated. What are the facts? The Royal Securities Corporation, of which Mr. Symington is an officer, has no financial interest in Canadian Vickers Limited. When the bonds of Canadian Vickers were first offered to the public, in 1927, the Royal Securities Corporation was one of a ' number of financial houses which distributed these bonds. Otherwise the company has not had any connection with either the financing or the management of Canadian Vickers. Further, I may state categorically that Mr. Symington was not consulted about the placing of the DC-4 contract, nor had he any knowledge of the intention of this department with regard to the placing of the contract until the contract had actually been placed.
The third charge of Premier Drew was that the control of Canadian Vickers Limited had passed into the hands of persons who are not British or United States citizens. The committee will recall that this question was raised a few days ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I stated at the time that it was not the practice of the Department of Munitions and Supply to inquire into the stock control of its contractors, since companies incorporated in Canada were subject always to the provisions of the Companies Act. However, in view of Premier Drew's charge, I have investigated the stock control of Canadian Vickers Limited. Of a total issue of 19,000 preferred shares, residents of Canada hold 13,614; residents of the United States hold 413; of Newfoundland 167; of England 83; and of Bermuda 35. The remaining 4,688 shares, or 24-67 per cent, are held by a Canadian investment corporation known as Losanac Limited. Of a total issue of 52,000 shares of common stock, Canadian residents own 36,680; residents of the United States 3,302; of Bermuda 325; of England 253; and of Newfoundland 20. The remaining 11,420 shares, or 21-96 per cent of the total issue of common stock, are also held by Losanac Limited. It will be seen from this analysis of stock control that 75-33 per cent of the preferred stock and 78-04 per cent of the common stock is held by British and United States citizens. Colonel Drew's statement that the stock control is now in the hands of persons who are not British or United States citizens is, to say the least, something of an exaggeration. Since the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar inquired into the ownership of Losanac Limited, I have also investigated the control of this company. It is owned by Solvay et Cie., a Belgian banking

War Appropriation-Transport
firm, whose affairs are now administered by Baron Rene Boel. Baron Boel is a resident of London, England, and is adviser to the Belgian government (appointed by order in council to that official position), which is now located in that city. Losanac Limited has not now and never has had any connection with any holding company in Basle, Switzerland. There is not now and never has been any German interest of any kind in the company. The Belgian banking firm, Solvay et Cie., decided to invest Belgian funds in Canada. For this purpose a Canadian company, Losanac Limited was incorporated. The president of this company and its officers are Canadians. Since reference was also, made to the holdings of Losanac Limited in the International Nickel Company, Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines, Dominion Steel and Coal Company, and the Asbestos Corporation, I have also ascertained that the company is not a large holder of the preferred or common stock of the International Nickel Company or Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited. The company has substantial holdings in the Dominion Steel and Coal Company and the Asbestos Corporation, but these do not approach control of the stock of these corporations.
The Belgian ambassador has drawn my attention to the statement made in the House of Commons on March 28 with reference to Losanac Limited. He was much concerned with the implications attached thereto, as they were likely to cast aspersions on the Belgain interests concerned. He expressed the hope that they might be corrected and assured me that Baron Boel has rendered and is rendering distinguished services to his government.
The facts which I have submitted to the committee will indicate how much truth there is in the charges made by Premier Drew. These facts were available to Premier Drew, but with his customary omniscience in all matters affecting the conduct of the war he has thought it desirable to make his charges without ascertaining the facts. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that irresponsible statements of this kind are most damaging to Canada's war effort, particularly when they come from one who occupies a high position in Canadian public life.


Gordon Graydon: I had not intended taking any part in this debate until the minister made his almost unprovoked attack upon the premier of Ontario.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about his attack?


Gordon Graydon: I did not interrupt the minister when he was making his speech, and I want to make mine with as few interruptions as the minister can possibly arrange. May I say-


Mr. HANSELL:: I rise to a point of order. I understood that we were discussing civil aviation. I believe the Minister of Munitions and Supply interrupted the debate to make a statement. As a courtesy we give that right to the ministers. If the statement is to be debated I am afraid we shall go off on a long course and may not be able to return to civil aviation this afternoon. I do not want to prevent the leader of the opposition from speaking. I think perhaps he should answer the minister, but let us not get off on a sidetrack now. Let us return to civil aviation when the leader of the opposition gets through.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann):: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Macleod? I think the minister was quite within his rights in speaking as he did, because in my opinion, the matter to which he refers comes within the purview of civil aviation.
A'fr. GRAYDON: I shall not be very long. As I stated at the beginning, I had no desire to take part in the debate at this stage. But the points which the minister injected into this discussion require some comments, I believe, from the official opposition. Not only did the minister make certain statements that I think were unbecoming to him, but he went too far in the remarks he made. So far as the Malton situation is concerned I do not think Premier Drew of Ontario, or any other premier of that province, needs to have anyone offer any apologies for him when he attempts to be the spokesman for what he considers to be in the best interests of the province of which he is head at this time.
I have not, nor apparently has the minister, seen any exact record of what Premier Drew said, except what appeared in the press. But on that statement we must rely, so far as this discussion goes. It seems to me that the premier of Ontario was definitely drawing to the attention of the minister and the government the fact that the Victory Aircraft plant at Malton is a plant which perhaps has no peer or parallel in the whole of Canada, in the production of aeroplanes. I think the minister himself will admit that.
Not only is the Malton plant in an excellent position for future production, but it has turned out in production a kind of plane which we, in the Malton area, have felt would1 be utilized in connection with what the minister said last spring-for civil aviation in the future, and for the great development of air transports in the peace-time period that, let us hope, will follow. I think the minister, in

War Appropriation-Transport
making the charge he did against the premier of Ontario to-day does a disservice not only to Ontario, but also to the Dominion of Canada, so far as his allegations went.
We have at Malton some 9,000 employees who are working on Lancaster planes. It is a production which is gradually being stepped up, and that production was brought about under circumstances which in years prior to this presented certain difficulties. The Malton plant is situated contiguous to perhaps one of the greatest airports on the continent. There is no other plant in the -whole of Canada in a better position geographically, and from the production point of view, to turn out that type of plane, to serve the post-war trade in the manufacture of planes, than is the Victory Aircraft plant. And upon that basis-well, I do not wish to be uncharitable to the hon. member for Fort William, but he will do the minister a favour if he does not interrupt me at this time.
I wish to say this to the minister, that with regard to the position of that plant, there was every reason for the premier of Ontario to take the position he did with respect to the post-war period as it will affect Malton. There has been a tremendous development there. Many people have been brought in. The whole district is developing, and is looking forward with eager expectancy to the post-war manufacturing of planes. That has been the whole -shall I say-Malton idea, from beginning to end, so that it may not be a mushroom settlement, and so that it will be more than a temporary move.
When the minister announced, quite out of the blue, to the house that the DC-4 was being made at Vickers in Montreal, I fancy- and I think most hon. members will agree-* that that was greeted with dismay by those in the Malton area, and others in that particular part of Canada, where they are looking forward with keen anticipation to what will happen in the post-war period. They have the right to hope that the wheels will be turning to the manufacture of peace-time planes in that area, as they are turning at this time of war to the manufacture of Lancasters.
In addition to that there was the feeling, and I think perhaps with justification, that the .Lancaster has no peer in the way of performance in that type of aviation, or in the same type of aviation as will be required for civil aviation when the war is over. When Premier Drew undertook to champion-and that is the word, "champion"-the plant at Malton, and the Victory Aircraft company, he was trying to make sure that those 9,000 men and women would be kept working when this war is over, in a civil aviation plant, as they are now working in the war-time period.

That is why I do not think anyone need apologize for the stand Premier Drew took in the Ontario legislature, and I am not going to do so. I am going to commend him for having done it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Go to it.


Gordon Graydon: May I say this, that when the Minister of Munitions and Supply in his reply to Premier Drew which appeared in the press-as I read it-in connection with the Lancaster matter, talked about transferring and changing the orders-well, I do not know whether he was serious. I certainly hope he was not serious when he made the suggestion with respect to changing and transferring orders at this time from Lancasters at Malton to DC-4's at Malton.
I think the minister must have been pretty hard up for an argument, when he used that, after all the tooling up that has been done at Malton during all these years. I say that because the minister must have known, as every member who read the statement by Premier Drew knew, that the premier had no intention, nor have I the intention this afternoon, of suggesting that we should at this moment change the manufacture of Lancasters in Malton during a war-time year into peacetime production, nor would any responsible citizen suggest that.
But the Minister of Munitions and Supply, apparently for his own purposes, and to bolster up and support his argument, attempted to place another interpretation upon the words of the premier. That is not the way to meet Premier Drew's arguments. The way to attempt to meet his arguments is to try to bring the true facts to bear with respect to the whole problem under discussion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Premier Drew made no argument.


Gordon Graydon: Well, let me tell the minister that the premier is able to look after himself very well, so that we will all go on our way together.
When the minister speaks of the premier of Ontario as being irresponsible, then I say the minister knows full well that that is not right. Premier Drew of Ontario is as responsible a public man as there is in the whole Dominion of Canada. More than that, the premier of Ontario has, I think, the confidence of his province in a way that the minister and his followers would like veiy much to have in that province to-day.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will look after ourselves.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the reason why the minister, who comes from Ontario, may

War Appropriation-Transport
feel keenly about this matter, is that he is afraid of losing his seat, and the same would apply to * the hon. member who was going to rise-


An hon. MEMBER:: Haldimand-Norfolk.


Gordon Graydon: -and to the hon. member from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation who has just spoken, that the Haldimand-Norfolk seat was just taken from his party, too. May I say to the government whip, over there, that he is representing Norfolk, and must know what his situation is in relation to that seat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This whole thing is political, is it not?


Gordon Graydon: Let me say this, that when the minister talks about irresponsibility, that is a reflection not only upon the premier, but also upon his legislature and upon his government. More than that, it is a reflection upon the people of Ontario who sent the Minister of Munitions and Supply to this house.
I want to say this, that when we talk about a contribution, and the position taken by the premier of Ontario, and when the minister says he has been damaging Canada, then I say that the record of the premier of Ontario is of such a character both in war and in peace that no one can stand up honestly and draw the interpretation, as the minister has done to-day that George Drew is not a patriotic, honest and well-meaning citizen, one who is trying to do his best, and has tried his best through all these years to prod a very dull, stolid and slow government into war-time action.


Mr. SHAW:: Mr. Chairman, now that there is a lull in the Ottawa-Ontario battle, I hope to be able to direct attention back to civil aviation. On March 17 the Minister of Munitions and Supply gave to the House of Commons the government's views regarding civil aviation, both domestic and international. At the conclusion of his presentation he placed upon the record a draft of an international air transport convention, which I judge was the government's contribution to future international discussion. As I approach the question of civil aviation I consider it imperative that I bear in mind that the minister indicated that the views which he expressed and the convention which he tabled must be regarded as tentative or preliminary, and may be rejected at a future date-this is my view and perhaps not the minister's-by the partners in the commonwealth or by any of the allies with whom we are now associated. During the
short time at my disposal I shall try to place some of my views before the committee.
Upon more than one occasion I have stated in this chamber that I condemn centralized monopoly control, whether by a private corporation or by a government, whether on land or in the air. I consider it to be totalitarian in nature and anti-democratic in operation. Of the two I fear government monopoly more than I fear private monopoly. So far as private monopoly is concerned, there is always the hope that the government, which should be the supreme authority in the state since it is the people, may legislate or act under existing legislation to break a private monopoly. As I say, there is always that hope. On the other hand, so far as government monopoly is concerned, there is no force within the country, unless the people reach the stage where they rise in revolution, to break the monopoly. I repeat that I fear government monopoly more than I fear private monopoly, but I have absolutely no use for either.
I do not think I am going too far when I assert that anyone who subscribes to a form of state monopoly is extolling the virtues of countries such as those against whom we are warring to-day. The Minister of Munitions and Supply, I judge-I have the right to my own opinion-was making a complete denunciation of the principle of competition. I would assert that as a result of the minister's declaration the government has gone on record as favouring at least a degree of state monopoly. It is strange for one sitting over here to understand how a minister of the crown or a private member of the government party can stand up and criticize, let us say the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, for advocating state control and then, by approving the action of the government with which he is associated, take rapid strides in that direction.
I do not know by what reasoning or calculation it can be argued that a government which, either through lack of vision or through lack of energy of management, cannot manage an enterprise in competition with another enterprise yet hope, after the elimination of the competitive enterprise, to render to the people, of the country a superior type of service at prices which would be established by competition or which would satisfy the public interest to a greater extent. I am not sure that I have made my point clear. Let me repeat. If we have a government owned enterprise and a privately operated enterprise, and the government, because of the nature of its operations, cannot compete with the private enterprise and render the necessary

War Appropriation-Transport
service, then I cannot see how they can eliminate the other and hope to render a higher type of service.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply re-* ferred to our airmen and many hon. members have referred to our airmen on previous occasions. We have a great deal of admiration for their magnificent accomplishments and we look forward to the day when they will return. We realize that they have had considerable training and naturally when they return will be intensely interested in civil aviation. Their exploits demonstrate that they have been properly trained. There is also the fact that the commonwealth air training scheme has been in operation in this country. This has instilled in the minds of the Canadian people a great enthusiasm with respect to post-war aviation possibilities. Added to this we know the Canadian people are fully aware of the extent and development of transport services during the war. We know they recognize that all services have been speeded up as a consequence of the utilization of air transport.
When these lads return after the war they are going to look for opportunities to engage in aviation. After the last war this was true. Many of our pilots, mechanics and others returning at that time undertook the carrying on of their interests in the northland, but so far as I have been able to ascertain these boys in almost every instance were financed or at least employed by mining companies, petroleum companies and other companies interested in the development of the northland, and these enterprises themselves were also assisted by the government by the granting of mail contracts. I am not aware that many of these young men returning from the last war were able to finance the establishment of any air routes in any part of Canada.
After this war we look, according to the minister's statement, to a rich new opportunity for our airmen so far as branch air routes are concerned. I am sure that these boys when they come back will not have very much money, and I am sure they will look for assistance if they engage in aviation. I wonder if it is the government's intention to finance the establishment of companies in which these boys might be interested, operating over unprofitable routes. I wonder if we may have in civil aviation after the war something comparable with what happened in land settlement after the last war, when many men were put on unproductive land, placed upon farms on which no one should have been placed. I wonder if we shall have a repetition of that so far as civil aviation is concerned after this war. In other words, is the government going to purchase unprofit-

able feeder lines or establish new lines of an unprofitable nature? If it purchases unprofitable feeder lines or establishes new lines that are unprofitable, I fear, too, that we shall have a situation where ultimately privately owned lines will be taken over by the government at an over-capitalized valuation. We have had that experience in connection with the railroads. The government undertook to engage in that enterprise and purchased overcapitalized railways which plunged the countiy into debt, where incidentally it remains. Surely if we are not careful in regard to civil aviation, the Canadian people are in for a most disillusioning experience.
As I said a few moments ago, Canadians are intensely interested in post-war aviation possibilities. The present working range of transport aircraft fascinates the Canadian people. I recall reading only a few days ago about the transport aircraft recently manufactured by the Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Company of Baltimore. Many have no doubt read about this machine, known as the Mars, with a wing spread of two hundred feet and a capacity equal to almost fifteen rooms of a dwelling, a craft which is able to lift a load of seventy-four tons, including the weight of the ship, the crew, the gas and the cargo. Only recently this aircraft flew non-stop to Brazil and returned non-stop, a total distance of 8,972 miles. That and other experiences and other knowledge in connection with air transport developments have interested our people greatly.
The Canadian people also know that the most economic air routes to Europe and Asia will traverse Canadian territory and/or the British possessions, namely, Labrador and Newfoundland. We know that the much discussed great, circle route over the north polar regions to Europe and Asia also crosses Canada. It has been suggested by some that from a geographical point of view the city of Winnipeg will become the aviation centre of North America. But I prefer to look upon Edmonton as the logical jumping-off point, so that naturally I see a greater future for that city so far as civil aviation is concerned.
*Our Canadian people know that after this war we shall have in this country those vast installations, many of them in the northwest, which have been established by the United States government but become the property of Canada after the war. This ground apparatus throughout the northwest is on a direct route to Europe and Asia.
As I have already said, the British commonwealth air training plan will turn out for us approximately one-quarter of a million young

War Appropriation-Transport
men who will have developed aviation skills. That number is exclusive of aircraft construction employees.
There are a number of difficulties in the way of developing our civil aviation, and these are matters to which we should give consideration and about which the minister should make an explanation. My observations lead me to believe that Canada has not, I think it is fair to say, what might be called an integrated aircraft industry. I am not familiar with the fact, if it is a fact, that we are manufacturing anywhere in Canada aircraft engines which by the wildest stretch of imagination could be used in commercial aircraft. Moreover, I think it is quite true that we have had no experience in the commercial construction of such aircraft, or in connection with their designing. We shall have to look to other countries in order to secure at least parts of the aircraft which we shall find it necessary to use if we are to play any part at all in commercial aviation immediately after the war.
That brings me to this question. I have heard some people say: We will go to Britain and get our aircraft engines and our aircraft there. Others say: We will go to the United States and get our aircraft engines and our aircraft there. But what is the situation in Britain? Let me quote a short item which I read not long ago in connection with Britain:
The British realize that unless they secure a position in the air commensurate with the position which they have held on the seas, the systems of communication binding them to their colonies and dominions must rapidly deteriorate.
In Britain they have developed a tremendous aircraft industry, but their manufacture of aircraft has been confined largely to the bomber and fighter types, types which will not be of value in commercial aviation after the war. Moreover, the need for bombers and fighters, as we all realize, will continue until the last day of the war. Therefore, when we pass into the day following the cessation of hostilities Britain is not going to be able to step out and undertake extensive commercial aviation projects without help herself. I think it is only reasonable to suppose that Canada will not be able to look to Britain for the aircraft which she will of necessity need in order to engage in commercial aviation on an international scale, yes, even on a domestic scale, at least for some years. Some say: We will get the aircraft in the United States. Anyone who has read at all will realize that in vast urban sections of the United States the people have seen their lives violently changed during this war by the growth of the aircraft industry. It is said that over two and one-quarter millions of
young people in that country have been trained as pilots, navigators and maintenance crews.
Here is the important feature: the United States has specialized in the construction of modified commercial aircraft during this war. In other words, the United States has already a five year lead in the manufacture of commercial aircraft. I do not believe it is large enough to absorb the entire production of the aircraft industry which has been developed there during this war. There is going to be economic pressure applied because of wartime investments in this industry in the United States, and a concerted effort made to force it beyond the bounds of the country. In making this statement I do not want to be misunderstood. If they utilize the facilities which they possess there will not be business enough in the country to occupy more than a part of those facilities. Therefore they will look elsewhere with a view to broadening out and utilizing the commercial aircraft which they will have the day the war ends. In passing, may I point out that under the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration the United States is granting SI-35 billions worth of food stuffs and other materials to nations that will require her help, every dollar of which, do not forget, will be a calling card in connection with the development of United States commercial aviation ojitside its own country. Is it or can it be considered fantastic for me to assume that the United States will hasten.to establish a type of air supremacy after the war which it did not hold on the set before the war? Would it, on the other hand, be fantastic for me to assume that Great Britain, in an endeavour to break what I may call a monopoly which it is quite conceivable the United States will undertake to establish, will abandon any connection or association with a policy such as that to which Canada is at present committed?
The hon. member for Lake Centre, during the course of his remarks the other day, referred to Russia. I also am intensely interested in the attitude of mind which Russia may have towards Canada's proposal. It is certain that the government has in mind some indication of the feelings which may be expected in that quarter, because it can hardly be possible that Canada would advance a proposal for international aviation unless she was reasonably assured as to the reception it would have in other important countries.
The whole matter of civil aviation, domestic and international, should be most carefully scrutinized. We must have a complete picture. From time to time, I am sure, representatives of the government will meet with

War Appropriation-Transport
others in regard to the matter, not only those representing the nations of the commonwealth and the allies, but the neutrals.
Moreover, it is difficult to anticipate the possibilities either under this proposal or any other, because any policy we lay down will develop only as world circumstances permit. If there is to be war after war, or threat of war after threat of war, it is futile for us to deceive ourselves into believing that any country which feels itself threatened will permit foreign aircraft to fly over its land at will or pick up passengers or any private cargo.
One wonders, too, what consideration has been given to this question in its relation to those countries which now are our enemies. I know it is stated in the convention that it is assumed that an overriding treaty of peace will determine the obligations and rights of the defeated powers under this convention. Well, the thought which comes to my mind, as we try to build a picture of this whole thing is, what is the attitude toward Germany and Italy likely to be after the war? There are some, of course, who foolishly believe that it is possible completely to exterminate a nation. No matter how bitterly one may feel toward a nation, it is utterly inconceivable that anyone who has given it a thought would believe extermination possible or desirable. I do not want to have that statement misunderstood. But if these countries are to continue to exist after tbe war, as they will, most careful consideration must be given to the' parts they may play in such a scheme. If you are not going to let them take part they will force their way in, and as soon as they undertake to do that we shill have a repetition of the conditions which we have already experienced.
We believe firmly in cooperation among the nations. We believe firmly that without cooperation we cannot succeed in any international aviation policy. We are opposed to coercion and to the imposition by any power bloc of its will upon other countries, because there will be no cooperation as far as some nations are concerned once they realize that such a power bloc is endeavouring to impose its will upon them. Every possible avenue should be explored to encourage cooperation. I think that as the days and months go by we shall be able to form a better picture of the degree of cooperation which may be expected. But what we are intensely interested in is the possible reaction of the United States and Great Britain' to this Canadian proposal. We read a good deal, but we do not always believe what we read. Men make observations, but of course we do not always know who these men are or whether they speak with authority.	[DOT]

Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman, we are intensely interested in the development of domestic civil aviation after this war. We are very much opposed to the government endeavouring to establish any monopoly. We are very much opposed to any private enterprise establishing a monopoly in this or any other field. In the international field we believe there should be the utmost cooperation. We realize that it is imperative for the countries to get together in connection with this matter; but at the same time we are opposed to power tactics in an effort to impose upon certain weaker countries conditions which ultimately will lead to rvorld conflict.


Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to
take part in this discussion on Canada's air policy I must say that I feel this to be one of the most important subjects that could be considered by the Canadian House of Commons, and I have no doubt that thought- is in the minds of all other hon. members here to-day. We on the Pacific coast are particularly concerned about air policy. Out there Trans-Canada Air Lines has meant a great deal, because it has drawn us so much nearer to the centre of Canada. The air line from the coast into the Yukon, now operated by Canadian Pacific Air Lines, also has meant a great deal to us; and the different routes that have been flown along our coast and into our hinterland have aided a great deal in developing our province.	,
For many years we have been particularly concerned about the establishment of an air route that would run from British Columbia to our sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand, so that to-day I was pleased to see a press report to the effect that the Prime Minister of New Zealand was ready and willing to negotiate an agreement with Canada, Great Britain and Australia, under which an air route would be established across the Pacific ocean to those dominions. He even went farther and stated that his dominion would be willing to have the United States a party to any such agreement. That is a significant development and means a great deal to Canadians not only on the Pacific coast but also in other parts of our country.
This whole question of our air policy lies very near to our hearts, as the hon. member for Red Deer has so aptly said, because young Canadians have taken so well to flying. We all know the record they made in the last war; we know the large number of Canadians who belonged to the Royal Flying Corps and the wonderful deeds they performed. Then, when they came back they opened up our north country by their bush flying. In fact, at the time Trans-Canada Air Lines was established Can-

War Appropriation-Transport
ada flew more freight and express, and I think more mail, than any other nation. Practically all that flying was into our northern country, and it was all carried on by these bush pilots. In the present war the young men of this generation have carried on the traditions of the young men of the last war, and perhaps have even exceeded the wonderful deeds of those who took part in that war. Flying seems to be in line with the courage and initiative of the Canadian people. Therefore I suggest that any air policy to be adopted by this nation must be a bold policy first and last, whether it be in the domestic or in the international field.
With that thought in mind, that a Canadian air policy must be first of all a bold policy, I should like to turn to the policies that have been announced by the government, dealing first with the domestic air policy. I have been surprised and disappointed to find in this domestic air policy signs that the government is becoming hesitant about flying, that the policy is becoming ingrown and petty. I say that for these reasons. In the first place, throughout his statement the minister stressed competition. He seemed to be very much afraid of competition in Canada, afraid that Trans-Canada Air Lines could not compete with Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Right through the picture there seemed to be the fear that there would be too much flying in Canada, more than we could stand; and really I thought he displayed an inferiority complex in discussing flying within our own country. Then he emphasized the danger o' letting our railways have anything to do with air travel. That was really amazing, for it was a direct reversal of his statement at the time Trans-Canada Air Lines was set up. I have in my hand Hansard for March 25, 1937, where the minister dealt with this very point. At page 2216 he said:
In my view it is only reasonable that the railways should have a part in the development of air transportation. In the first place they are in the transportation business; and in the operation of air lines there are problems in common with the operation of railways. For instance, both must have ticket offices; both must have facilities for soliciting express and passenger business. The legal problems of both are more or less on a par, and a legal staff trained to railway transportation matters would be valuable in air matters. I could set out many other points where the services are more or less parallel.
The next year he shepherded through the house what was known as the Transport Act, which set up a board of transport commissioners for Canada. One of the main features of that act was that it gave what had formerly been known as the railway commission jurisdiction over the air lines. In section 3, subsection 2 of that act we find these words:
It shall be the duty of the board to perform the functions vested in the board by this act and by the Railway Act with the object of coordinating and harmonizing the operations of all carriers engaged in transport by railways, ships and aircraft and the board shall give to this act and to the Railway Act such fair interpretation as will best attain the object aforesaid.
In other words, the position then was that it was wise to have a transportation company handle air transport, and I suggest for the consideration of the committee that nothing has happened in the interim to change that position. Another sign of hesitancy was that the minister stressed the danger of letting feeder or pioneer lines become strong. As reported at page 1573 of Hansard for this year he said:
The government believes that feeder line operations, and pioneer lines into our northland, can best be developed as small operations.
Apparently the minister is no longer satisfied that the board of transport commissioners should be in charge of the airways, for he wants to have what is to be known as an air transport board. It all looks as though the minister were afraid of his own transport board. Then he proposes to push the Canadian National Railways out of the air picture. So far as I know they have done a grand job in operating Trans-Canada Air Lines, but now they are to go out of the picture. He proposes also to smash Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Again at page 1573 of Hansard he said:
Steps will be taken to require our railways to divest themselves of ownership of air lines, to the end that, within a period of one year from the ending of the European war, transport by air will be entirely separate from surface transportation.
I thought the minister showed a vindictive spirit towards the Canadian Pacific Air Lines in several parts of his speech. Frankly I do not believe that a sound, stable policy of government can be based on spite or vindictiveness. Yet altogether too much of that appeared throughout the minister's statement. For example, he said that the Canadian Pacific Railways had not been willing to come in when Trans-Canada Air Lines was formed. He said that they had been getting more equipment than Trans-Canada Air Lines, although he did go on to explain that probably the reason they were able to do so was that they had been doing so much flying into the Yukon and the Mackenzie river basin, helping the Americans in the development of the Alaska highway and the Canol project and got planes through the United States Army to do that work. However, he seemed to be very much hurt and very vindictive because they had been able to get planes. He then said

War Appropriation-Transport
they were competing too much and challenging Trans-Canada Air Lines. Well, we have the Transport Act and the board of transport commissioners whose duty it is to prevent things like that. Surely all the minister had to do was to see that the board carried out its duties. There is an atmosphere of spite throughout the whole thing which I greatly deprecate.
In fact the domestic air policy of Canada as announced by the minister the other day is a government monopoly of all routes in Canada except the small operations. Anything that looks like a real airline or an efficient company is not to be allowed to exist under this policy. Therefore I repeat that the domestic air policy is becoming ingrown and petty and, I think, also dictatorial. I do not believe the Canadian people will approve it when they understand what the policy means.
What is the picture of flying in Canada at the moment? Trans-Canada airways, as the name implies, was founded to fly the Trans-Canada route. That was made very clear at the time the line was set up. The Trans-Canada Air Lines Act was passed in 1937 and is chapter 43 of the statutes of that year. It sets out in several places that the line is to extend across Canada; that it is to be a coast to coast line. The minister also made it clear during the course of the debate in that session. I refer to page 2042 of Hansard for 1937, where the minister used the following language:
This company will fly only the main artery of traffic across the country, and such other arteries of traffic as are designated by the government as being of national importance. It is not the intention to interfere with any existing operations. The company will not undertake other than interurban services.
The Prime Minister in announcing Canada's
air policy a year ago repeated in effect the statement made by the minister in 1937. At page 1777 of Hansard of 1943, the Prime Minister said:
The development of supplementary routes will continue to be left to private enterprise, unless considerations of public interest indicate that certain of these routes should be designated by the government as routes to be operated by T.C.A.
And again at page 1778 he said:
There will remain a large field for the development of air transport in which private Canadian companies may participate, and, while preventing duplication of services, the government will continue to encourage private companies to develop services as traffic possibilities may indicate.
Apparently that policy has been changed within the last year. Trans-Canada has gone on as was intended, and has made great

progress. It has extended its lines by flying to the United Kingdom and one line to the United States. It is doing a grand job under the supervision of the Canadian National Railways. There seems to be no reason why it cannot continue to progress as it has done in the past. In the meantime the Canadian Pacific Air Lines are operating strong feeder lines, I hold in my hand the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. A map appears in this report showing the air lines, and shows practically all of them are north and south lines. They are operated by some of the leading bush pilots of earlier days; some of these young men who showed the courage and the initiative to go out and fly these bush routes are now air executives of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines. It may be that the directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines have not given a similar chance to their bright young flyers. It might be a good idea for the minister to check that to see whether old age is not holding back the energy of the boys who fly in his own Trans-Canada Air Lines. In any event the Canadian Pacific Air Lines are providing an efficient service. These lines have meant a great deal in the development of northern Canada and in the war years to the construction of the Alaska highway and the Canol project. Most of the lines were formerly flown by Canadian Airways Limited, which was the great pioneer in the air routes of the north. Incidentally that line was developed by the late James Richardson of Winnipeg who perhaps deserves as much credit as any other business man of Canada for the development of flying in this nation. So much for the Canadian Pacific Air Lines.
As far as the pioneer lines are concerned I realize that there are very few small bush lines in operation at the present time. The reason for that is that gold mining is down. Very little gold mining is being done and therefore there is very little work for these bush pilots to do. But as soon as gold mining revives there will be more scope for operations of that type.
In the air picture as it exists at present we also have the board of transport commissioners, an independent board set up as a judicial body. They are not supposed to be influenced by the government and I do not think they are. I sometimes suspect the fact that they are not sufficiently under the government's wing is one of the reasons why the minister wants to get a new board. Section 5 of the Transport Act sets out how this board of transport commissioners must treat an application. It reads as follows:

War Appropriation-Transport
Before any application for a licence is granted for the transport of goods and/or passengers under the provisions of this act, the board shall determine whether public convenience and necessity require such transport, and in so determining the board may take into consideration, inter alia,-
(a)	any objection to the application which may be made by any person or persons who are already providing transport facilities, whether by rail, water or air, on the routes or between the places which the applicant intends to serve on the ground that suitable facilities are or, if the licence were issued, would be in excess of requirements, or on the ground that any of the conditions of any other transport licence held by the applicant have not been complied with;
(b)	whether or not the issue of such licence would tend to develop the complementary rather than the competitive functions of the different forms of transport, if any, involved in such objections;
(c)	the general effect on other transport services and any. public interest wrhich may be affected by the issue of such licence;
(d)	the quality and permanence of the service to be offered by the applicant and his financial responsibility, including adequate provision for the protection of passengers, shippers and the general public by means of insurance.
In other words, the board of transport commissioners have power to see that all these companies are fair in their operations. Even Trans-Canada Air Lines has on occasion run foul of the board of transport commissioners. About a year ago_ they applied for a licence to fly passengers from Vancouver to Victoria, and the board held at that time that public convenience and necessity did not require further air transportation facilities for carrying passengers or goods between those two points, there having been for some years a line operated, first of all by Canadian Airways, and then by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. It may be that the board of transport commissioners require more power to meet present-day conditions. If so, let us give it to them.
But I do suggest that in the domestic field there is plenty of room for all three. If we have any kind of bold air policy for Canada, then I say there is plenty of room for all three-for Trans-Canada Air Lines, for strong, well-run feeder lines and for pioneer lines. And by the way, the pioneer lines might very *well be helped by the industrial development bank being set up at this session. The policy should be that of helping each of those to expand, the board of transport commissioners keeping each in its proper sphere. If that is done, if a policy of that kind is attempted, I am sure Canada will be far better served than she would be under the domestic air policy which the minister has offered the nation in the last few days.
Then, to come to the government's announced international air policy, we note that that policy paints a very rosy picture. In that regard it is just like my good friends in the C.C.F. They are always experts at painting rosy pictures over the river, but they never say how we are to get across.


Gordon Graydon: You might get drowned.


Howard Charles Green: The international air policy is much like that. Unfortunately the rosy picture it paints is a long way off. Not only is it after the war, but also it is after an international air transport authority has been set up. Perhaps it may not be in effect until after an international security organization has been established-in other words, some sort of league of nations. That is probably decades away from the present time. There will be a period of years in which all that will be done will be the building up of a protecting wall behind which some world peace organization can be established; but the government's policy is good only for a time after a world-wide organization has been established.
I do not suppose there is a member in the chamber who does not favour this rosy picture; or who is not in favour of some such sort of plan. But in the meantime I suggest the government should come down to earth, and give Canadians a little guidance, give us some policy for the present so far as international airways are concerned, and for the period from the cease-fire until the setting up of this international air transport authority.
We have got down to earth only in our dealings with the United States. No doubt it was the Americans who forced the government to get down to earth-and quickly-on that subject. With the United States we have bilateral agreements covering routes between the two nations. As the minister said the other night, under these agreements Canada has one route, and the Americans have eight. Up to the present they are not doing badly. Canada has a route from Toronto to New York, and the Americans have routes from Moncton to Bangor, New York to Montreal, Buffalo to Toronto, Buffalo to Windsor, Fargo to Winnipeg, Great Falls to Lethbridge, Seattle to Vancouver, and Fairbanks and Juneau, Alaska, to Whitehorse. In addition the minister said there was a war-time agreement with the Americans by which they got permission to fly an air route from Seattle to Juneau. Canada, on the other hand, is proposing to ask some day

apparently she has not yet done so-for a route from Whitehorse to Fairbanks.

War Appropriation-Transport
That is the position between Canada and the United States, brought about by these bilateral agreements. Under the international air policy now advocated by the government, air traffic between Canada and the United States has been carefully excluded from the proposed convention. It will still be arranged by bilateral agreement. There is in the convention a provision for what are known as contiguous states, and the minister mentioned the example of Canada and the United States as contiguous states, under the convention.
There is no provision in the convention for dealing with the empire. At page 1576 of Hansard the minister said that Canada was scrapping the north Atlantic agreement, which was negotiated between the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland and Newfoundland in 1935 and 1936, and provided for the flying of that route. That agreement is to be scrapped. This is what the minister had to say on the point:
In view of the fact that the joint-operating company envisaged in the 1935-36 agreement was never set up and in view of the material changes in circumstances which have already taken place since the agreement was drawn up, the Canadian government is of the opinion that the agreement can no longer be considered applicable to present conditions. The other parties to the agreement have been notified of our views.
There is no mention of any agreement being negotiated to replace it. Actually there are certain key routes in the empire which are of vital interest to Canada. For example, I have in mind this north Atlantic route between Canada and the United Kingdom. Then there is the Pacific route, about which I spoke, extending between Canada and Australia and New Zealand. In January of this year Australia and New Zealand negotiated a treaty in regard to civil aviation under which they provided that-
In the event of failure to obtain a satisfactory international agreement to establish and govern the use of international air trunk routes the two governments will support a system of air trunk routes controlled and operated by governments of the British commonwealth of nations under government ownership.
And as I have mentioned yesterday the Prime Minister of New Zealand went farther, and said that he would be glad to have Canada join in such an arrangement.
Then there are the routes from Canada to the West Indies and from Canada to South America. With regard to these three routes, namely the Pacific route, the Canada-West Indies and the Canada-South American, it would be necessary for us to make some sort of agreement with the United States. I suggest that in return for an agreement by which

they get into Alaska, Canada should be able to get across to Australia and New Zealand, and also to the British West Indies and South America. Agreements with respect to these key routes are fundamental, and we should not have to wait for the setting up of an international air transport authority, which may take decades. We should be negotiating now for these agreements.
Neither should we have to obtain the approval of an international authority before we can fly those routes. I suggest to the minister that the routes to the British countries mentioned should be treated in the same way as those between contiguous states. In other words, so far as Canada is concerned, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand should be treated as contiguous states, and our services to those fellow British countries should be excluded from the provisions of the convention. It is most important that we get in on these key routes as quickly as possible. If we have an agreement with Great Britain we could then share in the British business. We could fly British passengers across Canada, whereas under the convention, as I read it- the minister can correct me if I am wrong- Great Britain would have the right to fly her own planes right across Canada without any Canadian planes appearing in the picture. She would have the right to drop passengers from Great Britain anywhere in Canada and to pick up Canadian passengers for Great Britain. Looking at it from the practical point of view, I think Canada would be well advised to have a bilateral agreement with Great Britain.
If, as and when the convention becomes effective there are certain features of this government international air policy of which the Canadian people should be made fully aware. Every opportunity should be given to the Canadian people to understand exactly what this plan means because it is of great importance to them. The first thing that should be explained to them is that an all red British route would be difficult to establish under this convention. It would be almost impossible because the international air transport authority would have exclusive jurisdiction over such air services.
Another point that should be explained is in connection with routes from Canada to the United Kingdom. If they are to come under this convention these routes would have to be granted by what is known as the regional council. This regional council grants licences, sets rates and conditions, determines how many times a route may be flown and how many planes shall fly from each country. Canada and the United Kingdom would be

War Appropriation-Transport
given the same terms, would have to be on an equal basis with Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain or any other country interested in flying that route.
Under the proposed plan Canada would be in the north Atlantic region. It includes Canada, the United States, Great Britain, the northern part of Europe and the Soviet Union; in fact nearly all of the civilized population or advanced population of the world. The council of a region is to be composed of from six to nine members, one-third of whom would be appointed by the international air transport board and must not be nationals of any nation in the region; two-thirds of the members would represent nations in the region. Of course the council would be controlled by representatives who were not nationals of countries in the region and those from the United States and Russia. One-half of the membership of the council is to constitute a quorum; in other words, if there were six members, three would be a quorum; further the majority of votes are to decide, which means that two members of the council could decide what is to be done as between Great Britain and Canada. I submit that that situation should be carefully considered by the Canadian people before they agree to these terms.
The decisions of the regional council are subject to appeal to the international air transport board, but the same rules with regard to quorum and majority apply there. This board is to be composed of twelve members, six constituting a quorum, four of whom could reach a decision.
Another thing to be remembered is that any negotiations with Australia and New Zealand for air routes under this convention can be carried on only through the international air transport board. There is no regional council in this case because Australia and New Zealand are in another region. Where two regions are involved, action must be taken by the international transport board. A licence can be granted subject to all the conditions and terms just as in the case of a regional council. In effect it would be very difficult under this plan for Canada to deal directly with Great Britain or with Australia or New Zealand; those latter countries would have had great difficulty dealing with each other in January if they had been working under a convention such as is now proposed. We would have to deal either through a regional council or the international board.
Some attention should also be paid by the Canadian people to the provisions of the draft international air convention dealing with contiguous countries, such as Canada and
the United States. Services between two such countries are to be dealt with by direct agreement between the nations. There is no jurisdiction in the international air transport authority. There is a clause in the convention providing for a fair distribution of routes. Article I, section 2, reads:
The authorities shall plan and foster the organization of international air services so as
(c) to ensure that, so far as possible, international air routes and services are divided fairly and equitably between the various member states.
Canada could not take advantage of that provision because she and the United States are contiguous. We would have to make the best deal we could with the United States. As I have mentioned before, the results of such deals in the past seem to have been not very good for Canada. Perhaps it would be better if dealings with the United States were brought under the international transport authority as far as Canada is concerned.
Another point to be kept in mind is that no definite provision is made for enemy countries. The only thing I can find is a note at the beginning of the convention which reads:
It is assumed that an overriding treaty of peace will determine the obligations and rights of the defeated powers under this convention.
Before the Canadian people can decide wisely what terms they will agree to, they must have some idea just how easy it is going to be for German or Japanese planes to fly over Canada. We are entirely in the dark at the moment with regard to such provisions and yet they are among the most important.
We must realize that if we are to work under an international air transport authority we shall have to give up some of our rights. I am not saying that that is a bad thing because I think every nation that adopts this convention should be prepared to give up something. But Canadians should know just what they are giving up in going into any such arrangement. Under the proposed convention the licensing authority, whether it be the regional council or the international board, may review routes designated by a nation. For example, Canada might say that all outside planes had to fly along the present Trans-Canada route. If any nation flying that route complained to the international authority, that authority would have the right to step in and say whether those planes had to fly that particular route or had to use the airports Canada had designated. The international authority would have the power to step in and make Canada open up certain ports or routes which she might not want to open to

War Appropriation-Transport
planes flying in from other countries. The board might go farther than that. When a complaint is made by another country whose planes are flying over Canada, the board may request Canada to expand her facilities. The board may decide that the facilities we are supplying are not adequate and may order us to extend them, under certain conditions advancing the costs. It may also require a reasonable share in supervising the construction, and not only that but actually share in control of the airports and other facilities. It may demand a share of the revenues derived from flying. In other words, this international authority can, under certain conditions, step in and assume some control of certain of Canadian airports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Only if they pay the cost of building them.


Howard Charles Green: I may have misinterpreted the provisions, but that is the way I read them.
There is a further provision in the convention that once an international security organization is set up-it does not say a united nations organization, but an international security organization, which I presume would be some sort of league of nations-if it decides that world security is involved it may order the international air -transport authority, which under the convention is made subject to the world-wide security organization to withhold licences in certain cases. That must be done immediately and without any formal hearing. It also has power to set up an operating organization which under certain conditions could, as I understand it, actually operate planes flying across Canada without Canada being able to do anything about it. The reason for that, of course, is to secure world peace, and it may very well be wise to agree to some provision of that type.


James Joseph McCann: I must remind the hon. gentleman that he has already exhausted his time.


Howard Charles Green: I was just going to sum up, Mr. Chairman.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: With the consent of the house.


Howard Charles Green: To sum up, firstly, in her air policy, domestic and international, Canada cannot be too bold. Secondly, at home we need strong trans-Canada lines, strong feeder lines and many pioneer lines. Let us encourage them all. Thirdly, we need an international policy for the period from the "cease fire" until the setting up of this international air transport authority, and in that connection we must be more realistic. Fourthly, certain agreements with other British nations are

absolutely fundamental at this particular time. Fifthly, Canadians should study the proposed convention and be given time to decide where they stand in regard to it. The whole question of air policy is so vital to Canada; it means so- much to us, for I believe Canada can be a leader in the air among the nations of the world, and I urge that we keep that objective continually before the Canadian people. I thank the members for giving me these few extra minutes.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, this is a
draft international air transport convention. I leave aside the fine speeches that have been made by members of all parties concerning this important matter. It is so wide in scope that it is most difficult to deal with it completely in the short time we are allowed to express our views. This afternoon I have listened to my hon. friends from Broadview, Red Deer and Vancouver South, and I congratulate them warmly on the efforts they have made to make useful suggestions for the future. I thought that the little interlude between the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the leader of the opposition was refreshing.
But, sir, we are in Lent and it is an appropriate time to make an act of humility, the more so because there is a reference in the draft to the importance of the various nations. Who will decide upon the importance of nations? And what is the importance of our own country? Here we think, and rightly so, that Canada is an important country. But what will the international air transport authority think of the importance of our country? Who will compose that authority? I am not impressed by big names-hon. gentlemen must know that. The minister has mentioned Lord Beaverbrook, a former Canadian citizen, and Mr. Churchill, and responsibility for the coordination of post-war civil air transport authority. Those are two great names. But unfortunately in his last broadcast Mr. Churchill mentioned all countries of the world except Canada, which shows that in his mind at the time Canada was not so important as Australia, New Zealand and any other country. By the way, it is unfortunate that the censor did not act with his scissors to cut out the whole speech, because if Mr. Churchill thought it proper to mention some countries of the world, Canada deserved a place on his lips and he had no reason to omit Canada. It shows the importance of our country. One day Canada is told that she is an important country, and the next day she is ignored. We must take it as it is. It is an act of humility which may not please proud people. But we must get down to facts. On Sunday last Canada was not important in the mind and on

War Appropriation-Transport
the lips of the Prime Minister of Britain. It may be some day. I do not say that what happened last Sunday will happen again, just because it is being mentioned in the House of Commons right now, but it may.
What I find strange is that this draft is considered as if it were a contract. It is discussed as if it had been accepted by some other states. Was it submitted to any other state? We have the pronouncement made by the Prime Minister last year on civil aviation, and here we have a plan. What is the reaction in the United States? What is the reaction in Russia? What is it in Great Britain? No one knows. If this draft is approved by parliament it will bind no one except those who find it satisfactory, and if they do not find it satisfactory we 'shall have to accept their amendments before they can bind us. That is an elementary principle of law. Is it not of the utmost importance to know what are the views of the states which are considered important in the field of aviation, before discussing in this chamber a draft which no speech of any private member will ever change? I know very well that whatever suggestions are made by any member of parliament, the time spent in making them will be pure waste. If I rise to-day to speak on this matter, it is not in the hope that the minister will agree to change his draft, but that hon. members will awake to their full responsibility and will advise the minister to be very careful about this agreement and to keep it in the cupboard, or in a drawer of his desk.
I have tried to find in this draft any mention of Canada. I do not see it. Perhaps it is somewhere. I complain of the fact that this important draft is printed in very small type. Usually agreements or similar papers are published as an appendix or schedule to the Votes and Proceedings, and in type sufficiently large that we do not need a magnifying glass to read them. Hon. members who have read that draft as it is printed in Hansard deserve special credit; I wonder if they will not have to consult an eye specialist, for their eyes must be very tired. I confess that I did not read it all, but I read enough of it to warn the minister of the danger of suggesting such a policy. That does not mean that I am opposed to international aviation; for I am not. But this is devised for post-war trade with all nations, including the enemy- who I hope and have every reason to believe will be defeated. There are commodities which it will not be possible to carry by air. Coal will not be transported by air, and it is more than doubtful whether aviation will serve for the transportation of grain and
timber. I do not see telegraph poles on aeroplanes. We shall continue to need ships. But according to news in the press the ships we shall have after the war will not be so fast as those owned in competitor states, particularly the United States. Ours will be much slower and therefore will transport less. And where will our aeroplanes come from? How long will it take to get back those which are now in Great Britain and other parts of the world? That is another problem. We need more information before we are in a position to discuss this post-war aviation scheme.
Looking at the convention, one observes in the first place that it establishes an "international air transport authority". It is the first time I have seen the word "authority" used with this meaning in any piece of legislation or in our Hansard. It is an English term, used, for instance, in the title of the "Port of London Authority", which is the Port of London Incorporated or the Port of London Corporation. It is never used here in that manner. That shows that the convention has been drafted by someone who has an English training and who has been at some time either at Oxford, or Cambridge, or Edinburgh. But that is not the question. The question is, what will be the powers of such authority? It seems to me that this air draft convention is very "draft-y". First, it establishes an international air transport authority. Second, it gives it a constitution. Third, it endows it with powers. And what is that authority? It is an assembly representing all member states. Then there is a small executive committee with a board of directors; and there is a regional council. What is a "region"? It is not defined. A region is supposed to be a district, a smaller area, but according to this draft convention it may comprise several states. Quite a region 1
And then there is the regional council. What are the duties of the authority? It is to make the most effective contribution to the establishment and maintenance-" maintenance," mark you-of a permanent system of general security, a new league of nations, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has aptly said. Is it to be expected that guns will be placed on the aeroplanes which carry passengers and freight, to maintain security and to chastise all those who infringe upon such security? That is the first thing. The second purpose is to meet the needs of the peoples of the world -mark you, sir, "the peoples of the world"- for efficient and economical air transport. It is not for Canada; it is for the peoples of the world. I have enough of "the peoples of the
The Royal Assent

world"; I want Canada to be served first and then to see what can be done by Canada with the other peoples of the world. Canada should be on a sound basis first. It is a new league of nations which we are launching in the air.
And the third purpose is to ensure that so far as possible international air routes and services are divided fairly and equitably between the various member states. Everybody remembers the difficulty which arose at Westminster over the United States aviation scheme. It was denounced in England, I remember, by Lady Astor, who is a member of the British parliament. Trouble arose especially in connection with aviation. The United States and the U'dtish schemes regarding money, the sterling area proposals and so forth, did not cause so much resentment as the suggestion that the United States were to lead the world in the domain of aviation. The reaction came at once from Westminster, and then we did not hear of it again until the Prime Minister mentioned that scheme last year. Now we have it in writing. Why not let those big countries, Russia, Great Britain and the United States, come to an understanding about this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt, we are to be called to another place shortly, and I wonder if he would object if I asked the committee to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never object to going to the Senate to attend the sanctioning of bills.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN vMr. McCann): Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the Public Service.
[Mr. Pouliot.3
An Act to amend the Technical Education Act.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1945.
An Act for granting to His Majesty aid for National Defence and Security.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1944.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m. until Monday, April 17, at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Monday, April 17, 1944