1944-07-07

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Weir.

Labour Conditions


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, who I think is the appropriate minister, although three ministers are involved. I understand that a delegation of farmers met three ministers, as well as the director of national selective service, in Ottawa yesterday and presented a resolution endorsed by thirty-six Ontario county units of the federation of agriculture, which resolution contained constructive proposals for relieving the present acute farm labour situation. Will the Minister of Labour indicate to the house the nature of these proposals, as well as the steps which the government is prepared to take with respect to them?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not the
resolution with me, as this matter came on my desk just before I entered the house. We did have a conference with the delegation, and I would say a very successful conference. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has intimated, the delegation met two other ministers as well as myself, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). As my hon. friend is well aware, we have an agreement with every province in Canada respecting the placement of farm labour, not only in the summer months but the whole year round, and these agreements have worked very satisfactorily in every province. But in addition, after hearing the representations of the delegation it was decided that a committee, accompanied by an official of the Department of Labour, would meet the district officers commanding at Toronto, London, Kingston, Petawawa and Borden with a view to speeding up the granting of leave to men who wish to go farming to the fullest possible extent consistent with army needs.
We also telegraphed the ministers of agricv.I ture for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba with a view to moving an additional 500 experienced farmers from the western prairies to eastern Canada so that they would be able to help harvest the heavy crops in eastern Canada. We had a similar movement last year. The hon. gentleman will understand that the crops this year in the east are heavier than last year.	[DOT]
It has also been decided to recruit 500 students, seventeen years of age or over, who have had farming experience or who come from farm homes in western Canada to give us some assistance with the very heavy crop in this part of the country.
A letter has also gone out to all the industrialists of Ontario urging upon them the desirability of releasing as many experienced farm workers as possible, consistent with maintaining war production, to assist in harvesting the crop.
In addition to that, I might say that we are of course working in very close cooperation with the Department of Agriculture of Ontario, as we did last year. Last year we placed over 100,000 on the farms of Ontario through the instrumentality of that cooperation. I have also sent a direct appeal to the mayors and other municipal officials of all the municipalities in Ontario in an effort to ensure wherever possible the granting of leave to municipal employees in order that we may get over the hump of the haying season and the peak of the farm season in Ontario.



STRIKE AT UNITED SHIPYARDS LIMITED, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to ask the Minister of Labour:
1.	Has a strike occurred in the plant of United Shipyards, Limited, at Montreal?
2.	If so, what steps are being taken by the federal Department of Labour to settle the dispute?
3.	Has the union holding the collective bargaining agreement asked for police protection because of the attitude of a minority of the workers?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will answer the first and last questions first. A strike has taken place in the United Shipyards in the city of Montreal, engineered by a minority group there. The union in question has asked for protection in order to permit the membership to go to work in an orderly manner. Arrangements have been made that every protection will be given to those union workers in that particular shipyard to see to it that they carry out the terms of their agreement so that the construction of these very necessary ships at this critical time in the nation's history will be proceeded with.

Aeronautics Act



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I regret that I have not sent him notice of the question but it is of such a nature that perhaps notice is not required. On June 29 I asked a question with regard to the situation which was alleged in military district No. 1 at London, Ontario. Has any investigation been made since that time and has any irregularity been discovered? Because of the nature of the answer to my question on that day, I ask this supplementary question now. I understand that recently a further investigation has been made and it is alleged that some grave irregularities have been discovered.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I wonder if my hon. friend would remind me of the question to which he refers.


Major James William Coldwell: The question I asked1, as reported at page 4334 of Hansard, was:
I.	Will the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether an investigation has been instituted into alleged irregularities at the central mechanization depot in London, Ontario? 2. If such an investigation has taken place, what irregularities, if any, have been discovered? 3. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the possibility of irregularities in other divisions of military district No. 1, and will the minister consider instituting an investigation into the administration of the entire district?


James Layton Ralston: I remember now. The investigation, I believe, is still proceeding. 1 have not had any report on it at all but I shall inquire.



AERONAUTICS ACT

[Stage Direction]
CIVIL AVIATION AND COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICES-[DOT] AIR TRANSPORT BOARD
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 21, consideration in committee of bill No. 133, to amend the Aeronautics Act-Mr. Michaud -Mr. McCann in the chair.
On section 1-New heading inserted.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: When this matter was last before the committee some reference was made to the fact that certain provinces might feel constrained to establish air companies within their confines because of the restrictive nature of the provisions of this bill from the standpoint of air development. The minister indicated that under the aeronautics case the jurisdiction of the federal government was supreme, and inferentially that the provinces could not establish any inter-

urban, intercity or intertown air services. Has the matter been submitted by the minister's department to the Department of Justice with a view to ascertaining whether the provinces have or have not that power? I have looked over the aeronautics case and it would indicate that, within the powers of the several provincial legislatures under section 92, air companies could be started by a province and operated by the province, subject only to the control of the dominion authority in so far as safety regulations, the qualifications of airmen, and so on.
As I read the privy council appeal from the aeronautics case reference 30 Supreme Court Reports, 663, it appears to me that flying within the province itself could be engaged in by provinces. The reason I mention that is that everywhere in the United States to-day there is widespread development to meet the post-war air situation, while little or nothing is being done in this country. On July 6, as reported at page 4551, I asked a question with regard to the purchase of land for airport purposes. I wanted to know whether any land had. been purchased in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Malton, and the only purchases that have been made were certain purchases at Edmonton, Vancouver and Regina. If when the war is over we are to assure our returning air men of an opportunity for work and an opportunity to serve, it cannot be done under the present provisions of the present bill. In the United States, in order to assure availability of jobs for as many returned men as possible, the C.A.A. is increasing its airports and believes that by the time the war is over some 6,000 will be established in the smaller cities or towns, provided the air service plans now being developed as a result of competition between private enterprises on interurban service are put into effect.
In 1941 there were only seventy-six airports with runways thirty-five hundred feet long or more; to-day there are eight hundred and sixty-five. In other words, because the air companies in the United States- have an opportunity to compete and to set up services between cities and larger urban centres the government of that country is making preparations to expand interurban and other facilities. In Canada the future of air development is uncertain. If the government is to take over the airways of this country it can never hope to meet the needs in the establishment of air fleet systems between cities and towns in what may be called bus line service. Take the city of Winnipeg as an example. That city is on the line for the development of a world service, and yet to-day it has not the air

Aeronautics Act
facilities that it must have in anticipation of post-war development. Saskatoon and Prince Albert in northern Saskatchewan are other examples. Prince Albert is the centre of development of air transportation into the north in Saskatchewan, yet there is no suggestion of airways or an airport to meet the potentialities of the post-war period.
If the provinces have the right to enter into interurban airways, my submission is the transportation facilities and needs within those provinces will be met much more readily and much sooner than if the matter remains entirely subject to the authority of the government airways. Only recently in the welcoming the incoming president of the institute of mining and metallurgy, Mr. Drew, speaking at Toronto, is reported in the press to have said:
Canada is far behind other countries in development o-f interurban air transport. Taking Ontario as an example, covering an area equal in size to a considerable part of Europe, only five communities are served by regular air transport. They are Toronto, London, Windsor, Ottawa and North Bay.
At a meeting of the aeronautical institute it passed resolutions asking that something be done to give small private enterprises the opportunity to apply now for licences to place smaller towns and cities of this country on the air maps by making provision for the development of air service between them. What consideration has been given to this matter? It would in no way interfere with the rights of the Trans-Canada Air Lines' across-Canada service. It would provide an incentive and an opportunity for small companies to build up air bus lines between cities and towns within the various provinces. It is being done in the United States, and according to the latest records so much interest is being taken in the.matter that applications by the thousands are being made to this end and are being decided now by the aeronautical authorities in charge of this administration.
When the board is set up the minister should give the assurance that in so far as interurban or intercity routes are concerned the board will consider applications now for the setting up of companies and the allocation of lines. I do not say that that could be done with all important routes, not by any means. But consideration should be given to a sufficient number so that development will be under way when the men in the air force come back from overseas, and they will find something available for them to do. If that is not done, when they are demobilized they will return to civilian life and will not be able to use the knowledge and technical skill which they have received during war service,
and the failure to provide opportunities for them will result in their gradually going into some other line of work in civil life.
I understand that there are applications from Ontario and Quebec before the present board asking for the right to operate private lines on short air routes that by no means could be operated by a central authority. What are the plans in regard to the development of airports? I mentioned only a few of them-Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert. What is being done now? What are the plans for the immediate future? Has the government given consideration to having the air transport board appointed at once and given the right immediately to consider applications and make decisions? I do not wish to repeat my premise, but if that were done there would be available, in part at least, an opportunity for these returned airmen to be absorbed in an occupation for which they have been highly trained and for which they have every qualification.


Mr. HOWE:: The first point raised was as to whether or not the provinces have the right to control civil aeronautics operations within their own boundaries. My reading of the aeronautics decision indicated to me that they had not that right. The domain of the air comes under federal jurisdiction. However, I may say we have had no application from any province to exercise that right. I understand that we are about to receive one. Recently the premier of Ontario made a speaking tour in the north country, during which he promised provincial air transport services to a number of communities in that area. When that application is received, we shall be very glad to consider it. In the meantime we assume that Mr. Drew will be active in building the necessary facilities such as airports, radio ranges and all the aids to navigation that that enterprise involves. Therefore I think that that question can very well wait until Mr. Drew's application is received. I expect to remind him from time to time that he has made the promises, and I will continue to urge that he carry them out.
The next question had to do with the lack of expansion of air facilities. The hon. member mentioned the expansion of a number of aerodromes in the United States during war years. May I point out that the expansion of facilities in Canada is in proportion considerably greater than that of the United States. All aerodromes that have been built in the United States during the war period have been built for war purposes. In the same way
Aeronautics Act

every aerodrome in Canada that has been built during the war period has been built for war purposes.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that true in the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not my
reading of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then tell me of one not built for war purposes. Surely my hon. friend must have some examples. He should not expect me to answer vague questions and then, without knowing the facts, challenge my answer.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister's denial has too often been the highest corroboration of the truth of the statement denied.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, when my hon. friend suggests that hundreds have been built he should be able to mention one.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I said there were hundreds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But my hon. friend cannot mention one. The hon. gentleman implied that there had been a great expansion of civil aviation in the United States during the war years. As a matter of fact there are fewer civilian transport planes flying in the United States to-day than there were at the outbreak of war, just as there are fewer planes on our own purely civilian operations in Canada today than there were at the beginning of the war. Aviation authorities in the United States have taken the view that the facilities of the industry should be devoted wholly to war purposes, and Canada has taken the same view. We have built in this country an immense number of planes, I believe more than twelve thousand. All these planes have been military types with one exception, a transport type which has been used almost exclusively for war purposes.
My hon. friend suggests that there is activity in the United States now in connection with the hearing of applications for new routes. That is true; the hearings were opened a few months ago, and if this act is endorsed by parliament it is intended to follow a similar procedure in Canada. That is, applications for routes will be received and considered. That is the purpose in establishing the board provided for under the act now before parliament. Have I covered the ground? '


John George Diefenbaker: There was one question with which the minister* did not deal. Has there been any submission to the Department of Justice on the question-


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill was drafted by the Department of Justice. I have not asked for an opinion, because I have had no reason to be interested in an opinion. If an application is received an opinion will be obtained. I may add that the jurisdiction of the United States over aviation within a state was challenged, and the fact was established that it is a matter coming under federal jurisdiction.


John George Diefenbaker: But their constitution is different from ours in respect to the allocation of residuary powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps. If anyone cares to challenge the ruling given by the privy council in the aeronautics case, we shall be glad to get an opinion from the Department of Justice. In the meantime it is purely an academic matter.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has
stated that if anyone wants to challenge the decision of the government he will be given an opportunity to do so. Is that it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I did not say that. I said if they want to challenge the ruling in the aeronautics case, which was taken to the privy council, and which stated that the air comes under federal jurisdiction-


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the point I wanted the minister, to clarify. Now I am going to ask the minister, when he comes to the section dealing with the board itself, to make provision for an appeal to the courts in any question of law or jurisdiction. As the situation now is-and the minister has given the best possible argument that could be advanced for it-when the war is over, or even before, the question will be raised by the province of Ontario as to the right of that province to operate interurban airways within its own boundaries. As the bill is now set up the decision would be made by the air transport board, with no* right of appeal to the courts to determine the legality of the decision


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would ask my hon. friend, as a lawyer, whether anyone cannot take a constitutional issue to the courts.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman; a constitutional issue can go to the courts only when it is submitted as a reference, as it was in the aeronautics case, or as the result of litigation, and there can be no litigation if a transport board is set up by this parliament and given the absolute power to determine when, where and under what circumstances a licence shall be granted. Their decision is final. On several occasions when I have dealt with this matter I have endeavoured to make the

Aeronautics Act
point that parliament must not permit the setting up of a board above the courts, to which the subject may not have recourse. The minister says that if and when an application is received from Colonel Drew on behalf of the province of Ontario the matter will receive consideration, and that if anyone wishes to challenge the judgment in the aeronautics case an opportunity will be given to do so. Provision therefore is not contained in this act. That is why I say it is so necessary that the decisions of this board on matters of law and jurisdiction should be subject to an appeal to the courts by any aggrieved party. Otherwise the minister will be able to say to the province of Ontario when that application is made-for after all no licence can be issued by the board without the approval of the minister-"we refuse to give you a licence," and neither the province of Ontario nor any other province will have the opportunity of testing in the courts their right to operate an airway, because no one can operate a plane unless he possesses a federal licence. No one can act as pilot of a plane unless he has a federal licence. So all the minister would have to do would be to refuse a licence to the province, and there would be no recourse to the courts.
That is why I have been endeavouring on several occasions to make the point that under this act the government is setting up a board not responsible to the people of Canada; not responsible to the courts, however unjust its decisions may be, but responsible only to the minister. I object to placing such power in the hands of any minister.
I ask the minister to say why the right of recourse to the courts is taken away. Under the former transport board, which among other things had to do with air transportation, there was provision for an appeal to the courts. That specific provision was contained in section 52 of the Railway Act, which was made applicable to the Transport Act, in these words:
2.	An appeal shall lie from the board to the Supreme Court of Canada upon a question of jurisdiction, upon leave therefor being obtained from a judge of the said court. . . .
3.	An appeal shall also lie from the board to such court upon any question which in the opinion of the board is a question of law, or a question of jurisdiction, or both. . . .
These rights of appeal are taken away in connection with, the board now being set up. Similar rights exist in Great Britain and the United States, but here we are setting up a board controlled by one individual, the minister, and not providing any right of recourse to the courts. This becomes of particular importance at the present time, when there is
the suggestion that the premier of Ontario is going to endeavour to set up aviation facilities within this province.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a promise, not a suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it is a promise. And the minister says he is going to remind him of the promise. The minister is the man who will determine whether or not the promise can be carried into effect. Does that not show the true picture? All the minister has to do to-day, is to say that the opportunity will be given, if asked for, so that the promise can be carried into effect. All the minister has to do to-day is to allow an amendment to the transport regulations so that reference can be had to the courts if the application is denied. Only in that way, when the board acts unfairly in a matter of jurisdiction, would Ontario or any other province have the right of recourse to the courts. The minister says he will help the premier of Ontario; at the same time I ask him to make it possible for that promise to be carried into effect by making provision for an appeal which does not exist at the present time should the province's application be denied.


Mr. GOLDING:: More opportunity for the legal fellows to get work.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear my hon. friend.


William Henry Golding: Just more opportunity for legal fellows to get more work.


John George Diefenbaker: Who?


William Henry Golding: Legal fellows-lawyers, like yourself. The hon. member does not understand me.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that is a remark which certainly shows an intelligent view of what is being discussed!


William Henry Golding: Just as intelligent as your interpretation of the act.


John George Diefenbaker: The remark was far removed from what I was discussing.


William Henry Golding: Your attitude is quite
apparent.


John George Diefenbaker: I think every other member understands what I am endeavouring to say, because I have been outlining a principle of responsible government, and the right of the individual to an appeal from the decision of the boards. If this one is set up. it will go a long way farther than any other board ever set up by this parliament, and will not be responsible even to the governor in council. It is responsible only to the minister. Aeainst that I make my protest. And I am asking the minister whether he will consider
Aeronautics Act

giving an opportunity for an appeal, so all individuals, however great or however small they may be, will have equal opportunity and equal access to justice by making provision for appeal to the courts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I am asked to rule on legal questions I shall be glad to do so. The hon. member must know that the Aeronautics Act does not preclude the province from obtaining a legal decision as to its right to operate air lines within the province. I can tell him how they can get such a decision, without any trouble at all, namely, by operating an air line without obtaining a licence under this act.


John George Diefenbaker: The pilot cannot operate as he is subject to cancellation of his licence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The pilot can operate without any trouble, depending upon his record. A licence can only be taken away for cause. However, this represents the logical way of doing things. That is the way it was done in New York state. An operation was set up there, and the matter was referred to the courts. The same procedure can follow here. I suggest that my hon. friend give legal' advice as to why it cannot be done that way.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I have done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As an engineer I dislike to give a legal opinion to a lawyer, although sometimes I find it is desirable to do so, just to keep the record straight.


John George Diefenbaker: You have fifteen lawyers in the cabinet. They should know.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Good ones, too.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is about ten too many.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say this, that if the province or anybody else wishes to take the responsibility for establishing an air line, I hardly think any obstacles will be placed in their way. Each application will be judged on its merits. The intention is, as soon as this act passes, to set up a board-just as strong a board as it is possible to appoint, and to proceed vigorously to develop a postwar system of aviation for Canada.
My hon. friend does not say positively that all the services are to be government owned, but he keeps hinting at that. Such is not the case. That is not the intention. I have said many times that the Trans-Canada system is government-owned, and will continue to be government-owned. But it is the purpose to develop subsidiary operations as private operations under this act.


Gordon Graydon: The minister referred to certain promises having been made by the premier of Ontario, while he was in the norths western part of the province. I take it that the minister himself, knowing the situation so far as air transportation up there is concerned, would be favourable to the kind of undertaking the premier of Ontario suggested should be carried out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my hon. friend can just tell me what kind of undertaking it is- something about it. He just said he was going to build air lines.


Gordon Graydon: And on that score, perhaps the minister would indicate his approval or disapproval of the suggestion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The federal government had built a fairly complete system of air services throughout the north country. There is a missing link, required to give service to Fort William and Port Arthur-my own riding: Perhaps if I had been as aggressive as some of riiy predecessors in office, the link would have been closed. However, I thought it was better to let those links develop naturally. There is a fine airport in the area, and it is the intention, as soon as we can get suitable equipment, to serve Port Arthur and Fort William with a direct air lane operating between Winnipeg and Toronto. That has been made abundantly clear. Premier Drew knew all that when he made his speech at Port Arthur. But that is rather beside the discussion here. When we compare the present system of air transportation in northern Ontario with that which served the area in 1935, when my hon. friend's party turned over the reins of office to this government, it will be seen that there has been a vast improvement.


Gordon Graydon: I suppose that is because of a general development throughout the world. * I understand that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a great development throughout the world until 1935, too.


Gordon Graydon: I do not wish to take anything away from my hon. friend in the matter; nevertheless I think he will find that there has been a development in air transportation throughout the world generally.


Mr. ADAMSON:: In 1935 Canada led the world in air transport by freight.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How much in northern Ontario?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I knew what was going on at that time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is about northern
Ontario I wish to say a word now. I do not

Aeronautics Act
like to see this conflict between the minister and the premier of Ontario. I would like to feel that their interests are the same, and that both desire to develop northern Ontario.
I am convinced that the chambers of commerce which met at Fort Frances recently, and who were addressed by the Premier of Ontario, had the same object in mind, the development of that country. I have been asking myself just how the government of Ontario, or for that matter any government of any other province wishing to do the same thing, could develop its hinterland. However I shall confine my remarks to Ontario, and as to how the government of that province can develop the north country. I know the minister himself is very much in favour of such development.
I have tried to arrange for a plane trip to the Belcher islands, and to the Clark islands, up in Hudson bay, to examine the iron deposits there. I have not been able to get that service. The Ontario government might want to develop an air transport line to the Hudson bay coast, and it might also wish to develop air lines to bring back the iron resources to the mills at Sault Ste. Marie. I am sure that the plane industry will develop planes of 500 tons capacity. Just a few days ago we read of a plane carrying 50 tons of freight and something over 50 passengers from Africa to America. I think it is easy to envision 500 ton aeroplanes. If that comes to pass I can see a fleet of 500-ton transport planes carrying ore from Clark island and Belcher islands down to the smelter at Sault Ste. Marie. How can Ontario give encouragement to a private company to start up a transport line of this kind when they are limited by this bill? This ore is needed to operate the smelting plant at Sault Ste. Marie, and later there might be a great smelting plant in the minister's own city. The high grade ore will be brought down from Steep Rock, which is northwest of Fort William, and low grade ore will be required to mix with it. Belcher islands' ore would help.
I am alarmed, perhaps because I do not-know enough about it, over just how much this bill is going to prevent private development. I really know little about the legality of these items, but the hon. member for Lake Centre is a celebrated lawyer. I anf not one to make jokes about lawyers. I like to keep put of their hands as much as I can, and I like to keep out of the courts. But he does know what he is talking about and apparently he is much alarmed about this bill, which confines the air transport business to a board which is to be clothed with supreme powers but which also is under the control of the minister.
The hon. member suggested that there should be the right of appeal to the courts. What objection can there be to that? I cannot see any. Surely there should be an appeal from the minister to the courts on whether or not a licence should be granted, and I support the hon. member in that regard.
Coming back to where I started, I am very much concerned about whether this measure will encourage the development of northern Ontario, and I am confining myself to that part of the country. The whole north end of the province adjacent to Hudson bay, while not all tundra, does contain a great deal of muskeg. . The development of the area, from the plateau on which the Albany river flows, down to the bay cannot be carried on by the building of railroads. What better method of transporting ore could be developed than by air? I appreciate Colonel Drew's desire to develop northern Ontario and I do not think the minister should consider it as being politics. I do not say that he does. I am afraid that there will be objection to the construction of branch air lines in that north country and I am strongly in favour of the Ontario government or any other provincial government being able to construct their own lines.
My hon. friend (Mr. Diefenbaker) comes from Prince Albert-a beautiful and splendid city, a city with a great future. It should develop into one of our greatest airports, because it has everything in the way of topography and territory for the creation of an important air transport centre. It should be the centre of air transport into the country right through to lake Athabaska and east of lake Athabaska. That country is full of lakes and rivers, but it is also full of minerals. I can envision my hon. friend's city of Prince Albert becoming a great centre of aeroplane transport service. Would Saskatchewan be allowed to develop a line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has a service now, and has had for years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is not an air transport service.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes, it is.
Mr. MaeJCICOL: Not 50- and 100-ton planes. There are a few running up the Alaska highway, but that is not in Saskatchewan.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no such thing as a 100-ton plane or a 50-ton plane.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know a few planes run north from Prince Albert to Goldfields and Yellowknife, but those are mail planes although they carry a few passengers. I am thinking of the transport planes that carried in machinery
Aeronautics Act

to Yellowknife and to the north side of lake Athabaska. I am pretty sure they belonged to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company. I know they had their own planes which took in a lot of freight.
We should all wish to see this country opened up, and an aeroplane service is one means of doing it. I do not like to oppose the minister's suggestion, because he has given it a lot of thought, but I am firmly convinced that this country could be opened up more rapidly and more profitably by having competitive services in air transport. I am not speaking now of Trans-Canada, although in that case I think after the war-the minister is a business man and he will appreciate this- air transport could be carried on better by the great rail transport companies.
I hold no brief for the Canadian Pacific or for the Canadian National. I want them both to succeed, but how can the Canadian Pacific develop a great transport business in the air? So far as I can see, it cannot do it under this bill; yet I think it should be able to do it. The Canadian Pacific has been one of the greatest agencies in the opening up of this country. Both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National have the necessary facilities in the great cities like Montreal. They have the trained personnel, and it seems to me to be unbusinesslike to prevent a great companylike the Canadian Pacific from participating in the air transport field. I am sure that after this war aeroplanes will not stop at 500 tons; there is no reason why they should not go up to 1,000 tons capacity.
The Canadian Pacific is the largest transport company-if not the largest it is the second largest-in Canada, and I do not think that company, or the Canadian National, should be prevented from opening up this country by means of air transport, and any others who want to start should not be prevented. I feel satisfied that we are heading in the wrong direction. I cannot add anything more to what I have said. I have expressed my opinion as to what I think about the ability, of private industry to open up the country. I have seen and heard1 enough about private industry to know this. I have heard private industry denounced in this house, but I know that many businesses have been kept going by men who have sat up all night trying to develop and advance their industry.
It would not be possible to have that in a government-operated organization. Men in government-operated plants do not sit up all night. I have been through it and I know. Time without number I have sat up all night week in and week out trying to develop and
fMr MacNicoI.]
advance big business. Money cannot pay for that; you must have the heart and will to develop. Men in a government-operated plant will not do it; they never have and I do not expect they ever will. I am not going to say anything against the Canadian National. It has been a fine company and has done a fine job. The same can be said about the T.C.A. Some one took out of something I said that I was not an advocate of the T.C.A. I have not said anything in opposition to the T.C.A. It has been well managed and has done splendid work and will continue to do so. But that does not detract in any way from the strength of my advocacy of private operation, private incentive and private enterprise.
I am supporting the hon. member for Lake Centre in his desire to have an appeal to the courts of the land. They should be best qualified to judge whether a company's application should be accepted or rejected. I endorse Colonel Drew's desire to open up northern Ontario, which he .said emphatically at Fort Frances that he would do. Here is the dispatch:
Fort Frances, June 23 (Special).-If the
necessity arises and licences are not granted for air routes so that development can be completed before the end of the war, then the province of Ontario will itself go into the air route business, said Premier Drew Thursday night.
I hope that the minister will not think for a moment that there is anything political in this matter. I can hardly conceive of any board set up by the minister refusing an application for a licence from the government of Ontario or of Quebec or of any other province. These are large and important bodies, and it would be a serious thing in my judgment for any board set up by this house to refuse an application from a province of four million people, or a province like Quebec of three and a half million people, or from any other province no matter what its population might be. But under the bill as it stands the application could be refused, could 'it not?


Mr. KNOWLES:: Except for some of the remarks of the hon. member for Davenport it seems to me that a good deal of the discussion we have had thus far this afternoon has skirted the real issue which has been put before us by the introduction of this bill. We have had discussion about provincial rights and constitutional questions, and we have had cross-fire between the minister and a provincial premier who is not here. But the real issue is this. Are we to carry on with the old idea of private enterprise, with its right to cut its own throat and impoverish the country,

Aeronautics Act
or are we so far as air service is concerned, to inject into the whole set-up the principle of planning for the public interest? It seems to me that that is the difference between the powers of the board of transport commissioners and the powers of the air transport board which the minister proposes to establish. On the one hand you have what is really a judicial body. But here you will have rather a body whose purpose is to help the government formulate policy. As I understand it, if this bill becomes law and we go ahead with the government's proposal, the decision will have been made that so far as air service is concerned there is to be planning as a matter of government policy.
The minister a little while ago, in one of his replies to the hon. member for Lake Centre, stressed one point which I think needs to be stressed again and again when he spoke of the cost of developing airports, beams, ranges and all the other facilities that are necessary to flying. My friends to my right are continually singing the praises of private enterprise. Yet we know quite well that we would not have had aviation developed to the point it has reached to-day in this country if it had not been for the huge expenditures of public money on the facilities that are necessary to make flying possible. I insist that if it is going to require the expenditure of public money to provide the basic essentials of flying, the public, having a major interest in the whole set-up, has the right to expect the government to see to it that these services are properly planned.
A great deal is said about our concern for our young men of the air force who will come home well trained and capable of providing flying services all over Canada. I want to put in a word for them in this way. I feel that they should not come home to the kind of cut-throat experiences which this country had to undergo in the early days of flying, when sufficient government expenditure was not made available to make flying practicable and safe. The result was that pilots were rushing in wherever it was possible to make half a living, and eventually competition in those areas forced them all out. We have also had the story of private companies in this country culminating in the merger of a dozen or more companies in Canadian Pacific Air Lines. All of this, as I see it, adds up to the fact that if we do not have the regulation and planning of all our air transport services, our airmen in the Royal Canadian Air Force will come home to a set-up of cut-throat competition which will discourage and greatly disillusion them.
To me the history of the development of our air services in this country indicates
definitely that it does require the expenditure of public money and public planning. While, as I said before, I. am not satisfied that the government goes far enough, I am with the minister every inch of the way that he does go in this bill. As I said, I felt that the hon. member for Davenport was different from the previous speakers in that he did get down to the real issue, namely, the issue as between private enterprise and public control.


Mr. BENCE:: What is the hon. gentleman's idea with respect to the north and south feeder lines? Should they be taken over by the T.C.A. or be operated by private enterprise?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked the minister with respect to that, and my question was worded in such a way as to suggest that in my opinion the major north and south routes, such as the northwest staging route, the route down the Mackenzie and several other important routes, should even now be taken over by the government and operated under the T.C.A. We are quite prepared to agree to the idea of private companies operating in some of the smaller feeder spheres, and the Minister of Transport provides for that in the bill. It seems to me that any virtue that there is in some initial flying in these areas by privately-owned concerns is not debarred by this bill. What my hon. friends to the right are asking is that private firms have their rights extended not only to go into business as private firms but to multiply and compete with each other and cut each other's throats until public money is lost and a disservice is done to the public interest
Returning to what I said a moment ago, I congratulate the member for Davenport on bringing us back to the basic issue which is being fought as between the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals. All his followers do not support the Minister of Munitions and Supply, but I wish to register again my support of the stand he is taking. In the course of his remarks to-day and on other occasions, the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has had a good deal to say about the power put into the hands of the minister; it is characterized as dictatorship and all that sort of thing. The suggestion has been made that this power or authority should be in the hands of the governor in council. So far as that distinction is concerned, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. We have the principle of cabinet solidarity, which is such that if the minister is responsible the government as a whole has to share in that responsibility. On the other hand, if you put the power in the hands of the gover-

Aeronautics Act

nor in council, we have had enough experience in watching what the government does during the war to know that the governor in council in any case acts upon the advice of the minister concerned with that particular branch.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the hon. member opposed to the principle I suggest, that there should be right of recourse to the courts against the decisions of any board, whether controlled by the minister or not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The difference between
the member for Lake Centre and ourselves is basically over the question whether air services are to be a matter of government policy or whether the government is simply to stand on the sidelines and allow private enterprise to have its own way. I take the position that so far as the legality of the statute is concerned, naturally there should be recourse to the courts; but if the statute stands on legal ground, then it seems to me that the time has come when matters of this sort should be the concern of the people's representatives. What we have here is not, as I see it, dictatorship but rather the extension of the principle of responsible government. What I was trying to say was that as between the minister and the governor in council having the authority it is six of one and half a dozen of the other, and it does not matter to me which it is; but as between the minister having any real say in the matter-the minister or the government, however you put it- and the government merely standing on the side as a judicial body and allowing private enterprise to go ahead and cut its own throat and do a disservice to the country at large, I am in favour of the matter being in the hands of the people.
Under this bill recommendations will be made to the government or to the minister which will involve the expenditure of money. You will have under the provisions of the bill not just a judicial body making decisions as between competing firms but a body making recommendations to the government for the development of airways, and that will involve the expenditure of public money; and once you introduce that element into it you are flying in the face of our whole concept of responsible government if you suggest that the minister or the government should not be responsible for any implementing of the decisions of the board. For that reason 1 think the bill is right when it puts this measure of authority, if you want to call it that, though I call it responsibility, in the hands of the minister.
I am not surprised that my hon. friends to the right find it difficult to understand
fMr. Knowles,]
this concept. What you have here is an attempt, as far as it goes, to avoid the kind of mistakes this country made when it first launched on the development of our railway systems. In those days the people paid the shot and private corporations netted the profit. In this instance we know from the start that if there is to be a proper and adequate development of this tremendous means of modern transportation, air services, money will have to be provided by the people. It is the people's interests that are paramount, and I take the position, with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, that it should be under the direction and control of the people through their duly elected government.


Alfred Henry Bence: The hon. member suggested that some of the north and south feeder routes should be allowed to remain in the hands of private enterprise but that the more important ones should be taken over by the T.C.A. Would he suggest that the smaller and less important north and south feeder routes, when they become more important through the development of air contract, be then taken over by the T.C.A. or a government-owned company?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you ask the minister you will get a different answer from mine-


Alfred Henry Bence: I am asking you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will answer the question; don't be impatient.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member and the minister are together on this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the difference between us and some other hon. members in this house. We do not mind agreeing with those whom we are fighting when we find that they take the same position as we do on some issue. So far as this bill is concerned, we agree with the minister and I contend that we have given him the best support he has had in the house. However, to come back to the question. Even flying in the feeder routes in smaller areas, to which the hon. member has referred, will call for public assistance if they are to get anywhere at all, and I have no hesitation in saying that once these lines are developed to the point where they are important in the whole plan of our air services in Canada, they too should come under public direction and control.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: And be taken over?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, and socially owned by the people of the country.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask another question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not ask the Chair?

Aeronautics Act
4t>07


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann):: Order. Any hon. member who wishes to speak will please rise and address the Chair.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Through you, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the lux nember this question. There are a great many expenditures made by the government of Canada on canal systems. Is not that comparable to the expenditures made by this country in connection with air routes? If the hon. member is in favour of taking over these concerns, now that all shipping companies are successful, is he in favour of taking over all the shipping companies in the country?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may quote some of my Liberal friends who are not in the house, transportation is a natural monopoly and I think that the direction we have to move in over the whole field of transportation, if it is to be rationalized and organized so as best to serve the interests of the people, calls for extending the principle of public ownership.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: One further question. The hon. member, then, is in favour of taking over the C.P.R.?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Definitely.


Mr. REID:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre omitted to refer to the question of centralization of power at Ottawa, whereby neither the provincial governments nor an individual in those provinces will be able to go into the flying business unless he obtains a licence from and is controlled by some department at Ottawa. The hon. member centred his argument on the difference between private and public ownership. I came to the House of Commons in 1930, and I view with alarm the centralization of power in Ottawa. Canada is different from all other countries. It is perhaps four thousand miles in extent. It has great, areas sparsely settled. There is no country comparable to it, with the exception of the United States. It therefore behooves us to watch with a great deal of care-especially those of us who come from the east and the west-the powers which we think we are losing.


Alfred Henry Bence: I am a little surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with reference to the north and south feeder routes. If the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believes in public ownership of the transportation systems, then it must include the whole system, the Trans-Canada routes and the north and south routes. I do not see how* they can blow hot and cold at the same time w'ith regard to this important matter. It is a peculiar attitude to take when you suggest that you allow
private enterprise to take over a feeder route, develop it and get it to the point where it is successful and of real service to the nation, and then say that the government is to take it over. Surely you cannot hope to obtain anything from private enterprise in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about the Canadian Pacific Air Lines taking over eleven firms?


Alfred Henry Bence: the hands of the minister and the board is to be merely one that will advise him with respect to regulations and licences, why is it now necessary to continue the policy of divorcing the railways from the air lines? The whole authority now rests in the minister's hands. If he believes in government policy being implemented completely, and in there not being an impartial or non-political power in control of this thing, why does he not tell the railways that they may continue on with the airways system but that he has the power and authority to say to them definitely there is no possibility of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines being able to set up a Trans-Canada system?
I believe this matter came to a head at the time of the application of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines for an expansion of their line from North Battleford to Edmonton. It looked like another step in the policy of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines, if it was their policy, to extend their lines completely across Canada. Because of the fact that under normal circumstances if that route were specified the board of transport commissioners could give a licence without getting permission from the government to do so, this whole matter came to a head and the statement of policy was made by the minister last March. In view of the authority contained in this bill, and if the minister insists on obtaining the authority, could he tell us whether or not it is necessary for him to insist on divorcing the railways from air lines operations? This is the way I feel about this question. If air lines are to be divorced from the railways, we shall not have an economical system on the north and south routes. If it is split up into small companies, I do not see how it is possible to have economic systems on these north and south routes. The companies will not necessarily be well financed, nor will they necessarily be responsible.
There are many things to be considered in a matter of this kind. There is the question of accidents. The minister referred to that in 1937. When Trans-Canada Air Lines were linked up with the Canadian National Railways he referred to the responsibility that an air company had to its passengers and to the fact that any company carrying air traffic should be completely responsible, particularly if there were any negligence and any loss of life or property. There is no question about the fact that monetary compensation should be made. If this policy is continued, and if the government insists that the railways shall be divorced from the air lines, only one thing can eventually happen. We shall have a complete

government monopoly on the across-Canada system and on the north and south feeder routes, because I believe it is impossible to carry on a system of small operating units all the way across the country, each one with separate overhead and with no means of coordination of cooperation between the whole.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it might be worth while to take a few moments to consider what the bill before the house entails. The bill amends the Aeronautics Act, which in turn was passed in 1918. It was the supreme law governing aviation in Canada until it was amended in 1938.
The claim is made that the minister is setting up a dictatorship. That has been said several times. Let me say that the effect of the amendments are to transfer many of the responsibilities of the minister to a -board. Previously under the act those were the sole responsibilities of the minister. The hon. member for Yale administered the Aeronautcs Act for four or five years; he was then the dictator of aviation in this country. I cannot believe that he was very uneasy aibout the situation, or that the country was very uneasy; nevertheless in those years no plane could be licensed in this country, no route could be flown and no person could be a pilot except under a certificate from the hon. member for Yale. No-w we are changing that in what direction? We are setting up a board which on its own initiative will be responsible for licensing and for a number of other functions formerly performed by the minister.
Let us see what the other criticism is.


Mr. GREEN:: Before the minister leaves that point, will he say what powers are taken away from him that he had under the Aeronautics Act? As I read that act there is only one change; that is in connection with the licensing of aircraft, and even it is made subject to the approval of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; final authority in that regard is with the aeronautics board.


Howard Charles Green: It says, "subject to the approval of the minister."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me make my speech; you have made several. In 1938 an attempt was made to do something in this direction; the board of transport commissioners were asked to perform certain functions that previously had been performed by the minister. That bill was brought in by this government and introduced by myself, as Minister of Transport. That provision was inserted in the act with the idea of strengthening the machinery in connection with the allocation of air routes

Aeronautics Act
and licensing. It has become obvious that unless the act is again changed, in future there will be only two airway systems in Canada; one, the publicly owned Trans-Canada system-and it will take some vigilance on the part of governments from time to time to maintain that system in its present state- and the other owned by another railway. Applications have been filed by the privately owned railway for every route that has been opened or suggested in Canada; and under the present act, if those routes were proclaimed the transport board might very logically assign them to the privately owned railway. The government has had to consider whether or not that would be a good thing. In other words should this government permit, in war time-and remember that the privately owned railway entered the aviation field and has built up its business in that field during the war years-the air of Canada to be preempted by two railway systems; should we sit idly by and let that happen? That is the decision we have had to make. Rightly or wrongly the government has decided that it is not in the best interests of Canada, not in the public interests, to allow that to happen. Therefore we are doing what has been done in other countries; we are asking surface transportation to divest itself of its interests in air transportation, and we are amending the Aeronautics Act accordingly.
I have stated some of the objections to having the air dominated by two railway systems. I have said that we did not wish to bring to the development of our airways the competitive methods adopted in building our surface transportation. Many hon. members of the house, who are young men, have never seen that competitive system in action. I happen to be one of the older men in the house, and I remember the methods employed when that competition was at its height. If hon. members wish to see how that scramble for franchises was carried on, let them look at the situation that exists to-day. If they wish to see a railroad propaganda machine in action, let them look about to-day. What has happened? Every Conservative paper in Canada has carried the statement that this is a personal matter with Mr. Howe, that his colleagues are not in agreement with him. That was the first statement, and I think it was carried in practically every Conservative paper. I deny it absolutely.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So do we.
.Mr. HOWE: The government enters the house with a solid front, but I do not think I am betraying any confidence when I say every one of my colleagues is just as firmly
convinced of the wisdom of this policy as I am. The next story was that we were building up a great dictatorship, that the minister was drawing under his aegis all authority over aviation. As I have just pointed out, the minister responsible for the administration of the Aeronautics Act has always had complete authority over aviation, as a responsible minister. The purpose of these amendments is to divest him of some of that authority, rather than to add to his authority.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister say that was so after the Transport Act was passed in 1938? Some of the powers were taken away at that time, were they not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. As I say, as the minister responsible I was trying to divest myself of certain powers, and did so. The only reason these changes are being made, as related to the act of 1938, is that the Transport Act has not proved to be the type of legislation that will build up a balanced and reasonable air transport system in Canada. If an act does not work I believe the logical thing for any government to do is change it.
Then this has been represented as a step toward public ownership. Anyone reading the newspaper articles that have been current would be. convinced that the government was taking over private operations. Nothing of the kind is contemplated, or has been suggested, or is contained in any statement of government policy with regard to the air. What happened as far as Trans-Canada Air Lines was concerned? Private enterprise was asked to participate in the building of Trans-Canada Air Lines. At that time private enterprise did not care to participate, so that the system was developed as a government enterprise. The franchise was the gift of the people of Canada, and the government of the day decided to develop that franchise for the benefit of the people of Canada. The financial arrangements provided that increased earnings would be returned to the users of the system and to the public at large by way of reductions in the cost of carrying air mail. The system has been established. It had been in operation for only one year before war broke out, and has not been able to develop as rapidly as the requirements of the country have demanded. I think anyone interested in Canada's war effort will agree that the government could not reasonably have pressed the development of Trans-Canada Air Lines in preference to its war effort. However, it is the purpose of this government, as I hope it will be the purpose of succeeding governments, to protect the franchise of Trans-Canada Air Lines as a great public service. Trans-Canada
Aeronautics Act

Air Lines was not an invasion of private rights but the assumption of a public right. It has been developed; to-day it is one of the great air lines of this continent, with a record that cannot he challenged by any of its competitors. The government does not wish to disguise its interest in Trans-Canada, or its desire to protect that system as a non-competitive transcontinental service. Beyond that, there is nothing in the act or in any statement of government policy which indicates that government ownership will be further extended into the airways.	.
I do not know that anything further is needed to outline the form of the bill, but I have been amazed that a simple measure of this kind, conferring no new powers upon anyone but transferring powers from one board to another, should have met-


Howard Charles Green: It is not just that simple.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -with such a storm of propaganda. As I say, every Conservative newspaper in the country has put out propaganda. I am still more surprised at the reaction within this house.


Gordon Graydon: Is the Winnipeg Free
Press a Conservative paper?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Perhaps there may be one or two added starters. I am simply taking the field. The amazing reaction, however, is in this house. It seems to me that a brand new party label is becoming completely unstuck. In the old days of the propaganda machine, I would have expected to see what I have-seen from the group opposite. Here we are, back again.


Gordon Graydon: You and the C.C.F.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that while this discussion is going on the "Progressive" part of the label be dropped, and that we just go back to the old days and the old name.


Howard Charles Green: You are the only progressive man?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so.


Mr. STIRLING:: The minister referred to the hon. member for Yale as having been czar for four or five years.


Gordon Graydon: A dictator.


Grote Stirling: I think the minister used the word "czar" also. Might I draw his attention to the fact that certainly I was not czar or dictator for four or five years, because I was minister for only one year.^ At that time there was so little activity in the air in Canada that I do not remember even one aetion it was necessary for the dictator to take during those twelve months. It is true
tMr. Howe.]
that civil aviation was, in those days, a branch which came under the domination of the Department of National Defence. Such questions as the licensing of pilots and Toutes would come for examination before that department. I cannot, however, remember any action I took which would substantiate the statement that I was in any sense a dictator.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Civil aviation was abolished about 1932, was it not?


Grote Stirling: What does the minister mean by "abolished"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The expenditure was reduced very seriously in 1932.


Grote Stirling: Yes, it was somewhat reduced.


Gordon Graydon: The minister was just making another political remark.


Grote Stirling: Yes, just another political remark. I have listened on more than one occasion to the extremely interesting explanation of the minister respecting the way the policy of the government has developed. The position I take is that I prefer that which was the policy of the government to that which is the present policy, as set out in the bill.
Until now the board of transport commissioners was a board to which such matters as licensing might be committed for examination. The board of transport commissioners came into existence for a certain purpose, namely, the purpose of considering matters which could well be taken from the floor of parliament. The board could consider such matters and could give decisions as to their merit. In those circumstances there would be very little likelihood of any intrusion of political views, or any other feelings which might be inimical to fair decisions in certain cases.
The public in general had come to look upon the board of transport commissioners as a very satisfactory board with which to deal. They heard cases, and evidence was submitted. They gave decisions, and the public knew what those decisions were. Now a board is to be set up under the Aeronautics Act-a -board which to my mind is not as good as the other one was. The board to be set up is to be under the direction of the minister. It is to make decisions in respect of a variety of matters, and to take action with permission of the minister. Both at the beginning and at the end of the board's work, it is under the domination of the minister.	.
In this instance the minister is to be the Minister of Transport. I do not care who

Aeronautics Act
the individual is; the fact is that it is to be a minister. To my mind it would be much preferable that the minister's actions be curbed to the extent of examination by a board. It has not been satisfactory in the past to have all matters looked after solely by a minister. When the house is not in session, the minister must act with his colleagues, and the action taken is the passing of an order in council. But matters dealt with by orders in council do not readily come to the attention of the public.
It seems to me that when the board is to give advice to the minister, and the minister is to make a final decision, the findings of the board should be brought to the attention of the public as soon as a decision has been reached.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: At the risk of being termed a propagandist I should like to say a word or two in regard to the bill, not from a party standpoint at all, but as a citizen of Canada.
I do not thmk there can be any disagreement when I say that the measure before the committee has for its purpose the creation of a government monopoly in respect of air transport services. The terms of the measure go that far, and do in fact set up a government monopoly.
I understand this is a general discussion, but that section 1 is before the committee. Perhaps I might draw the attention of hon. members to the wording of section 12(1), which states:
Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may issue to any person applying therefor a licence to operate a commercial air service.
The words "to any person" have a very broad meaning. Reading that section of the measure alone, one would come to the conclusion that anyone applying could get a licence. However the next subsection says:
No such licence shall be issued in respect of a commercial air service owned, leased, controlled or operated by any person who is engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward by means other than aircraft-
This, in effect, prohibits the railway companies from carrying on air transportation services. In my view that is not a good policy. I do not see why the issue of licences to transportation companies should be prohibited. Jt is my view that our two big railway companies, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, are better equipped and better qualified to give transport services by air than are any other people or companies in Canada. I am not shocked by what the minister has described as two railway companies preempting air services in Canada. I think those two companies could very well be allowed and encouraged to preempt air service in this country, because they can carry it on so much better than any other institutions or organizations of which I know at the present time. The fact is that the Canadian National Railways have successfully operated Trans-Canada Air Lines, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway has successfully operated Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Why not let them carry on? These two companies have made a success of transportation, and this measure would exterminate their air transport activities. I do not see how it can be considered in the public interest to cancel their licences, to prohibit the renewal of licences or to prohibit issuing new licences to them. Such would be the effect of this measure.
The bill provides:
The board shall review all licences . . . and may cancel or suspend any such licence as it sees fit.
It has a free hand to cancel any licence it wishes, with or without cause. Even that, apparently, is not considered sufficiently extreme, because if those licences are not so cancelled, by the following section they cease to be valid at the termination of the war. In other words, the licences which now exist are exterminated by this measure.
It has been my experience that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways are giving the country a first-class air transport service. I know that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines is giving the west and the north country a splendid service. I cannot understand why the government should wish to discontinue that service when in fact it should be supported and encouraged.


Alfred Henry Bence: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a statement he is reported to have made the other day. I quote from the July 8 issue of the Financial Post, where a question and answer series is carried on with the minister and in which he is reported to have made the following statement :
I call your attention to the fact that CPA has not been ordered to break up its system. The statement of government policy indicated that air lines will be separate operations from surface transportation, and that the railroads will be asked to divest themselves of control of airlines not later than one year after the ending of the European war. There is nothing to prevent CPA from continuing its present operation under other than railway ownership.
I take it from that that if there is a body or number of individuals in this country with sufficient finances to take over Canadian Pacific Air Lines, CjP.A. will then be allowed to
Aeronautics Act

operate over the routes it is covering at the present time. In view of that fact I do not see how the minister can justify his stand that he has removed the objectionable features which arise under competing systems, and which arose when the two railroads were established. We will have the C.P.A. endeavouring to obtain further lines, and we will have the T.CA. doing the same thing. Consequently I do not see how the minister has achieved the end he has in view by merely divesting the railways of ownership of these lines. It will be a continuing operation by the two air transport systems, and unless he goes farther than he has, in my opinion he is not going to achieve that which he has sought to achieve at this time.


Howard Charles Green: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was arguing in favour of maintaining a monopoly.


Howard Charles Green: I was not arguing in favour of maintaining a monopoly. Further I think all monopolies should be very strictly controlled. Like some other hon. members who have spoken to-day I cannot see the sense in wiping out an efficient service. There should-be some better way of solving our problem than simply to make an efficient service shut up shop. If the C.P.R. have gone too far, then they certainly should be curbed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no service being closed that I know of.


Howard Charles Green: I do not see how the minister can expect the Canadian Pacific to maintain

Aeronautics Act
and improve their present air service when they are under sentence of death within a year after the end of the war. That is the only thing one can conclude from the minister's remarks and from the terms of the bill. I ask him to explain just what will happen in the case of the service now being flown from Vancouver into the Yukon and from Edmonton into the Yukon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of this act is to establish a board to formulate plans to the end that no service is going to suspend. When the time comes to divest, it will be possible to obtain equipment and competent pilots, and certainly the problem will be worked out in a logical way. I can assure my hon. friend that the purpose of private enterprise in flying these routes is to make money. When ownership is transferred, it will be done at a price.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make it clear whether or not it is the intention to have Trans-Canada take over that service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is not. The policy in regard to T.C.A. has been reiterated time after time. There is no change in that policy.


Howard Charles Green: There would have to be some private company found or organized to take over that route from Canadian Pacific Air Lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That will develop in due course.


Howard Charles Green: The minister can give no assurance at the present time how that situation will be met?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure the hon. member that the route will be operated.


Howard Charles Green: That is as far as the minister can go?	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Alfred Henry Bence: Will the minister explain the latter part of the quotation to which I have referred where he is reported to have said:
There is nothing to prevent C.P.A. from continuing its present operation under other than railway ownership.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member find anything in the bill that indicates anything different?


Alfred Henry Bence: No, but the suggestion in the minister's reported statement is that the
C.P.A. is to be allowed to continue if it divorces itself of railway ownership, and I want to know whether that is the government's policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us determine the question when it arises. A board is being established to assist the government in formulating policy.


Alfred Henry Bence: Then the minister was not stating government policy when he made that statement as reported in the press?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is a lawyer, and I ask him whether I was not giving a correct legal interpretation of the bill as he reads it?


Alfred Henry Bence: The minister is giving a correct legal interpretation in the sense that he has the right to determine the matter of licences, but his reported statement was that the C.P.A. is to be allowed to continue if it divorces itself of railway ownership.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If such an application is made it will be considered by the board.


Alfred Henry Bence: The minister will not go as far now as he did when he made that statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that there was nothing in the bill to that effect, and if my hon. friend wants to challenge that statement, let him produce the evidence.


Alfred Henry Bence: I have produced the minister's statement as reported in the press. Was that an accurate statement or not? If it was accurate, will the government implement that policy here?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend find anything in the bill that conflicts with the statement I am reported to have made?


Alfred Henry Bence: It is not covered in the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then let us confine ourselves to the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that the minister is doing himself an injustice when he tries to tell my hon. friends to my right that this is an innocuous bill and that there is not very much in it. I do not blame him altogether for his desire to allay their fears so that he can get the bill through.


Gordon Graydon: He put you on the spot anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, he did not. He put himself in a bit of a spot.


Gordon Graydon: You thought you had a convert to socialism but found you had not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know he is not a socialist yet. But I want to suggest to the minister that there is something new in this bill and I think he should admit it and boast of it.
Aeronautics Act


Gordon Graydon: If there is nothing new in it, why bring it in?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not altogether proper to. refer to other sections than the one before the committee, but sections 9 and 10 give the board which will be set up power, more than that, give instructions to the board, to make investigations and surveys so that the board may be able to advise the minister on matters nespecting civil aviation. I feel that what we have in this bill is provision for the government to take the initiative in developing our air services. I recognize that it is quite correct, as the minister said a little while ago, for him to say that this bill does not provide for any extension of the principle of public ownership of air services, but it does provide for the setting up of a board which may survey the whole matter and make its recommendations to the minister in the light of what it considers to be in the best interests of the country. I submit that any impartial board which goes at this objectively will in due course make recommendations to the government that the principle of public ownership be extended so far as air services are concerned, and if this government is not prepared to accept that recommendation, .possibly a future government will.


Mr. HOMUTH:: You know what the future government will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know all about that. We in the last few minutes have been listening to an argument between the hon. member for Saskatoon City and the minister, and the hon. member for Vancouver South got into it as well, with respect to what is going to happen to C.P.A., which indicated that if there is to be the avoidance of monopolistic control of all other air lines than those not now operated by T.CA., you will not get it merely by divorcing the financial set-up of C.PA. from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company You have to go the whole way and extend the principle of public ownership to apply to the northwest staging route, the Mackenzie route, and other important air routes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And take over the C.P.R.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is quite right when he says that this bill does not make provision for public ownership of these lines, but it does make provision, I am glad to say and I wish the minister would boast of it too, for setting up a board which may make such a recommendation to the government. What the government may do with the recommendation is, of course, a matter of government policy.
I Mr. Knowles.]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Are you in favour of taking over the C.P.R.?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, definitely.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is all I wanted to know-nationalize the C.P.R.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just as soon as we possibly can after the next election.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You will not have anything to say about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope you are enjoying this cross-fire, Mr. Chairman, as much as I am. My hon. friends to my right get so worked up-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not worked up, just
disgusted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right; they get disgusted, or whatever term they wish to use, whenever an extension of the principle of public ownership is suggested. But when I asked the hon. member for Saskatoon City a simple question about the C.P.R. taking over ten or eleven firms, that is quite a different story. He said that he would answer that later, but he has not done so. That is why you have the cut-throat competition to which I referred, and about which the hon. member for Vancouver South endeavoured to check me. You start with a number of small lines competing with each other, engaging in cutthroat competition under private enterprise, until a large firm with all kinds of capital steps in and gobbles them all up.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is no cut-throat competition on the railways.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The difference between being taken over by a private monopoly and being taken over by the government should be looked at from the point of view of the interests concerned, and the first interest to be served is to make sure that the taxpayers' money is being wisely spent. Secondly, you must see that there is the fullest possible development of air services on a rational basis, and, thirdly, there must be protection of the rights and wages and living standards of the employees.


Gordon Graydon: And fourthly, avoid
throwing the whole thing into politics.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is plenty of room around here for taking it out of politics.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Talk about protecting wages. They cut their own indemnities in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend seems quite disturbed over the decision of the C.C.F. government to cut their own salaries.

Aeronautics Act


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They did not think they were worth any more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are closer to the people.
We feel that the three main interests I have suggested are much better served under public direction and control than under private enterprise and monopoly, and we hope things will move in that direction. I hope I have not embarrassed^ the minister and thus prolonged the passage of the bill, but I do not think our hon. friends to the right should be told that there is nothing in it. There ought to be more in it, but it does contain some things that we welcome and that he ought to be proud of.
Mr. CrILLIS:	Was a franchise granted
within the last four months for the operation of a side-line air line between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and points in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had no such
application.


Gordon Graydon: Certain things that have happened may have bee_i amusing to the minister, as he implies, but it is also amusing to see the difficulties which have so soon arisen in this new-found alliance between the minister and my socialist friends to the left. Such new alliances do not often last long, but I had expected that these hon. gentlemen would be able to get along at least while the consideration of the bill was in progress. From the minister's explanation, one of two things has happened. Either my hon. friends have not read or have not understood the bill very well, or unconsciously they are, so to speak, getting into bed with the C.P.R. That is a fair assumption, because the minister now makes the statement to the Financial Post, which has been read by the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) and which I myself have read, although I have not a copy of it with me now. It indicates clearly that the bill does permit the same company, Canadian Pacific Air Lines, to operate exactly as they are operating now, provided that the board which is now set up, and the appeal to the minister, which is complementary to it, permit them to carry out that particular policy. May I point out to my hon. friends to the left that there is nothing in the bill that, as far as I can see after the minister's explanation, taken in conjunction with the statement in the Financial Post, in any way dissolves the present set-up, except that it makes it more awkward in the handling of traffic, because what will happen is this. In all probability, unless some teeth are put into the act, those who are now operating Canadian Pacific Air Lines, in order to go on the same as before, need only declare that they are divorced from the other transportation system to which they are at present attached. If that is the case, where is the much vaunted policy of the minister respecting the giving of little franchises to those who come back from overseas? That was one of the things the minister used with great effect; at least he felt that it had great effect at the beginning of his introduction of the bill. As it turns out now, there is nothing in that regard but some innocuous reference to a board which has been set up. The minister himself now finds it necessary to indicate that there may be no change at all in the set-up. That being so, I contend that either this bill means something or it does not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the Conservative
policy? We have had it stated from many angles. You are the only exponent of the little man's interests that I have heard over there.


Gordon Graydon: I cannot hear what you
are saying. I am trying to make a speech and you are trying to interrupt. If you want to make a speech afterwards-you will anyway-I am certainly not going to extend an invitation to you now. As far as the minister's present suggestion goes, as contained in the Financial Post, it is a deceptive sort of arrangement. In my opinion it will lead to something worse than the situation which the minister is trying to avoid in the first place, because you will then have the company operating in exactly the same way as before, although under another name. The effect will be exactly the same. We are entitled to something better than that. My hon. friends to the left are always talking about what government ownership will do. Apparently they are not satisfied with government regulation, such as is envisaged under the transport board. That does not seem to suit their purposes. But if the government cannot regulate satisfactorily-and apparently, according to my hon. friends to the left, they cannot 

then I pose this question to them: Can the government always operate successfully if they cannot successfully regulate? These questions of public ownership versus private ownership-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your party has admitted that the T.C.A. operate pretty well.


Gordon Graydon: I will come to that in
a moment and put on the record the exact position as I see it with respect to public ownership and private enterprise. My hon. friends to the left from time to time parade
Aeronautics Act

the great bogey man of monopoly. I say te them that I am as much opposed to monopoly as they ever were or will be.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They are not opposed to it; they are in favour of it.


Gordon Graydon: I will come to that, too, in a moment. If hon. gentlemen to my left, who are murmuring, will content themselves for the moment I will come to that point. I do not want the chairman to name any of them. I am not nearly so much concerned about the size of an enterprise as I am about the kind of service which it is giving society and whether it is playing ball with the state, the ratepayers and the public generally. That is the test, and it is not fair to draw red herrings across the parliamentary trail and, worse than that, to do the same thing on the hustings where the people are not given an opportunity from time to time to discuss these matters. I do not like the idea of people taking a pail of black paint and a brush and daubing everything where there is more than one man in a business. That is not good enough, and I will say to my hon. friends, when they talk about public ownership and put up the best case they can for the state owning things, that I came from a farm, and many other hon. gentlemen in this house came from farms, and in my opinion if ever there was a good example of what private enterprise can do, an example of what rugged individualism in this country can accompish, then I take off my hat to the farmers of the nation. My hon. friends to the left are suffering through a confusion of policy with relation to state ownership of farms, and I will say to them that it is our belief that so long as the success of the farmers of Canada is what it is, so long as they set such a good example, then there is still argument- for private ownership and individual initiative in this land. May I say to my hon. friends that in so far as monopolies are concerned we have had suggestions from them from time to time to substitute one monopoly for another. That is all we have ever been offered.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A bigger one than ever.


Gordon Graydon: A monopoly which may reasonably be greater and more dangerous than those which at present exist. Let us be fair about this. Let us judge these things with calmness and with an analytical mind without the confusion of politics thrown into it. So far as the air lines are concerned, if we are to criticize every air line in Canada and call them monopolies unless they are operated by one man, then I do not think 
we shall be able to build up a very good air-line system in this country in the future.
My hon. friends in the C.C.F. talk about the Trans-Canada Air Lines and total government ownership. Let me point out to him that his own party's leader in this house is espousing a doctrine which he himself is not espousing in the statement he makes. My hon. friends to the left ask for a complete nationalization of the air lines of Canada, so that there shall not be cut-throat competition or monopolies, as they say. That would, of course, result in a giant monopoly. At the same time their leader was very careful-I can realize how careful he had to be-when he was discussing the question of the taking over of the Canadian Pacific railway system. In effect this is what he said: Yes, we are going to nationalize it; but no, we are not going to put it into one giant monopoly; we are going to operate the two national railways in competition with each other. If that were done you would have the alleged cut-throat competition which the group to my left attempt to show will result in the operations of the air lines of Canada. May I suggest to them that they cannot have their cake and eat it.


Mr. GILLIS:: It would be more efficient.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to my hon. friend that when he speaks of the question of efficiency-


Clarence Gillis: It would not ruin the nation.


Gordon Graydon: If my hon. friend wants to make a speech he is quite at liberty to do so. I hope that he will give me the same opportunity of interrupting when he is speaking. Our job in this country is not to deal with generalities as my hon. friends to the left are doing, but to face realities so far as air transportation is concerned, and to see to it that no matter what may be done, the best possible service shall be given to those sections of our country which badly need them. Our great hinterland and the northwest of Canada particularly are going to need the very best service that this nation can give them. I think we as a parliament ought to be very careful not to try to do as the government is attempting, and draw a red herring across the trail and suggest things in such a way that even our socialist friends to the left have been deceived. They have been deceived by the policy of the government to the point where they thought it was a socialist policy. They were deceived to such an extent that they allied themselves with the minister and the minister has now denied any such suggestion of socialistic

Aeronautics Act
tendencies. That is the curious position; that is the confused position in which the Canadian Pacific Air Lines, which everybody seems to know so much more about than I, the leader of a party in this house, may also be up against in time. They may find that they are taken over by a giant octopus in this country, or they may not.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is a case of an adoption where the child did not want to be adopted.


Gordon Graydon: In closing, I should like to point out to the minister that the question of provincial jurisdiction in the air also comes up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who raised the question, and why? Has that question ever been raised under this bill?	[DOT]


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister to keep quiet for a while?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that we discuss the bill.


Gordon Graydon: I do not want to be
impolite to the minister, but I should like to pursue this matter for a minute, because I think it is important. When I finish I think the minister will recognize that. As I understand it, the board to be set up is subject to an appeal to the minister. It will have the power to determine jurisdiction in so far as the provinces and the dominion are concerned, and in so far as the setting up of air, services are concerned. .


Mr. MARTIN:: No.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for
Essex East is going to come forward with one of his long legal opinions, for which theoretically I have great respect, but practically I am afraid sometimes they are not always right. May I say to the minister that in so far as the board is concerned we are going to be faced with this problem. The minister says that you can always get an appeal to the courts. The suggestion he makes is that you should first of all spend the money to set up the airports and buy the machines and get your pilots. You can then start to operate, but you then find yourself faced with a lawsuit. That is the way and the time when he says that you can have your rights determined. I suggest that that is not the proper way to proceed. On the question of jurisdiction and law I suggest that the point made by the hon. member for Lake Centre is a tenable one and one which I think the minister ought to consider carefully. I am hopeful that this boaml will protect the rights
of the provinces. I hope that it will give effect to the decision of the aeronautics case.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend a question? As a lawyer he is well posted on these matters. Would he explain how the aeronautics decision was obtained? It was obtained under the terms of the Aeronautics Act.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Absolutely the same act.


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend is asking for legal advice. It is a strange position-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know; I was wondering if my hon. friend knew.


Gordon Graydon: If the minister is going to make another speech I have no objection.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was expounding the law. I thought he knew the case.


Gordon Graydon: I am trying to make a speech. I have just about finished. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, evidently wants to make a speech, too.


Clarence Gillis: I never expected you would make a speech.


Gordon Graydon: The voice of experience is always very effective in that connection.
May I conclude by saying to the minister that in so far as the aeronautics decision is concerned, my understanding of it is that it did not take the whole jurisdiction with respect to air travel out of the jurisdiction of the provinces and give it to the dominion except in certain sections. That may be a matter of opinion, but in any event I wish to leave it with the minister and his officials so that they may go into the legal aspects of it. I wish to say to the minister that in so far as this board goes, there should be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the two points which the hon. member for Lake Centre suggested previously in the debate.


Clarence Gillis: As a rule the leader of the Tory party is inclined to be cool and collected. His outburst this afternoon would lead me to believe that he has a very bad case. It is the technique of a lawyer who understands his business-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some lawyers.
* Mr. GILLIS: Most of the lawyers in this house, too.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are lawyers and
lawyers.


Clarence Gillis: It is the technique of lawyers to make a lot of noise when they have a bad
Aeronautics Act

case. The display of the leader of the Tory party this afternoon convinces me that he has either a very bad case or that the heat is affecting him. His outburst was anything but his usual capable performance. I think it was also an indication that the minister was right when he said that, regardless of tags, the Tory machine is still the same old buggy with a new coat of paint. Occasionally they forget 'themselves and lapse back to a lot of old policies they never got away from.
I am going to be as brief and as explicit as I can in this connection. Many times this session I have heard protests from every side of the house because the powers of parliament were being usurped by boards and people outside this house, and to a large extent I think that criticism is justified. What I like about this measure is that in it the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is bringing back one of the prerogatives that should remain within the confines of this chamber. He is setting up a board that has the right to organize the air industry, which is of such potential value to the people of this country and which must be closely supervised because of its hazards to the travelling public. The minister has considerable authority under this bill, and he is answerable to this house for any action he may take through the medium of this board. That is where such responsibility belongs, and I am glad to see that the minister has sufficient courage to take this step. What did it add up to in the past? A board sat behind the scenes, never reporting to parliament, and franchises across the country were sold to their friends on the basis of patronage. That was the sum and substance of it. That is what is worrying so many people to-day. I have on my desk right now a letter stating that Tory manipulation is going on in Nova Scotia with respect to a short line in that province.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, no; nothing like that.


Clarence Gillis: That is what is worrying my hon. friends. It has been a pretty good business in the past, but now it is coming back into this chamber, where it belongs. We are beginning to drag out from behind the scenes a very good business that has been handled on the basis of patronage and in favour of monopolies. The people of Canada elect members of this house to do the business of the country, and this is where the responsibility should be.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, they make terrible
mistakes sometimes.


Clarence Gillis: The people should rectify any such mistakes by sending responsible men to this House of Commons.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They will in the next election.


Clarence Gillis: That is their prerogative. While this bill cannot be construed in any way as setting up a system of government ownership, management or operation in connection with the airways, nevertheless it is a step toward accepting responsibility and guarding that industry in the future. If that step had been taken fifty years ago in this country with respect to the fuel industry, for example, it would not be in its present condition, under private monopoly, responsible to no one. The oil industry of the North American continent has directed the destinies of the fuel industry of this country to such an extent that it has become a national disgrace. The technical research and development carried on by the big oil interests have interfered with the development of our fuel industry. If there had been a board responsible for managing and handling that industry, responsible to the people of Canada, this situation would not have developed. I wish the leader of the opposition would read some of the stuff being pul out by the United States government to-day in pamphlet form as a result of their investigations into monopoly control on the continent of North America, which shows that practipally every organization in this country that amounts to anything is being manipulated from the countries that we are fighting. They still have control, and will continue to have control in the aftermath of the war.
I am not going to continue along that line. In my opinion this is one step taken by the government in an endeavour to guard and protect an industry that is in its infancy against such developments as we have seen in connection with textiles, fuel, power and every other branch of industry in this country, which have brought us to the point where our whole economy is controlled by a very few people. That is why I favour this bill. I have no illusions as to the minister being a socialist; but I do say he is an engineer; he is practical; he wants to see things done. I believe he is working in the interests of this country, and I further believe that if he were unshackled he would do a much better job. He may not be a socialist in theory; he may not preach that doctrine; but, after all, socialism is merely a matter of getting things done instead of talking about them. That is what the minister is trying to do in this bill. Parliament is accepting the responsibility of organizing a potentially great industry, with the supreme power vested in

Aeronautics Act
the minister who is responsible to the House of Commons for his actions. That is as it should be.
I had no intention of saying anything during this discussion, but I thought the leader of the opposition was so wild and irrelevant in his remarks that I had to rise and say something. This is exactly as I see it. When the heat is over; when the hon. gentleman has time to sit back and calmly consider this matter in the confines of his own office, I think he will decide that he was all wrong and will write the minister a letter of apology.-


Mr. McIVOR:: I must say I was well pleased when the minister shook Trans-Canada Air Lines free of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I hope he will keep it that way. As far as the minister being responsible is concerned, if I represented a small company or an individual pilot it would cost me less to appeal to the minister than to appeal to a court. I believe the minister would be familiar with all sides of the question and would be just as square, as level and as just as an}' judge in the land.


Agar Rodney Adamson: To hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South flirting with the minister reminds me of the picture I have seen of a monument maker chasing a hearse. This bill, I think, illustrates the truth of the saying that all power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. The minister spoke of the old days and of the competition between the railways, particularly, as I gathered it, with regard to the competition for franchises. That was a long time ago. Perhaps he remembers the days when the Santa Fe and the Union Pacific competed so bitterly for the traffic between New Orleans and Los Angeles At one time they reduced the fare between those two cities to SI, the cut-throat competition was so bad. These things have not been done, however, for many decades. The regulation of the railways, certainly since before the last war, has shown a marked degree of success. The minister has always said that he would divorce the air services from land services because this was done in the United States, and that that was their policy. That may be so, but he has yet to explain to my satisfaction or, I suggest, to the satisfaction of the committee, why this policy of the divorcing of air lines from the railway companies has been adopted.
Air transportation and land transportation are both classified as transportation. Already the railways have contingent services such as telegraphs and hotels. They also have those much abused officers, their commercial agents,
who are trying to look for new business. Apparently it is a very wrong thing in this day for anyone to look for new business, in this new business, in this new social set-up about which everyone seems to be so pleased. New business is to some persons one of the sins of the devil. Still, to those of us who perhaps are old-fashioned, new business is something to be fought for.
I believe the railways have done more to build up this country than any other single unit. The minister does not say why the railways have been divorced, but states merely that it has been the policy in the United States that a common surface carrier may not be in the air transport business. In my view this has to have much more explanation before it can receive general acceptance. Is the fact that something is done in the United States, and that it may work satisfactorily in that country, any reason why we should automatically adopt their plan of doing business?
One other point arises in connection with cooperation between air services and the railways. Many journeys in Canada will have to be joint journeys, part air and part rail. If the railways and the air lines work as a unit, schedules will be organized so that connections can easily be made. This is a feature worthy of consideration, because at the present time in some instances a whole day is lost because trains and air lines do not make connections.
There has been much discussion about Canada's position in connection with air transport in 1935. In that year I happened to be doing considerable flying in the bush, and it was my impression that Canada led the world in tonnage carried, and was one of the world's leaders in passengers carried and miles flown [DOT]Well, I looked up the figures and, once and for all, I should like to place them on the record I am quoting from "Keesings Contemporary. Archives," which show that in 1935 the United States had 454 civil aircraft, while Canada had 336. Surely that is a creditable showing, when one considers the difference in size of our populations. The figures for passengers carried are as follows:
Passengers
carried
United States	 860,000
Canada	 177,000
Mexico	 60,000
The other Latin-American countries are listed proportionately.
Then, the figures for freight carried in 1935 are as follows:
Tons of freight carried
Canada	 [DOT]	11,803
United States	 2,460
Aeronautics Act

In other words, we carried nearly five times the tonnage of freight in that year as was carried in the United States. Surely that is not a bad record for a country the government of which was accused of having let air transport die. These figures should be remembered.


Mr. ROWE:: What year was that?


Agar Rodney Adamson: It was 1935, the last year of the Bennett government.
Let us compare those figures with the figures for Europe. The numbers of civil aircraft in European countries were as follows:
No. of
civil aircraft
France	 221
Great Britain	 168
Germany	 150
Italy	 72
The Netherlands	 51
Other countries had proportionately less. Then, these are the figures showing the number of passengers carried:
No. of passengers carried
Germany	 209,875
Great Britain	 200,000
Russia	 95,000
The Netherlands	 64,000
France	 56,000*
Italy	 53,000
Belgium	 24,000
Compare these figures with Canada's 177,000 in that year, and again our showing is creditable.
Let us now look at the tonnages of freight carried in European countries. These are the figures for 1935:
Tons of freight carried
U.S.S.R	 9,055
Germany	  3,803
Great Britain	 1,898
France	   1,300
Italy	 1,019
It will be seen that Canada's 11,800 is even greater than that carried by the U.S.S.R. These figures, I believe, give a true picture of Canada's aviation position in that year. We led the world in air freight carried.
Then, to complete the record, let us look into the number of passengers carried on the continents of Asia, Australasia and Africa. These are the figures for 1935: *
Number of *passengers carried
Asia	 83,385
Australasia	 50,804
Africa	 22,922
When we compare any of those figures with Canada's 177,000 for the same year we

find that Canada carried more than the total passengers carried on those three continents. That is not bad, I should say, for a country whose aircraft industry at that time was based on private enterprise. It was not bad in that year.
I have put these figures on the record as I want to protest against this bill. I want to protest on behalf of the people who built up Canadian aviation. I refer particularly to the bush pilots, to the men in those small companies and to the individual pioneers who, frequently operating on a shoe-string, provided service for the growing mining industry in that area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To what small company does my hon. friend refer? Will he name one?


Agar Rodney Adamson: General Airways, Patricia Airways, and there was one company with a franchise for a line between Rouyn and Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who owns them now?


Agar Rodney Adamson: They are not in existence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are not operating?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not think so. I was up there the other day and there was no flying at all out of Rouyn. There used to be a line between Timmins and Noranda. You could fly more or less all over the north country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those lines were given up for war reasons.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They were really given up before the war, because I was up there just at the beginning of the war. It was partly because of what I mentioned last night, the destruction of prospecting. Most of these air lines were serving the prospectors, the diamond drilling crews and the small mines. The first time I went into Siscoe the only way I could go was by air.
These companies made it possible for us to establish a world lead in the carriage of air freight. My objection to this bill is that it proscribes the operation of small companies like these. Under the regulations they would have to have definite routes. These companies did not have definite routes. In 1933, 1934 and 1935 there was a great deal of activity in the Chibougamou district in northwest Quebec. Several lines, at least General Airways, flew regular services from Noranda or Rouyn to Chibougamou andt they would stop to service diamond drilling crews operating in that district. Unfortunately the district did not live up to expectations. A great deal of money was spent but not a single producing mine waa

Aeronautics Act
developed. That illustrates the hazards of the mining business. General Airways ran a definite route and they sold a ticket, a printed contract. Naturally, when that area failed there was no reason to run aircraft into the district and the line was discontinued.
Under this legislation we would say that General Airways should have a monopoly into the Chibougamou district. However, Prospectors Airways, which was a mining and prospecting corporation, at one time was interested in the Chibougamou field. I did not fly with them, but I understand that they had a plane which serviced their operations in the district which was also serviced by General Airways. In my opinion there was no harm in that because both companies were endeavouring to develop the country. If you were interested in getting into the country you had the option of travelling on one or the other line. Prospectors Airways did not have a regular service but occasionally, I understand, they would take a passenger in.
This bill in its precise and limiting clauses is going to put a damper on the development of such lines as I have mentioned.


An hon. MEMBER:: In what way?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Because each line will have a prescribed route; each line will have its individual destination point. In the development of the north country, which is what I am interested in, you cannot prescribe and limit the activities of aircraft or the men who fly them.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Before six o'clock I was discussing briefly the operations of the small operators in Canada who are known as the bush pilots or bush fliers. I had dealt with a number of the smaller operations, particularly those from the mining centre of Rouyn and Noranda.
I should now like to discuss an operation on the Pacific coast which has been taken over by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I refer to the operation which was known as the Ginger Coote Air Services. They flew from Vancouver to Victoria but chiefly from Vancouver to Port Alberni and to the Zeballos mining district. I think this operation had a world record for time saved by air. In the ordinary course of events, if you wanted to go to the Zeballos mining field you took a boat, and it took you between five and six days to go
from Vancouver around the end of Vancouver island, calling at a great number of ports on the way and lying over at night at some of them, but you could fly there by the Ginger Coote Air Services in two hours. You could get in there and back in a day quite easily. That was a saving, it has been estimated, particularly if the weather was at all bad, of twelve days, which I think is a record of time saved in travelling by air. It shows the vital part which these pioneer air services have played in the development of Canada. Ginger Coote has been taken over by the C.P.A. I think Ginger Coote could not make it go, although I am not sure, and the reason he could not was none other than that the Zeballos mining camp did not develop into a major camp. In the beginning this operator was prepared to go in there and take a chance on the development of this new field. This bill in its clauses will, I feel, militate against the small operators. Ginger Coote operated two Waco float planes. He took a chance on the Zeballo field developing into a major camp. The camp was all right for a few years and it may open again and probably will, but I understand that it is now completely closed down.
The reason why Canadian Pacific Air Lines took that service over was to provide an essential service. To-day they operate from Patricia Bay to Vancouver. I flew there just the other day myself. They are operating an essential service. If one wanted to charter a plane from them or from some other big corporation or to be flown north of the Zeballos field, I do not think you would be able to do so even if there was no war, because the big operators would allow no deviation from the regular routes of their aircraft.
Several other air services small in nature have more or less gone by the board. One of them was Patricia Airways. It flew into the Albany river territory in northern Ontario, the Patricia mine, the Pickle Crow mine and various other districts. Here again, if these fields did not develop into a major field, the small operator would find it difficult to continue. None of these operators was subsidized, as I remember. They just took a chance. They were the true pioneers, the ones to whom we have to be thankful for the leading position we occupied in world aviation in those critical years of the middle thirties. Most of these operators operated on a shoe-string. Their planes were not new. They were planes like the single-engined Stinson or the Fairchild or the Waco or even the De Havilland Moth. They operated on floats in the summer and skis in winter. They had a very interesting
Aeronautics Act

effect on the Canadian aircraft field, because out of this development came the only original Canadian aircraft, the Noorduyn Norseman. This aircraft was developed specifically 'to undertake the job of bush flying and it was extremely successful. In fact the Noorduyn Norseman is to-day, I understand, being used with very little alteration by all the united nations as a short haul float plane for freight and passengers. I understand that it has proved more successful than any other design. That was one of the advantages we had by developing the small operator and the bush flyer.
Let me say a word about the safety of these operators. We are very proud of the fact that Trans-Canada Air Lines has a unique record for safety, but what an extremely enviable record these old bush flyers had in their day. As far as I know, in all the operations from Noranda-and there would be as many as fifteen and sometimes twenty planes in and out that airport or little wharf every day- there was only one fatal accident, and on the Pacific coast there was, I believe, only one fatal accident which occurred near Fort Albemi on the forbidden plateau. When we think of the tremendous volume of freight and the tremendous development that was carried out by those men, with their record of safety, surely it is our first duty to see to it that whatever legislation we may pass or whatever legislation we may bring down in this house, the future of the small operator, the man who has one or two planes, the man who is perhaps operating a specialty service, who is operating where the big operators cannot go, is made secure; because he is the man, and that is the operation, that has built Canadian aviation. It was not the great transcontinental lines that made Canadian aviation, but the small operator operating with one or two planes, in the certain knowledge that if he had a crash he probably could not afford to buy another one. These were the men who developed aviation and these are the men we seem to have forgotten. We have got into our heads a grandiose idea about transcontinental and transatlantic aviation. This is all very important in its way, but we must remember that Canada is still a pioneer country and that if we are to develop, as I hope we shall, it is to the pioneer operator that we still have to look. While it is all very well to consider the transcontinental service and to have pictures of pretty stewardesses tripping about and soothing the brow of the tired businessman-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Or cabinet minister.


Agar Rodney Adamson: -we must remember that it is the hobnail-booted prospector and engi-

neer who is going to fill the needs of industry and make the payroll that will meet the requirements of the future. These are things we are apt to forget. We get delusions of grandeur, and that is one of the reasons why I object to the restrictive clauses in this bill. When clause 12 comes up I hope to have something more to say on it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have been following all the legislation brought down by the minister, and I thought it might be wise, in view of the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Lake Centre, this afternoon with reference to recourse to the law, and also having regard to the remarks made by the minister to-day, to remind the committee of something that is very interesting, but something that this government has forgotten. The 15th of June was a date which meant a great deal to the British people, for on that date 729 years ago the barons of England gathered at Runnymede outside Windsor to meet King John. It was on that day that absolute power of the state, held through the person of the king, was compelled to yield to the rule of law and the rights of man. This was set down in the great charter, magna charta. It is still a symbol of freedom, so highly appraised and carefully cherished, that the document itself was sent to Washington for safe-keeping during the blitz. The rule of law!
All that my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre asks is that the rule of law shall be observed; access to the law in order to redress grievances must be made as easy as possible. How far we are getting away from that easy access to the law in the legislation we have had put before us this session! So far as I can see, the minister wants to make appeals to the courts as difficult as he can. This afternoon he said: Let anyone who wants a licence to operate start an airways company; if he can get it let him start one. How ridiculous that is. Who in the world is going to go to the expense of starting an airways company with all the expenditures attached thereto, the purchase of aeroplanes, equipment and all that sort of thing, with all the uncertainty of law that is inseparable from the venture? The request of the hon. member for Lake Centre is very reasonable.
What is the position of my hon. friends to the left, the socialist party? They say: "Go ahead, you young fellows, when you get back. Get busy and start out in the aeroplane business and work it all up, and the moment you begin to make a profit out of it we will take it over. We will confiscate it." That is what they say.

Aeronautics Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the Canadian Pacific Railway Company did.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The Canadian Pacific did nothing of the kind. My hon. friend does not know what he is talking about when he says that. The C.P.R., as a matter of fact, took over some of these companies and have some of these fellows working with them on shares, and the hon. member knows that. Are there to be no vested interests in this country? Is the man in the corner grocery store to be secure in his job when he gets busy and builds up a business that is worth while? Who is going to venture in this great Canada of ours with the opportunities we have, in face of that sort of thing? Who. is going to develop the country if, after he has got something started that begins to be . profitable, our national socialist friends to the left take it all away from him? Who is going to venture? Who is going to develop without the security of magna charta? Too much power is being vested in this government. Access to the courts is getting more difficult all the time. To-day the minister said: Let them start in business, with all the expenses attached to it, and then see if they can get a licence to do it. I wish to point out that our democracy was founded on the danger of absolute power. This is not government of the people, for the people, by the people. There is danger of absolute power. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the taste of power in war time has gone to the heads of this government. They have to get back to peace-time legislation and function as a government ought to function. The people have been satisfied to be regimented and all that kind of thing in war time, but we shall never get any place in this country unless we have individual effort and enterprise. I say that history has repeated itself. It was ever thus in war time, and how! I ask the minister to reconsider his decision and in this legislation make access to the courts easier and remember magna charta.


Mr. HAZEN:: This afternoon the minister said he was amazed that this bill had met with such a storm of propaganda. I was amazed that he should have described the criticism of this bill as a storm of propaganda. I think his remarks contain certain innuendoes and implications that should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
I do not think the minister would charge the Winnipeg Free Press with indulging in a storm of propaganda, but, sir, that newspaper has been very critical of some of the provisions of this bill. I have before me a copy of an editorial that appeared in that paper on April 11 last, after the minister had set forth
the policy of the government in this house. I do not propose to read all the editorial, but in it I find this statement:
One feature of Mr. Howe's speech, however, requires far more explanation than it has yet got. That is the determination on the government's part to divorce air and rail transportation. Why? What good purpose is being served? All that we have from Mr. Howe is the flat statement that he believes it wise. But that is not good enough.
This is not Conservative propaganda or Conservative criticism; it is an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press. The editorial goes on to say:
Many reasons can be put forward for maintaining air and rail connections. The services in certain respects are complementary, and_ it-is obvious that important economies in operation can be obtained by a sharing of certain costs. On this point there must be definite suspension of judgment until the case for separation is more clearly defined.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association is a large and important organization in this country. Its members are citizens of Canada who have played an important part in the industrial development of the dominion and who have done an important job during this war. After this bill was before the committee last, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association presented a submission, a copy of which I presume the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who is acting as Minister of Transport, has received. I have this submission before me. I am tempted to read it all, but I shall not do so. Here is one paragraph that I shall read to the committee:
The long experience gained through the administration of existing legislation pertaining to transportation regulation has proven that the administrative board to deal adequately and fairly with various statutory conditions must be clothed with adequate powers and staffed with experienced and expert personnel. Only in this way can all concerned be assured of fair and independent action on matters dealt with by such board. The conditions of Bill 133 fall far short from meeting this important test.
I do not think either the Winnipeg Free Press or the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, of which perhaps the minister was at one time a member-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do not accuse me of that.


Douglas King Hazen: Does the minister deny it.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps he still is a member.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not think it can be described as indulging in a storm of propaganda when it criticizes the provisions of this bill.
When this bill was introduced in the house earlier this session the Minister of Munitions
Aeronautics Act

and Supply said that in general it followed the provisions of the Aeronautical Act of the United States and the functions of the civil aeronautics authority. But there are wide differences between the United States act and the bill before us. The only apparent parallels are minor details. The differences between the United States act and this bill are wide both in particular and in fact.
The civil aeronautics board of the United States consists of five members. The act provides that not more than three of them shall be of the same political party. It functions independently of the secretary of commerce. It reports directly-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where did that information come from?


Douglas King Hazen: -to the president and to congress. This bill provides that the report shall be made to the Minister of Transport. The United States act does not do that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Each reports to the government.


Douglas King Hazen: Under the United States act the report is made directly to the president and to congress. The bill before us provides for but three members. There are no legal restrictions as to political affiliations, and the board is directly under the authority of the minister, whom it advises and whose directions it executes.
There is perhaps only one respect in which the United States act and this bill are similar. Under our bill and under the United States act a surface carrier cannot engage in air transport, but I believe that the minister was inadequately informed when he stated in this house that he knew of no other country where the control of aviation was in the hands of surface carriers. The most striking example to contradict that statement is to be found in Great Britain, where the internal air services are operated by railway companies and where steamship companies already are making plans, apparently with the informal encouragement of the government, to operate external services-to other countries after the war. For some reason we have adopted the policy of the United States rather than that of Great Britain. I fail to understand under what principle you can enact legislation providing that a corporation must confine its activities to one phase or aspect of its business.
A fundamental difference between the United States act and the bill we have before us is to be found in the principle of a monopoly, publicly owned or otherwise.

against that of competition where feasible. We have created an instrument for our air policy in Trans-Canada Air Lines, and have given it wide, exclusive rights. I do not object to that. If the government of this country want to establish a sole air line from the Atlantic to the Pacific they have a perfect right to do so, having entered the field first. But, the civil aeronautics act of the United States explicitly requires that no exclusive right shall be granted for the use of any civil airway, and that no certificate shall confer any proprietary or executive rights in the use of any air space, civil airway, airport or air navigation facilities. Our bill would prevent competition in the Canadian air. The United States act permits competition in the Unted States "to the extent necessary to assure the sound development of an air transportation system properly adapted to the needs of the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States." If you refer to the sections of the United States act which I have mentioned you will see that our bill does not follow the provisions of the United States act except in minor details.
We have objected to the great powers given the minister under this bill. We have objected to the power to make regulations. We have objected to the fact that the minister, who makes decisions in the first place, should sit as a court of appeal on his own decisions. The minister has resented our criticism. This afternoon he said that a brand new party name was becoming completely unstuck, and that the word "Progressive" should be dropped. As I have said before, Mr. Chairman, under our system of democratic government it is the duty of members of this house to make the laws, while it is the duty of independent judges to interpret and enforce those laws. If it is unprogressive to insist on that principle being observed, then this party is unprogressive. If it is progressive to insist that we have a dictatorship set up in this country, then this party is unprogressive.
I have a great many suspicions and fears when I read in a bill that a minister, or the governor in council, has the right to make regulations. If these regulations are of a purely administrative nature there may not be much objection, but the difficulty and danger arise from the fact that in too many cases these regulations are really laws which impose penalties. I remember that two or three years ago, I think perhaps it was in 1940 or 1941, the Minister of Fisheries with the approval of the governor in council made a regulation. It appeared very simple; it was known as special regulation No. 9, and pro-

Aeronautics Act
vided that there should be no net fishing in the non-tidal waters of the Saint John river without a permit from the minister. No permits were granted, and the result was that this order in council took away the riparian rights people had in the non-tidal waters of the Saint John river. They lost their propertj' without receiving any compensation therefor. That wrong has never been redressed, but one of these days that will have to be done. So that I think I am justified in being suspicious of the provisions of these acts which allow tire governor in council to pass regulations, about which the members of this house have no say and which have the force of law. It is our duty in this house to make the laws; they should not be made by regulation or order in council except in war time.
We have objected to the provision of this bill which allows the minister to sit as a court of appeal after he has given a decision in the first place. I think it was the hon. member for Cape Breton South who, in speaking on the bill this afternoon, said that this measure was bringing back prerogatives which should remain with the house. It is doing nothing of the kind; it is taking away prerogatives that should remain in this house. It is taking away the rights of hon. members to make the laws of the country. That is one of the reasons for which their constituents elected them. There is a principle of natural justice involved, one which may not be found in any book of law, to the effect that no man should be judge in his own cause. But here, under this measure, we have the minister first deciding whether or not a man should have a licence. The minister has to pass on that first; then if the man feels he has not been fairly treated, or if he has some grievance, he has the right of appeal. To whom does he appeal? Why, he appeals to the minister, the man who makes the decision in the first instance. I say that violates a principle of natural justice, and it is not a position which hon. members should be asked to accept in any bill.
Under this measure tremendous powers are given to the minister. In November of last year the board of trade of Halifax and the board of trade of Saint John made a joint application to have an air line established between those two cities. There was great need for a service of that kind, because there is a good deal of business carried on between those two points. Many members of our armed forces are stationed at one or other of the cities, and at times they have occasion to move quickly between those two points. Although a joint application was made by those two boards of trade, it was refused. The
refusal was made, despite the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway company was prepared to institute a service immediately-a good service, with proper machines.
I have heard some criticism of the Canadian Pacific, but may I say right here that that railway has rendered great service to the port of Saint John. It has been largely through the efforts of the Canadian Pacific that we have a port there at the present time, and were it not for that railway I do not know where Saint John would be to-day. We are deeply indebted to that great corporation.
I put a question on the order paper in connection with this matter. It is to be found at page 781 of Hansard, and is in these words:
Is it the intention of the government to establish an air service between Saint John, New Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, and if so, when will the service commence to operate?
The answer I received was as follows:
Trans-Canada Air Lines has been authorized by order in council P.C. 6256 of August 6, 1943, made pursuant to the "Trans-Canada contract" authorized under the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937, to establish a service between Blissville, New Brunswick, and Halifax, which will be placed in operation immediately upon the completion of a radio range now under construction at an intermediate aerodrome on the route between Saint John and Halifax.
I understand that service is to be established at an early day, although I do not know just when. I have not seen the announcement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: July 1, 1944.


Douglas King Hazen: Well, then, it was established on July 1 of this year. I wish to add, however, that in my opinion that service is going to be absolutely inadequate and unsatisfactory. Hon. members may not know where Blissville is, but for their information may I say it is situated in the county of Sunbury, about forty-four miles from Saint John. Forty-four miles is not a great distance, when one visualizes a modern, first-class paved road. But a great part of the road to Blissville is only a secondary road. Not only is it a country road, but it is one on which there are sharp curves anad steep hills. I doubt if a road of that kind can be kept open in the winter. I should think-and I may be exaggerating a little when I say this-that possibly it would take almost as long to go from Blissville to Saint John by motorcar as to go from Halifax to Saint John by air. The situation, so far as Saint John is concerned, is absolutely out of the question. Time will prove whether I am right or wrong, but my suggestion is that a better and more convenient location should be established, because aircraft landing at
Aeronautics Act

Blissville are much farther from Saint John than they should be. I was going to say that it would be a two-hour drive from the airport to the city; when I say that I may be exaggerating a little. But the fact is that it is a long distance away. I am satisfied1 that the situation will prove most unsatisfactory and inadequate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: With reference to the service at Blissville, might I point out that, unfortunately, it is not possible to land large aircraft unless a standard landing field is available. The longest runway of the aerodrome at Saint John is about 2,000 feet, ending in a rock pile. It is not possible to land modern transport aircraft in that aerodrome. In order to give Saint John aeroplane service, it was necessary to use the nearest suitable field, and that happened to be at Blissville. Blissville is on the main line of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and is situated about halfway between Saint John and Fredericton. Until a suitable field can be provided at Saint John, that field will be used. The new service will be the means of bringing the mails to Saint John several hours more quickly than could be arranged by the recent air mail route.
My hon. friend says that it will take as long to go to the airport from Saint John as to go from Blissville to Halifax. Perhaps that is true. It takes as long to drive from the centre of Montreal to Montreal airport as it takes to go from Montreal airport to Ottawa. Despite that fact, there is a great deal of traffic by air between Montreal and Ottawa. Both the Toronto and Montreal airports are well located, when compared with airports of other large cities. I might add that the distance from Toronto to Mai ton is about twenty-two miles; yet there is heavy travel from Malton airport.
I am not suggesting that the final word has been said respecting an airport for Saint John. Plans are now under way to develop an airport which will be more suitable so far as its distance from the city is concerned. But, as I said earlier, it is impossible to divert labour from war work or other essential work, to undertake a purely peace-time project. We believe the service now being offered at Saint John, through Blissville, is a considerable advance over the air mail service which has been enjoyed in the past. We regard it as a step toward a still more adequate service in the future.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Will the minister say whether there is any locational difficulty in connection with developing Toronto airport as a major airport, if the runways were built long enough?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Toronto airport?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Toronto island airport.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is in the middle of a nest of very high buildings. Within half a mile there are high buildings like the Royal York hotel, as well as two grain elevators. If my hon. friend thinks a pilot would enjoy going in there on a rainy evening with twenty or thirty passengers back of him, he is very much mistaken.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Even if the runways were enlarged?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Even if the runways were two miles long I do not think any pilot would undertake to make a blind landing at Toronto island. If an airport is not suitable for bad weather, it is not suitable at all, because passengers must know in advance the airport that will be their point of arrival or departure.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I have seen T.C.A. planes fly from there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have flown into and out of it many times, but always in good weather.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house believe that there is a very important principle at stake, and we have endeavoured to place our viewpoint before the minister on this and previous occasions. This bill, amongst other things, provides for the setting up of a board. While the minister in his interview with Canadian Aviation magazine has stated that the board will exercise judicial functions, as the bill is at present it will simply be a stooge or pawn in the hands of the minister.
The application of this legislation will be mainly confined to the after the war period. If the principle enunciated by the minister is followed out, the granting of licences will be held back until after the war in order to assure an opportunity being given to our men returning from overseas to secure some of these licences. If this bill goes through in its present form we feel that it will stifle and strangle the expansion of air development in this country. It will place everyone who desires to expand in the way of air development subject, not to the regulations or orders of a judicial body, but to the approval of the minister in everything that is done. Over and over again the minister has repeated by way of explanation that this board is similar to the civil aeronautics authority in the United States. The hon. member for St. John-Albert has shown that one similarity is that the civil aeronautics authority in the United States has the-

Aeronautics Act
power to make regulations and control, but that board has the power to exercise judicial functions also and to make decisions as between individuals, untrammeled' and unfettered by the executive.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is quite wrong. Licences for air lines are not issued by the aeronautics board; they are issued by the President of the United States, who is the executive in that country, just as the cabinet in Canada is the executive in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true enough, but the determination is made by the board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a recommendation by the board.


John George Diefenbaker: The recommendation is accepted; it is in no case refused. That is the difference between these boards in one particular. Surely, with the coming of- peace we in this parliament have the right to assure once more the return to democratic principles and not permit the power of any official to be uncontrolled. We must assure that opportunity is given to aggrieved individuals to have recourse to the courts in order to secure justice. Under this board as it is to be set up under this bill there is not an individual or a company who, having been unfairly treated, will have any recourse whatsoever.
I mentioned a while ago the desire of the province of Ontario to establish air lines, and the minister said that the matter could be determined by the board, but official determination will rest with the minister. I asked him the simple question whether or not he would agree in principle, whether or not he would say it is right and proper that any provinces-not only the province of Ontario- should be permitted to operate air lines within their boundaries, but he neglected to give his ideas thereon. He has been very free with his ideas as to certain principles that will guide this board and the minister, but when it comes to a question such as the one I asked there is grave uncertainty in the answer given thereto.
If this board is set up as outlined in the bill, equality under the law will be denied. There was equality under the law between 1938 and the present time, subject, of course, to the exigencies of war as set out in the order in council that was passed in 1940 or 1941. All we are asking for is that all shall have an equal opportunity. We have no interest in the matter of monopolies. The minister says that this bill is similar to the act in the United States, but in this bill there is no such provision that would deny monopoly as exists
in the act of the United States. Under that act when an application is made for a certificate, publication is made of the application. Public notice is given thereof and any interested person may file a protest.
What is even more important, that act provides that no transfer of service will be allowed unless approved by the board as being consistent with public interest. Finally there can be no merger of air carriers except when approved by the authority. I find it difficult to follow the minister in his peregrinations since he made his first declaration of policy. When he first declared his policy he said that the railway and shipping companies shall not operate airways, that both T.C.A. and C.P.A. would have to divorce themselves from the railway companies to which they belonged. He said that that was imperative, and indicated that that was one reason for this legislation. As time went on, he changed his viewpoint considerably for in an interview with Canadian Aviation, he said:
I call your attention to the fact that C.P.A. has not been ordered to break up its system. The statement of government policy indicated that air lines will be separate operations from surface transportation.
And a little later on:
There is nothing to prevent C.P.A. from continuing its present operations under other than railway ownership.
As the bill is brought down there is no such imperative provision as at first enunciated by the minister. The provision is that no licence shall be issued to any such company or person unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued. That is a long way along the road from the declaration which was made when the minister first announced his policy.
All that I want done is to assure that there shall be fairness in the distribution of these air licences. All I want to be assured of is that there shall be no discrimination against any person, that all shall be equally and fairly treated, and that no arbitrary power shall remain in the minister. This bill is not to take effect in the main until after the war. It may not be the present minister who will then be in charge. But the principle is there, Mr. Chairman, the principle that if we pass this bill as it is now, we shall be setting up a body having all the appearances of power, but denied the exercise of that power excepting subject to the minister. Under the former act that covered rail transportation, ocean transportation and air transportation, provision was made for appeal.
Aeronautics Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: An appeal on what?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says, "an appeal on what?" An appeal on questions of jurisdiction or on questions of law.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Appeal on questions of law to the courts, and appeal on questions of jurisdiction to the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister had better read the Railway Act and bring himself up to date. I have a copy of the act here.
I am going to ask the minister, will he accept an amendment providing that an appeal shall lie from the board to the Supreme Court of Canada upon a question of law or upon a question of jurisdiction, or both, upon leave therefor having been obtained from a judge of the said court upon application made within one month after the making of the order, decision, rule or regulation sought to be appealed from? There is nothing unreasonable in that. It will preserve as a principle that the subject shall not be subject to the dictatorial decisions of any person and be denied the right of recourse to the courts. That provision has been in the law for years. Is there any reason why it should be removed now? Has any circumstance occurred, within the past four years indicating that the transport board has not efficiently discharged its responsibility in accordance with law?
There was a suggestion here to-day from the hon. member for Cape Breton South that franchises had been granted for airways since 1938 on improper considerations. That was the import of the statement made by the hon. member, and I am going to ask the minister if there was any foundation for that statement, for it leaves a suggestion against the board of transport commissioners that, if unjustified, should be removed by the minister.
We on this side of the house believe that wTe ought not to confer authority by legislation upon any individual or any board the power, not only to make decisions that affect the future welfare of this country, but to interpret the decisions that they make without assuring the right to the individual aggrieved recourse to the courts.
During the period of the war we have accepted the principle that authoritarian decisions might be made by persons which deny the right of recourse and the right of review by the courts of this land. I cannot see why we should carry this principle into the days of peace ahead. Why should we by legislation in this parliament confirm for the future that

which members on all sides of this house have condemned as dangerous even in war time? We in this parliament have a great responsibility and I make this appeal to the minister in all seriousness. We have seen very recently how the rights and privileges of parliament can be infringed upon when freedom of speech in parliament has been punished and penalized outside parliament. For the first time since 1764 parliament has permitted a member of parliament to be punished for the exercise of the undoubted right of members of parliament to the exercise of freedom of speech without complaint. All these things, unless we object to them, are leading along a road that tend to make parliament merely a debating society.
For the minister to accept the right of appeal that I suggest and that other hon. members here have suggested will in no way interfere with the principle of the bill or with the enunciation of the policies to be followed by the government, but it will ensure fairness and justice to the individual. I never was more serious in any matter that has come before this parliament. I have objected to orders in council multiplying at a rate never before equalled in any parliament anywhere

in this country to-day eight times as many as have been passed in Great Britain since the war. We have accepted their intended use for the period of war in the interests of victory, in the interests of survival. But I submit that now, when we believe that the day of peace approaches, we should make it a point to put a stop to the continuation of the trend.
The suggested amendment does not interfere with the principle of the bill. If it is accepted the government may go ahead and carry out whatever its policy may be, as carry it out it will. But there will be assured to everyone an opportunity to equality before the law and the denial of the right of any group to determine rights in the absence of the individual, without regard to jurisdiction and without regard to law.
There is one other matter and I am through. When our men come back from overseas, after their training in aviation, we must assure that there will be available to at least a considerable percentage of them an opportunity to secure employment in this country. Only recently the administrator of civil aeronautics, Mr. Charles Stanton, speaking at Washington, stated his belief with regard to American aviation in the future. He said:
Aviation must be brought to every sizable community that has need of it. . . . We are now on the threshold of a great and intensive development requiring expansion along . every line, and in speaking of expansion, I do not

Aeronautics Act
mean adding a few more schedules from point to point, or just a few hundred miles of new routes each year. In speaking of expansion, I mean hundreds of new schedules, and thousands of miles of new routes, carrying millions of new passengers, and great quantities of air express, and practically all of the first-class mail.
We in Canada are not ready for this expansion. The Aeronautical Institute of Canada has given a great deal of study to this matter, and I should like to have a statement from the minister regarding the representations it has made concerning the question of'develop-ment of airfields at this time, to make ready for extended air facilities after the war. In the submission that was made it was pointed out:
In our war effort we are creating two gigantic reservoirs of education. In the factories we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars training aircraft mechanics in the construction and servicing of aircraft. In the air force we are spending millions for the training of riggers, fitters, administrative and air personnel. We wish to use these reservoirs of education for the benefit of the nation at large.
There are in Canada 580 cities, towns and villages with a population in excess of 1,000 and only thirty-two of these places to-day have airmail passenger service. After the war is over, having regard to present developments, seventy-five more will be in that position, but there will be 470 of these towns and cities in Canada with no suitable airport or aviation facilities. We are concerned with rehabilitation under this measure-the rehabilitation of the men who return after service in the air force. For the expenditure at the present time of $20,000,000, airfields in these towns and cities, sufficient for post-war interurban aviation, could be developed, and the result would be that, when the war is over, if we had 400 or more airports ready we would be able to assure many hundreds of these returning airmen of an opportunity to go into business for themselves and to operate trunk services and interurban services between these cities and towns.
I often think of the difficulties that we shall have when peace comes. There are some
200,000	men in the air force, and at the very best, according to the highest estimates to-day, not more than 25,000, including groundcrew, will secure employment under the air scheme as formulated for the future. For the expenditure of $20 million, which is less than it now costs to train 800 airmen, we woidd set up in this country the foundation for a great and extensive Canadian air service which would assure, according to the estimates that I have received, about 60,000 men returning from overseas of an opportunity to carry on the work for which they have been trained and
educated, and in addition to that the demands for aeroplanes would result in the improvement of the aeroplane industry and would assure at least that portion of those to-day engaged in aeroplane production being carried on the payroll after the war.
I consider this to be the attitude of all members in this house toward this bill. We may disagree in the details, but our purpose is to ensure that in the foundation we now lay for aviation after the war we shall see to it that provision is made for maximum employment of the men who return, while at the same time we contribute to the welfare of the dominion. It is in that spirit that I have spoken, and I am asking the minister once more to advise the committee whether he can see his way clear to accept the amendment, or to introduce an amendment himself, in order to provide for equality in the administration of this vast undertaking- equality for all who apply, including the men who will be returning from overseas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has proposed a most innocuous amendment. He proposes making provision in the bill for an appeal, in matters of law and jurisdiction, to the Supreme Court of Canada, to be granted on application to a judge of that court. That has been in the Transport Act, which is a very bulky document, since the act was 'drawn, and it has been acted upon very infrequently, if at all. I have no objection whatever to putting it in this bill, although what the question of jurisdiction or law has to do with this measure, which covers three pages of printed matter, I cannot imagine. The mountain has laboured and has brought forth a mouse, but if it is at all valuable we will put it in the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: The mouse has
remained in the statute books for the last thirty years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But not in this act.
My hon. friend went on to say that the government was doing nothing about building airports for post-war aviation. Perhaps I could give a few figures on that. For all civilian airports up to the beginning of the war, the federal government has spent $16,240,550.83. That is for the building of aerodromes and radio facilities, and that figure includes S3,707,310.52 in grants to assist municipalities. Since the war began, the government has invested in airfields and radio facilities the sum of $141,184,827.40. That does not include buildings but is simply for aerodromes and radio facilities. That amount has been expended on improving sixty-four aerodromes

Aeronautics Act

and bringing them up to the standard required for modern aviation, and in building 147 new aerodromes.


John George Diefenbaker: How many of these are used for war purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I understood my hon. friend, twenty million dollars will provide 200 more aerodromes. That is a very reasonable price for aerodromes in this day and generation. Well, my experience is that the average aerodrome costs between $2 and $3 million. Perhaps we shall not place too much reliance on the figures put out by the Aeronautics Institute of Canada. It is not a representative body of Canadian aviation in any sense of the word. I do not know that I need to say anything further. Now that we have accepted this Conservative amendment in a spirit of cooperation, I hope that we shall get cooperation and perhaps get on with this bill.


William Earl Rowe: I do not wish to hold up the bill, but I do not agree with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and I am impressed with the excellent remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I think this bill strikes at the very root of one of the vital necessities for post-war employment, post-war development and progress in general. It strikes at the very heart of individual enterprise, freedom of vocation and all those old principles that the great party which now forms the government once stood for. In fact, I can well recall when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was criticized for defending the laissez-faire-ism that has characterized Liberalism in Canada for the last quarter of a century and up until quite recently.
Since we appear to be approaching the end of this gigantic struggle overseas, I can see no one line of activity in this dominion that offers newer and fresher opportunity for the recently developed skill and ingenuity of so many thousands of our boys who are to-day fighting overseas. It has often been said that, despite all the terrors and difficulties of war, we can make more progress in the five awful years of war than we sometimes can in

fifty years of peace. It is unfortunate that we cannot speed up progress in time of peace. Like the mother of invention, necessity speeds it in war time. We have observed that in the two great wars of the last quarter of the century untold progress has been made. Whether it has been made from necessity, or from the marshalling of forces and the genius, skill and mentalities of all our people, it is not for me to say.
We find that this bill offers a curtailment. Indeed, it may well be accepted by many of our people as an indication of the trend of the times, a trend that may well be feared. As the hon. member for Lake Centre has well said, in time of war we accept certain regimentation; we are ready to endure certain restrictions. We are ready to accept and are, indeed, enduring licences to operate, licences to do business. We find that this bill passes the powers and prerogatives of the government on to the minister himself. I can think of no activity for which our young men would be more eager than civil aviation because of their experience in this war. I can think of no vocation that they would be more eager to enter into than the wide and great possibilities of air transportation in this dominion. From day to day we read in magazines what the helicopter will do and how it will be a subsidiary of the great Trans-Canada Air Lines. We can visualize the possibilities of the manufacture of those important modern airships, their servicing, the personnel to run them, and where it will fill in a great gap to encourage the consumption of manufactured goods to make up for the great destruction that is now taking the products of our toil.
The minister has said that he does not propose to allow the vigorous competition that we had in transportation systems of this country to continue. Since when, Mr. Chairman, has competition ceased to be the life of trade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where do you find anything in this bill that stops competition?


William Earl Rowe: It is the prerogative of the minister to stop it or start it. This strange bill gives the minister power to grant licences. This bill gives him power to tell those who have a licence whether they can or cannot operate. The board of transport commissioners cannot do that; it is the minister. The minister has power to determine whether or not they can engage in business. If that does not prevent those who would like to go into this promising field of industrial activity from doing so, then I do not know what kind of bill could be passed that could frighten

Aeronautics Act
initiative any more. I consider that the minister could have improved this bill a great deal. As the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, I should like to see the minister reconsider some of these clauses. I should like him to reconsider the clause that says an appeal can be made only to the minister. It seems almost unnecessary to make provision for an appeal to the only person who can grant a licence. I realize that in the post-war period and in the period between war and peace the greatest caution must be exercised. I agree that we must have a board of commissioners. We must have a licence and a charter to operate a service, but it seems strange that only those who are prohibited in advance are those who are the most experienced in this operation.
We are told that the Trans-Canada Air Lines shall be given licences for any further routes that they may need in order to carry out their present agreements. If this is in keeping with the policy of enterprise and free individual initiative that my hon. friends have always proclaimed as their policy, I do not think any party or any government in this country has ever had a mandate from our people to change so fundamentally the principles of control over enterprise. It is true that we may have it in time of war, but we are here planning for peace time. I believe in the same old competition that was the lifeblood of trade all down through the years, rivalry, struggle and competition, whether it is with reference to the people in transportation or with reference to manufactured goods or to whatever it may be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially in the thirties.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend always harps back. I am not much concerned with those who live amid the antiquities of the past and dream of the old socialism that has come down through the years since Karl Marx. Evidently my hon. friend has no conception of what constitutes the lifeblood of industry in this country. I might refer my hon. friend to a period even farther back, during the last war, when the same line of thought which he and his party propound in this house seemed to capture the imagination of the Britishers, and they nationalized the coal mines. What happened? Under public ownership production dropped from 258 tons per man per year to 176 tons per man per year. They became alarmed when production steadily decreased under this government monopoly, as it might be called, and later on returned the coal mines to private industry, to those who had experience in operating them, and production went back up
100-291i
to 358 tons per year per man. But that experiment cost the government of Britain over $200,000,000.
I realize it may be said that this is not entirely a matter of public ownership, but at least it is a step in that direction. I do not know whether this step is being taken in view of the coming election. I know there are grumblings in the mulberry bushes these days, and much concern as to what might happen.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you in the bushes?


William Earl Rowe: No, but my hon. friend will be in the bushes after the next election. I am surprised that my old laissez-faire champions, who used1 to say, " We stand for free enterprise, for equal opportunities for all," are now, on the eve of an election, terrified by the signs of the times, entering into a shotgun marriage with those who would destroy industry and bring in public ownership all along the line. Under this bill the minister will be free to do whatever he pleases. Someone said this afternoon that the Minister of Munitions and Supply had been a capable engineer. That is very true, and I do not say this because he is not in the chamber at the moment; but before he became a member of this government he engineered some of the finest buildings in this country. He did so under individual enterprise and initiative, and built great monuments to his technique and skill. I am, however, surprised to find a bill like this coming from such a skilful engineer. The minister alone can issue licences, but the board which is to be set up can cancel them without his approval. The minister can indicate the companies that will get all the licences they wish, and he can indicate in advance the companies that will not get licences. He can say, " Those of you who have had experience in operating air lines must stay out of this," with the exception of one line. I hope this skilful efigineer is not engineering a socialistic gesture toward my socialist friends to the left, because this bill offers very little encouragement or assurance to the maintenance of individual enterprise. Is this to be the encouragement offered to those who propose to develop the great resources of this country in order to provide employment for our people following this war? Is this to be the new doctrine, the new type of policy that is to encourage them? Are we to have a continuation of the present bureaucratic control? Are we to have a continuation of the restraint of trade, the regimentation, the licensing and so on? My hon. friend says that it is not a restraint of trade. Well, you might just as well restrain trade if you are going to restrain initiative.
Aeronautics Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Restraint of trade has always been the gospel of you and your party.


William Earl Rowe: Well, my hon. friend restrained some of it, too.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was your grand cure.


William Earl Rowe: I can well remember how trade was restrained during the regime of hon. members opposite. My hon. friends always like to go back to the thirties, but I am trying to point out what may happen in the fifties. As an hon. member behind me says, hon. gentlemen opposite are like infants crying in the night, crying with a small voice in the face of the coming election. Hon. members opposite are very good at pointing to the thirties, no matter what issue is under discussion. Let me take my hon. friends back a little farther, if they want to talk about the past. Go back to the years from 1921 to 1929, before some hon. gentlemen oDposite were in this house. Why did the nur ber of people leaving this country exceed the natural increase? Why did so many people from Canada settle in the United States during those years? Why should there be more people from the province of Quebec living in the New England states than are living in Quebec to-day? Why were hon. gentlemen opposite dusting off their old free trade doctrine? Why were they saying of other policies, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is saying to-night, "Because it is a Tory doctrine we shall have nothing to do with it." Why did they tinker with the tariff between elections, as they are starting to tinker with it again? Why should our artisans, our mechanics, the graduates of our universities, go to the United States, where they have remained until this day?


William Henry Golding: Order. This has nothing to do with civil aviation.


William Earl Rowe: I am only answering the questions that are put to me. If it is in order for hon. gentlemen opposite to utter gibes in relation to what happened ten years ago, surely I am in order when I remind them of what happened in the ten years before that. The great depression they are talking about did not follow immediately after the last war; it followed immediately after the regime of the Liberal government, from 1921 to 1929, when every elevator in the country was full of unsold grain, and when millions of people left this country looking for jobs.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Civil aviation!


William Earl Rowe: It would take some aviation to find the men and women who left this country because you denied them opportunities at that time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What did you do in 1932?


William Earl Rowe: In 1932 we were cleaning up the mess you left in 1929, and I have no apologies to offer in that connection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You ruined aviation for ten years.


William Earl Rowe: Throughout the world there were thirty million people idle in 1932, and what happened in other countries from that year until 1940? The people, who, were starving and on relief according to the hon. gentleman opposite, enjoyed a higher standard of living than many of those employed in other countries, as we pointed out. Following the war this country will offer great opportunities, in aviation and in industrial development generally, if only we keep our feet on the ground and bear in mind our great traditions, not alone those of this party but also those of hon. gentlemen opposite. Let us give some hope to the man who is looking to the future; let us hold out some encouragement, some reward for individual endeavour, to the boy who is looking upward rather than down at the ground. Do not tell him in advance that because he knows how to handle an aeroplane he is not going to get a licence. Do not tell him in advance that while the minister can give him a licence, the board can cancel it. Do not tell him that you are not going to give him a licence for fear he may compete with someone else. After going through the conflict; after having grasped the opportunity to do his duty for his country; after having taken his chance and accepted the risk, he will come back here full of fire, of faith and of fight. He will realize that competition and healthy rivalry, yes, that the struggle involved in giving service to our people, are the very lifeblood of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is where I came in.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend says that is the right thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I said "This is where I came in."


William Earl Rowe: Yes; well, I will say that is where my hon. friend will go out. The people of this country, neither' old nor young, will ever stand for that one big monopoly. If my hon. friend thinks some of our monopolies are too big now, what about the one big one ' he would bring about? Who is going to run

Aeronautics Act
it? It would seem that we are going to nationalize everything. Who will be the operator?


An hon. MEMBER:: There will be no profit.


William Earl Rowe: We shall not need elections.


An hon. MEMBER:: And what about the sheriff?


William Earl Rowe: Someone refers to the sheriff. Well, the sheriff may come in. He may come in before my hon. friends take over; and he will certainly come in in a national way after my friends have taken over.
I do not wish to speak at length, except to say that the principle of free enterprise, the old principle whereby a man hopes for a reasonable reward in return for his own efforts, is the thing that will bring this country back. We cannot pull ourselves up by our shoelaces. We cannot legislate ourselves out of competition. Why, you might as well legislate yourself out of circulation.
Hon. members in this chamber know about the development in the automobile industry. I do not expect that either they or I will see the time when the aeroplane will be as generally recognized as a way of travel as the automobile has been. But we do know that in the next few years many of our young men, who are now in the services, and who may have dreams, will try to fulfil those dreams. I have heard them say that they want to club together, to build up a few thousand dollars so that they can establish a company to give service into the north country.
As the hon. member for York South said this afternoon-


An hon. MEMBER:: York West. You are getting all mixed up.


William Earl Rowe: And you have been mixed up most of the time since you have been here, and you have not been here long.
I can well recall being at Red Lake in 1936, and I recall the pride of those aeroplane operators, who risked their lives every day. The hon. member for Fort William would know some of them well. We know that since that time some have lost their lives. They were the men who risked their lives in those little, old wobbly planes. True, they were not very safe to ride in, but some of us risked riding in them. They twisted and squirmed, but they got to Red Lake. And those boys, with a sense of pride, referred to their trips to Red Lake. It made their chests swell with pride when they said, "There is more freight comes in here every day by air than is coming into any airport in the United States of America."
That is what has happened in that north country. And then my hon. friends to my left
would say, "No; we will determine it by this parliament. We will get a group of politicians in the house to say whether or not we can go to certain points and find gold, or find ore that has mineral value in that great north country."
Again, as the hon. member for York West said, perhaps there were some who lost their money when they were taken in by air. But that was not the fault of the aeroplane; it was the fault of what they saw when they got there, or through their lack of good judgment.
But in the northern parts of Quebec, in the great Yellowknife district, and in the Northwest Territories-in all these areas where there are no railways, development would not have been as rapid, had it not been for the risks these men have taken, and the aeroplane service that has been provided.
Therefore I say I am opposed to the principle embodied in this bill, a bill bristling with domination by the minister, bristling with a continuation of regimentation which is so distasteful in a time of war, and certainly should never be perpetuated in peace time. I say this in all kindliness to the minister. Someone said to me that if there was to be a dictator it might as well be the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and I was inclined to agree with that, because, as I have said, he was a good engineer in some respects. And, if we have to be engineered, probably we might as well be engineered by the Minister of Munitions and Supply as by anyone else.
The people do not want this kind of bill. I do not believe they have ever voted for a bill of this kind. I do not believe they have ever been told before an election that we were going to put this great new enterprise into some new form of strait-jacket, and that we must leave to the minister the decision as to who shall or who shall not have air routes.
I must say, however, that I think the minister could and should amend this bill. He could amend it so that the board would function as does the board of transport commissioners. He could sit on a commission of that kind, and would not only add dignity, but give assistance. I think the minister should say that he will give a free chance to those who can give the assurance that they have the necessary funds and the necessary aircraft to carry passengers safely. If a group of young men ask for a permit, whether they favour the government or do not favour it; if they return from overseas and snow by their skill and ingenuity, and what they have behind them, that they want to establish a route into some district, and want to develop the country and take the risk, then I say that there should be some rule under which there
Aeronautics Act

would be equality of opportunity for those men, in this great and promising enterprise of the future. Probably we in parliament might not have as great an imagination as those young men will have.
I do not believe the enterprise should be strangled to the point where we can say who can or who cannot enter into this type of development. Surely we can regulate matters so that, once they get into the air, they will not run into each other. Surely, if we can regulate at all, we can do that. I agree that we should not grant licences to people to carry our men, women and children in aircraft which would not stand up to any reasonable mechanical tests.
We shall not be short of men to operate aircraft. There will be thousands of them, even after taking account of those grand pilots who have been lost. We shall have thousands of men after this war who will be dreaming of taking their places in work of this kind. They will read this bill and say, "What does this mean? Does it mean that we cannot organize a company? Does it mean that we cannot get a licence? Does it mean that licences can be cancelled, at will? Does it mean that the Trans-Canada Air Lines can get anything they like to complete their service and monopolize the business? Does it mean that the Canadian National Railways, because they are experienced in transportation, and because they know something about air travel, should be eliminated? Does it mean that Canadian Pacific Air Lines must be eliminated?"


Mr. GARDINER:: What do you think it
means?


William Earl Rowe: I should like to hear what the Minister of Agriculture thinks it means? I would say that it means as much to free enterprise in the future as the Saskatchewan elections meant to the future possibilities of your party.


An hon. MEMBER:: And yours.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ours will still be living after yours is gone.


William Earl Rowe: I can say this, anyway, that we at least did not lose anything in Saskatchewan. However, it will be observed that ministers on the government benches are trying to divert the issue from the one before the Chair. I shall not detain the committee, but I say to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, in conclusion, that I have spoken in all sincerity, and I have meant just what I have said.


James Garfield Gardiner: What have you said?


William Earl Rowe: Well, the Minister of Agriculture cannot read the newspaper and listen

to me at the same time. I say in all sincerity that this does smack of socialism. I have no apology to make for free enterprise. I know something about what has made this country what it is. I know what a day's work is. I know what it is to start from scratch. I have seen some of our best men start from scratch, as one might term it. I can see all these delightful young men and women, the finest generation that has ever been bom in this dominion. Even though the best of them may be killed overseas, the rest will be better than we have ever been. I am thinking of their future, and I know they will want some room for their imagination, some room for their enterprise. They will not want to be strangled and strait-jacketed. They will not want it left to one man to define their course, to be master of their future interests instead of themselves.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the
minister one or two questions before the section carries. The first has to do with the position of United States air lines that may try to obtain permission to fly routes in Canada. As I read the bill, there is no restriction on any air line, whether it is Canadian or not, obtaining a licence, but.of course all other transportation companies are prohibited from getting a licence. I wish to know if there is anything to prevent a United States company from applying for a licence to fly between two points in Canada. Personally I think it would be a great mistake if it could be done, but there are rumours that some United States air companies would like to do that and are laying their plans accordingly. I suggest that the minister should clear up that situation.
The next question has to do with the route from Canada to Australia and New Zealand. The prime ministers of those countries were here within the last few weeks, and I have no doubt there have been some developments with regard to air routes across the Pacific. The minister should tell us what he can of those developments. My understanding is that most of the flying in Australia is done by a shipping company. I was told that a few weeks ago by a leading civil servant from Australia and I ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong. I questioned this official very closely on that point and I do not think there is any doubt about it. There may be Canadian shipping companies on either coast that could set up and operate air routes in connection with their steamship lines.
^ Representations have been made about this bill which I think should be brought to the attention of the minister and the committee. I have here a bulletin dated May 30, 1944,

Aeronautics Act
issued by the air industries and transport association of Canada. It deals with various questions having to do with aviation. As the minister knows, the association is made up of all the air companies in Canada, including Trans-Canada Air Lines. The president this year is Mr. Noorduyn. The air transport companies which are members of the association are Trans-Canada Air Lines, Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Laurentian Air Services Limited, M. and C. Aviation Company Limited and Northern Airways Limited. The associate members are British Overseas Airways Corporation and United Air Lines Transport Corporation. There are also listed as members about one hundred companies having to do with the air industry or air transportation. These include companies building aeroplanes, parts and so on. I have not counted them, but there must be at least one hundred. I should like to quote from page four of the bulletin as follows:
Indications are that this new central authority is to be built up around the existing civil aviation division of the Department of Transport of which division the Minister of Munitions and Supply is the head.
True, this action will centralize all regulatory powers relating to air transport but from information available this board will be only an advisory body with final authority vested in the minister.
Those seven last words are underlined.
It will certainly not be the "central, free and independent authority" which the directors had in mind when they framed their resolution at the last annual meeting.
Apparently at the last annual meeting of this association a resolution was passed requesting that there be set up a central, free and independent authority. The bulletin goes on:
There is no change in the situation whereby the officials most concerned with the granting of licences are the deputy minister of transport and the director of air services, while the superintendent of air and land mail services is doubtless vitally concerned with the granting of air mail contracts. These gentlemen are all directors of the government owned air line, consequently it is little wonder that operators view this divided responsibility as being incompatible with a sense of impartial and disinterested treatment, particularly should there be a clashing of government and private interests.
This "central, free and independent government authority for civil aviation" should be established on the lines of the board of transport commissioners, which is an independent regulatory body whose rulings are binding and conclusive. Appeals from the rulings of the authority can be only to the supreme court on points of law and on points of fact to the governor in council.
Such independence alone can engender in the minds of operators the feeling that applications for air transport licences, prompted by present and future public convenience and necessity, will be considered equitably and on their merits.
That is a representation which merits the most careful consideration by the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend believe it is good government to delegate governmental responsibility to independent boards?


Howard Charles Green: I have taken the stand from the start that this board should be a judicial board of the same type as the board of transport commissioners. On that the minister and I appear to disagree. I think he is wrong and I have no doubt he thinks I am wrong. I propose to read also a copy of a telegram from the Vancouver board of trade to the Prime Minister, dated June 28, 1944. I think the Vancouver board of trade has over two thousand members. It is strictly non-political; members of all political parties belong to it. The president last year or the year before was one of the leading Liberals in British Columbia, a former member of the provincial house. The telegram reads:
Regarding bill one thirty three an act to amend the Aeronautics Act. We endorse principle of an air transport board but respectfully suggest section seven be amended to read five members instead of three for reason that Pacific coast should be recognized on board by one representative. Sections nine and ten and twelve should provide for appeal from board to governor in council instead^ of minister. Further we recommend that section twelve be amended by placing full responsibility in board for issue of licences. We further recommend that appeal in subsection ten of section twelve should be from board to governor general m council. Cannot stress too strongly principle that control of powers outlined in bill should be in hands governor general in council rather than minister.
On the coast we are particularly concerned about having an independant board to rule on these questions. I have also a copy of a letter, which I do not propose to read, from the Montreal board of trade to the Prime Minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been this way for fifty years. When the railroad propaganda machine rolls, every board of trade and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association snaps into line.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is going too far in that statement. I do not know anything about the Montreal board of trade, but I do not think he is right about that body. This letter is signed by the President, Henry G. Birks, one of the most responsible and finest of Canadian citizens. I do not think either he or his council can be charged with *speaking for any interest. They wrote to the Prime Minister on July 4 setting out in great detail and, in my opinion, logically, suggestions with regard to this bill, and if the minister has not seen that letter I would suggest that he go over it very carefully.
Aeronautics Act

So far as the Vancouver board of trade is concerned, I strongly resent the statement of the minister. He said that all boards of trade-and that covers men in every city and town of Canada and some of the most responsible men in every city and town- always speak for the railways or for some interest, or words to that effect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say anything of the kind.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister for his own sake should make clear that he spoke out of turn when he said that, because he is absolutely wrong and it is maligning a group of men who are among the finest citizens of this country. They have done wonderful work on behalf of Canada and are doing it every day of the week.
So much for those representations. I have no doubt that there have been many other representations made by responsible bodies across Canada, and I suggest to the minister that this bill should be given further consideration. The minister and I both came into the house together, having been elected in 1935. As someone has said, the minister is a great engineer, and I think he has made a great success of many of the things that he has undertaken here, but I have noticed that several times this house has been asked to rush through some bill for the minister giving him the widest possible authority, giving him, in fact, a blank cheque, which is what this very bill does; then in a year or two the minister finds that it was a mistake, that everything is wrong and he comes back with another bill which we have to rush through for him. That is exactly what happened with the Transport Act; much the same thing happened with the provision for agreed charges; it was forced through the house. Such procedure is not good enough. Nobody is perfect, not even on this side of the house. The minister makes mistakes too, and in this bill I think he has made several mistakes. I suggest in all earnestness that he give the bill further consideration in view of the suggestions and representations which have been made respecting it. It might still be possible to introduce a bill this session which would meet with the approval of all sides of the house. I would ask the minister to answer the two questions I have asked.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have explained to the
committee several times the procedure with regard to applications from citizens of other countries. If an air line in the United States wishes to operate between points in Canada or between a point in the United States and

some point in Canada, it must first go to the civil aeronautics board of its own country and file an application for the route with its own board.


Howard Charles Green: Even if it were flying between two Canadian points?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. We do not deal with the nationals of other countries. That is by international agreement. If any United States air line wishes to fly in Canada, it must first go to its own aeronautics board and obtain a certificate of necessity and approval of the route.


Howard Charles Green: What right would any United States board have to issue approval of a route between two points in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Simply the right we have conferred upon them to designate'the nationals of their country who have sound reasons for flying over a route in Canada.


Mr. JAQUES:: Who is "we"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What kind of question is that?


Norman Jaques: You said "we" have conferred upon them. I am wondering who is "we".


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian government, the people of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: The people of Canada do not do it. It must be some governmental authority.	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have explained the procedure four or five times, but perhaps the hon. member does not follow the proceedings very closely. The international agreement to which I refer has been tabled, and my hon. friend could clear up the point by having the Clerk produce the agreement for him.


Howard Charles Green: Does not that regulation apply only for a route from a United States point to a Canadian point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I can assure my hon. friend that we do not accept applications from other nationals. That is covered by international agreement.


Howard Charles Green: Is there anything to prevent a United States company from setting up a subsidiary in Canada which would apply for a licence and be permitted to operate in that way?


Mr HOWE:: If they are permitted to incorporate a Canadian company, and the company has Canadian personnel and Canadian pilots, I presume they could do it. But the directors must be Canadian citizens, and seventy-five per cent of the stock must be owned in Canada.

Aeronautics Act


Howard Charles Green: What act is that provision in?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is under the regulations of the Aeronautics Act.


Howard Charles Green: Should that not be in this bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not desirable to print
all the regulations in the act. The provision is just as effective if it is in a regulation. Under the act regulations can be drawn, and regulations are sometimes amended by international agreement.


Howard Charles Green: Should not the stock be
owned 100 per cent instead of only seventy-five per cent in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It happens to be seventy-five per cent. It is reciprocal. If my hon. friend is interested in the wording of the regulation, it reads as follows:
No aircraft shall be registered in Canada unless (a) it is a civil aircraft owned by a British subject or subjects or by a company or corporation created or incorporated under and subject to the laws of any part of His Majesty's dominions, of which the president and two-thirds or more of the directors and other managing officers thereof are British subjects and in which at least seventy-five per centum of the voting interest is owned or controlled by British subjects, or unless (b) it is a civil aircraft owned by His Majesty in the right of Canada or any of the provinces of Canada or of any other of His Majesty's dominions.


Howard Charles Green: Is that point not very apt
to come up after the war when the Americans are trying to expand their flying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The international agreement between Canada and the United States can be amended only by mutual consent, and it is not likely to be seriously amended. The approach from a United States corporation must be through the civil aeronautics board of the United States to the state department of the United States, then to the Department of External Affairs of Canada, and then the application would be in a position to be considered by the proper authorities in Canada, which in future will be the air transport board -if I ever succeed in passing this amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister answer
my other question about Australia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The airway service that
operates all externally, so far as I know, is the Quantus Airways which are owned jointly, I believe, by certain interests in Australia and by Overseas Airways. Quantus Airways is not, so far as I know, associated with any shipping company. In any event it is purely an air company, of which Overseas Airways,
which is the chosen instrument of the Briitsh government, owns forty-nine per cent of the stock.


Howard Charles Green: There is no restriction in
Australia against any transportation company engaging in the aircraft business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so, but, so far as I know, no shipping company or railway company in Australia operates aircraft.
Some hon. member opposite mentioned the fact that there are internal air lines in Britain in which the railways have an interest. I think it is only an interest; whether a majority or minority interest I do not know. Furthermore, it is an association of railways rather than any one railway that has the investment. I am thinking of Scottish aviation. Civil aviation in England is not as extensive as it is in the maritime provinces; it is a very small operation. All aviation outside the British empire is operated by the chosen instrument of the government, which has no railway or shipping interest.


Agar Rodney Adamson: One more question with
regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company divesting themselves of any interest in air lines. Take an operation such as Consolidated Smelting. They would very likely want to establish an air line to service their outlying property, let us say, up in the Yellowknife district, to service their mine. Consolidated Smelting and Refining, I understand, is certainly affiliated with, if not controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Would they be allowed under the regulations to operate an airway or not, irrespective of the fact that they happened to be primarily a mining operation? I foresee in the future a great number of operators who will be primarily engaged in one line, but who will wish to operate an air line on the side for their own and possibly for the public service as well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any mining or other company can operate a service for the carrying of their own goods. There is no difficulty about that under the act, and there never has been; nor is there any difficulty under this bill. If, however, they wish to be common carriers and to accept carriage for hire they come under this bill. The question whether Consolidated Smelting and Refining is a railway operation could be looked into and a decision made when the question was raised. The provision is not a definite prohibition. It is a prohibition restricted in the public interest, and if it is in the public interest for Consolidated Smelters to operate an air line I have no doubt the permit will be issued.

Aeronautics Act

There is nothing in the bill to make it impossible for the, board so to recommend or for the minister so to act.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I foresee the possibility of their operating a line for their own service and a community growing up, as there is now in the Yellowknife district, and the Consolidated company being asked to provide a service for the benefit of the remote community up there, so that they would become common carriers as well as a company carrier. That has happened in the past, and it is the sort of thing I foresee in the future.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the transport board should recommend such an operation in the public interest, there is nothing in the bill to make it impossible.


Howard Charles Green: They would have to get the permission of the governor in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-"Minister" defined.
Howard Charles Green: Why is this special provision made in this section:
In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "minister" means the Minister of Transport or such other minister as the governor in council may from time to time designate, except that in any matter relating to defence, "minister" means the Minister of National Defence for Air.
The Minister of Transport is not even here to-day and has not had anything whatever to do with this bill since it has been before the house. Why is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend want me to go over again the explanation I have made at least twelve times? If he is putting on a filibuster, let him say so.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to know why that provision is put in exactly in that way, "or such other minister as the governor in council may from time to time designate"? How long is it intended that this measure shall be administered by the Minister of Munitions and Supply rather than by the Minister of Transport?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As long as the governor in council so decides.


Howard Charles Green: If that is the plan, why does it not so appear in the bill? Why does the bill not name the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and let the governor in council designate somebody else when the time comes? Why is the section worded in the way it is?


William Henry Golding: Shall the section carry?


Howard Charles Green: No; I want an answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This act for many years was administered by the Minister of National Defence. For reasons connected with the war it is now administered by the Minister of Munitions and Supply. It is a temporary situation which I have explained to the committee many times, and I do not intend to explain it again to-night, much as I should like to cooperate with my hon. friend and not delay the passage of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: The minister must not think-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I am rising to a point of order. The minister has no right to leave that inference, that I am not sincere in the questions I ask on this bill. I have meant everything I have said. I do not intend to delay the bill and he has no right to make such a statement. He flies off the handle nearly every time he is crossed in the house; he rarely fails to do so, but he has no right to make a statement of that type.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is well aware that it is a matter of the transfer of duties. There is a statute of this parliament which permits the Prime Minister to transfer the duties of any minister to any other minister. Under that act he has a perfect right to allocate the administration of this act to any minister of his government, and this bill simply acknowledges that fact.


Howard Charles Green: Then why does it contain the words I have quoted?


William Henry Golding: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question he must rise in his place.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I will rise. I want to know why these words are inserted in the section, "or such other minister as the governor in council may from time to time designate". If there is power to do it under the other act to which the minister has referred, why are these words inserted here?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the phraseology used in all the bills that have been passed in the last two weeks. It is purely a matter of legal draftsmanship.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention that the Minister of Munitions and Supply shall administer this bill until the end of the war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Possibly that might be one implication of it.

Aeronautics Act


Howard Charles Green: I am asking the Minister of Munitions and Supply whether that is the intention.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Government policy will be made known in due course.


Howard Charles Green: I doubt it. It has not always been.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust it is not necessary for me to dissociate myself from the suggestion that any attempt is being made to delay the passage of the bill. After all, it has been referred to by my hon. friends as having socialist possibilities, and I should like to see it get through. However, I would ask a question with reference to the last two lines of this clause. I agree that the wording there is desirable, " except that in any matter relating to defence, 'minister' means the Minister of National Defence for Air." There is a question in my mind arising out of something that was implanted there when the Minister of National Defence for Air made a statement several months ago. On the basis of what he said I put some questions on the order paper and they were answered on June 1, of this year, at page 3418 of Hansard. I asked about the operation by the Royal Canadian Air Force of air transport service for its own use or for any other purposes. There is a considerable amount of information given at the page I have indicated that I need not bother to read to the committee. My last question was as follows:
Is it intended to continue the operation of such a service, in whole or in part, after the war?
The answer given by the Department of National Defence for Air to the question was:
No present intention.
Does the minister know whether government policy is sufficiently straightened out on this point that there will not be any confusion as between whatever department operates this bill and the Department of National Defence for Air so far as civilian air transport services are concerned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no possibility of confusion. The Aeronautics Act which this bill is amending is a complete act in itself. This is an amendment to an exsting act. There are certain clauses in the Aeronautics Act which refer to responsibilities of the Department of National Defence: first, to cooperate with the officers of that department on all questions relating to the air defence of Canada; second, to cooperate with air staffs and authorities or other governments or countries for all purposes pertaining to air services. These are matters that come within the scope of the Department of National Defence, and in these matters the Minister of National Defence is naturally the minister under this act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it will be only with respect to those matters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Repeal.
Howard Charles Green: Are the sections and subsections that are repealed reenacted in full in the bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are reenacted in part III of this amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Have they been changed at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are some small changes, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6-part II-new section 6 agreed to.
On section 6-part II-new section 7-Air transport board.
Mr. BOUCHER:: We should consider the implications of this section before it carries. In effect this section sets up a board of three members with extensive powers, subject, of course, to the minister. This board will hold office during good behaviour for ten years, the first three members being appointed for periods of ten, nine and eight years. I think it is wise to give a considerable degree of permanency to the members of this board, but we are living in peculiar times. The boys who are and will be interested in civil aviation are now overseas. I should like to point out to the minister that this board should not be appointed for so long a time as this bill contemplates. We are going through a transition period. Our best skilled personnel, from the point of view of both transportation and management are now overseas. They are engaged in work that will qualify them better than any other individuals for this particular work. Events are taking place to-day which may change the whole aspect of civil transportation within the next few years. Because of that I think the minister should reconsider the length of time during which this first board will hold office. I realize that there may be difficulty in getting the right type
100-292J
Aeronautics Act

of men to act. I agree that they should be given time to grow into their jobs and that there should be considerable permanency in their appointments. But because of the abnormal conditions through which we are passing, and because air transportation is in its infancy and the men best skilled to do this work are serving overseas acquiring the knowledge that will fit them to do this work, we should leave the door open so that the personnel of this board may be composed of men who are otherwise engaged at the present time. I believe that we should not postpone it for ten, nine and eight years. Ten years is a long time in the life of an airman and the war veterans who will come back and who may have an opportunity to take these responsible jobs. We should keep every possible channel open for the men who have served in the air force during this war, men who have had experience in air transportation matters and in managerial positions. When they come back they should be given an opportunity of obtaining the very best jobs there are in civil transportation. I would urge the minister to cut down the period of ten, nine and eight years to at least five, four and three years in order to give those men that opportunity. I would go so far as to say three, two and one year, but that would be only a guess as to the length of the war. I am giving that as an illustration to .exhort the minister not to appoint this board for as long a time as this bill contemplates. Might I have an opinion on this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very careful consideration has been given to the problem. The term is the same as the term of the members of the board of transport commissioners. The purpose of the board is to build up a jurisprudence, and to obtain the assistance of experienced men in developing an air transport policy for Canada. It is the view of the government that this board should have permanency in order that it may be a permanent guide to an air transport policy for Canada. I can assure my hon. friend that men overseas with suitable experience will be fully considered, in fact are being fully considered for appointment to this board. The work requires a vast background of experience, and a highly developed technical training in order to give the type of service that we wish. These are not political jobs, not jobs to hand out because you like a person. They are jobs that require intensive training, and I can assure my hon. friend that in the making of the appointments the qualifications of those overseas will be very carefully examined.
fMr. Boucher.]


George Russell Boucher: May I point out to the minister that I can see the reason for having the very best personnel possible free from political preference. I would not impugn a thing like that to a board of this kind. I trust it would not get down to that. The experience of the type of man we should like to have on this board has been expanding daily within the last month, and will go on during the war in the Pacific which may follow. If we appoint men with the experience of to-day, we shall be excluding men whose knowledge and experience are improving from day to day. If we appoint this board for ten, nine and eight years, it will exclude those young men who are to-day gaining experience from holding these jobs during the efficient period of their young lives. Our personnel may entirely change within the next two, three or four years, and we may find ourselves in a position where we are at least duty bound or morally bound, having appointed men to the board for ten, nine and eight years, to keep them there, although we may have others more fit and worthy and more capable of holding the appointments. We shall not be able to hold out to our boys who are acquiring experience to-day over the battlefields any hope of reaching this office. I think it is a mistake to make these appointments for such long periods of time at the very beginning. I appreciate the fact that once the board is established, once we change over to civil aviation instead of military aviation, the situation will be different, and then perhaps ten years will not be too long a term. I think, however, we should leave the door open for new appointments, after the board is first set up.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I have not
taken any part at all in this discussion, although there are many features I should like to have cleared up. I agree with the hon. member for Carleton that the initial appointments are for too long. It seems to me that eight, nine and ten years is too long to appoint these men, from the very first. I believe that it is always a good thing for a body of this kind to have new blood from time to time, or at least that those appointed in the first instance, having proved their worth and shown that they possessed the confidence of the country, might be reappointed. I feel very strongly that the members of this board should not be appointed for these long periods. I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken, that the initial appointments should be for three, four and five years, or even three, seven and ten years, so that new appointments or reappointments may be made in due course. I believe that would strengthen

Aeronautics Act
the board and give it more confidence in its work. On its merits I believe that is a good suggestion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In order to stop the argument and get on with our work, I am willing to accept the last suggestion and make it four, seven and ten years.


George Russell Boucher: I should like to say a
further word on that point. My principal thought was that we should leave the door open for the appointment of deserving and efficient men returning from the war. As we consider civil aviation in the future, whether or not it be as extensive as we may hope, it seems to me that we might even leave the way open to increasing the membership of the board in order that those who have done such valiant work in the field of military aviation may be able to hold the highest office we are able to give them here at home in the field of civil aviation, and so that we may be able to take advantage of the great experience that will be available when the war is over. That might be done later on; I offer it as a suggestion. I feel that in perhaps two years time men may return to Canada with greater experience than that possessed by those already appointed to the board, and we should be able to take advantage of that experience without having to come to parliament to amend the act.


Percy Chapman Black: I appreciate the willingness of the minister to accept my suggestion, but I would suggest that the first appointment be for a shorter term, say-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I accepted my hon. friend's
first proposal; now is this to start all over again? If you are going to change your position I may have to change mine.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if the minister will advise the Chair what change he is accepting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I shall have the amendment written out.


Howard Charles Green: Before the amendment is moved I should like to know on what basis the members of the board are to be appointed. Is there to be any attempt to have representation from the different areas of Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: Earlier in the evening I
read a telegram from the Vancouver board of trade asking that one representative be appointed from the Pacific area. If that should be done, I presume there would have to be one from the prairies, one from Ontario, one from Quebec and one from the maritimes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would mean a larger
board.


Howard Charles Green: After all, the problems in
the various parts of Canada are quite different. I know on the Pacific coast we feel that we do not always get the proper treatment from a board on which there is not a representative who understands our situation, and I have no doubt the same thing applies to the maritimes. I believe the board of transport commissioners is set up on the basis I have suggested, with representation from the different parts of Canada, so that I would ask if it would not be possible to have some similar arrangement made in regard to this board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would point out that the board is only advisory, and I should think the government would have representation from British Columbia. It is certain that will be the case if this government is returned, although if my hon. friends should happen to be the government I think it would be very doubtful. In any event the final decision is made by the government, which is in a position to see that no sectional injustice is committed.


Howard Charles Green: The minister himself is
responsible for the fact that we are in this position, because one minute he says it is an advisory board and the next minute he says it is a judicial board. Apparently it is really an advisory board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is an advisory board in
executive matters and a judicial board in matters of law. Surely the law does not change very much as between the west and the east.


Howard Charles Green: Well, even on an advisory
board there should be representatives from different parts of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is thinking
now of an advisory council, is he not?


Howard Charles Green: No. These three men
should not all be from Ottawa, for instance. It would be absolutely wrong to set up the board on that basis. It should be composed of men who understand the problems of the different parts of Canada. Is it not the intention to make some attempt to get men from different parts of Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are going to get men of very broad experience and wide knowledge of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: There is another point in
regard to the sittings of the board. Is this board to hold sittings in different parts of Canada, or is it to be in Ottawa all the time?
Aeronautics Act

The board of transport commissioners sits in the various provinces, and that is very beneficial; it makes it so much easier for us to present our cases; for municipalities and other bodies to make their representations. Is this board to do anything like that; or is it to be merely an advisory board sitting here in Ottawa?


William Henry Golding: I wonder if the minister will advise the chair now as to what is to be the amendment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask my colleague to
move that new section 7, subsection (2), be amended by striking out the words "ten, nine and eight" in line 24 and substituting therefor the words "ten, seven and four."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


Douglas King Hazen: All you have to do is replace the words "nine and eight"; you do not need to strike out the word "ten" and put the same word back in.


George Russell Boucher: I appreciate the minister's willingness to accept our suggestion, but I do not think the change is quite good enough yet. After all is said and done, this will mean only one new appointment. I should think it would be much better to say five, four and three years, because it may be three years before this board becomes really efficient.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I accepted the proposal from the Progressive Conservative party, the only definite proposal given. I suggest that you might hold a caucus over there and see what you really want.


George Russell Boucher: It was not the only definite proposal made, if I may disagree with the minister, because I mentioned five, four and three before the hon. member for Cumberland spoke. Let us be fair about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I accepted the more mature udgment.


George Russell Boucher: The minister accepted the ast proposal made, because I had made two before the hon. member for Cumberland made the third. We might as well be fair and square about this, and not talk about a caucus.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with the suggestion of the hon. member for Cumberland?


George Russell Boucher: My suggestion and my argument were to the effect that the period should be reduced considerably for the first term, in order to let the soldier who has been doing his part, have an opportunity to serve.

He may be incapacitated to some extent, but might make an admirable appointee to the position. I appreciate that the reduction made in the amendment is a start. But let us give it due consideration,, and not pass it hurriedly by accepting a suggestion quickly. Let us go all the way so that the soldier may do his part in a practical way.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not answer my question with respect to sittings of the board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely we must give the board jurisdiction to set up its programme. I am not a member of the board, nor do I ever expect to be. But I would expect that it would attend the ordinary functions as followed by boards of this kind, and would hold hearings in various parts of Canada. We find that section 9 states:
Subject to the directions of the minister, the board shall from time to time make investigations and surveys relating to the operation and development of commercial air services in Canada and relating to such other matters in connection with civil aviation as the minister may direct.


Howard Charles Green: The intention is that there shall be sittings?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Douglas King Hazen: I should like to say a word with respect to subsection 7 of section 7. The marginal note reads: "Independence of members of the board." I do not think the section is worded so that it makes for complete independence of board members. It states:
No member of the board shall either directly or indirectly engage in manufacturing or selling aircraft or in the transport of goods or passengers by aircraft for hire or reward

I find no fault with that wording. Then it continues:
-and no member of the board shall be a shareholder, member, director or partner of any company, association or firm engaged in manufacturing or selling aircraft or in the transport of goods or passengers by aircraft for hire or reward.
I do not object to that either, so far as it goes; but it seems to me there should be some additional wording inserted in that subsection I say it should state that no member of the board shall either directly or indirectly sell any goods or hire any property or render any service to the board for reward. As the section now reads, a member of the board could sell material to that board, or he could hire out articles or property to it.

Aeronautics Act
Or, if he were an engineer or a lawyer, he might render services and send in a bill. I do not think that should be permitted, and in my view the section should be amended by covering the point I have raised.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be just as reasonable to suggest that no member of the board of transport commissioners should sell materials to the railways. I do not think there is any such provision in the Transport Act.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not know what it says.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a full-time, long-term job in the public service. I would say that the regulations in respect of the public service would apply to these men. It would be drastic to cover every improper act, and to specify it in this measure.


Douglas King Hazen: Then why put in anything? Why say that no member of the board shall either indirectly or directly engage in manufacturing or selling aircraft? Why not leave that out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That has been borrowed from the other act.


Douglas King Hazen: If they are to be absolutely independent, as they should be, then I say they should be prohibited from carrying on any business dealings of any kind; and the section does not so provide.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These men are full-time employees of the government. They are not supposed to have any other business. I think, if we were to write in this measure everything a man could not properly do when serving His Majesty on a full-time job, we would have a most voluminous piece of legislation. What a man can or cannot do is well understood.


Douglas King Hazen: Only a few words would be required to make the necessary correction. Why write in anything?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was very carefully drafted by the Department of Justice, and I think it is all right.


Douglas King Hazen: Then, why put in anything?


George Russell Boucher: The minister surely appreciates that this section is passed as a means of preventing a man from bringing in some other financial interest, to mix with his judicial and executive capacity as a member of the board. An integral part of such a position would be that he shall not sell or hire or take advantage of his position. What has been said has not been directed toward his qualifications.
I think the hon. member has struck the nail on the head. The section beats around the
bush. The very substance of the matter is to prevent a person from using his previous employment for personal advantage, to the detriment of the board of which he may be a member. This section should be worded to cover a condition of that kind. I think there is a very strong reason why the motive of the section should be made more clear. There should be a prohibition against the commercial use of a man's earlier obligations and entanglements. The minister would be wise to take this matter into consideration and have the section amended in a proper way, instead of circling around it.


Douglas King Hazen: As I see it, we might use the words, "No member of the board shall sell any goods, or hire out any property, or render any service to the board for reward; and no member of the board shall be a shareholder, member, director or partner of any company, association or firm selling any goods or hiring out any property or giving any service to the board for reward."


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board is not in business; it buys nothing and sells nothing. It is advisory to the minister. It seems perfectly nonsensical that such a provision should be inserted, when the only thing a member could sell would probably be pencils and stationery- and even those come from the king's printer. We should not be absurd about this.


Howard Charles Green: What salaries are to be paid to members of the board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The measure says they will be fixed by order in council.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give any idea of the salaries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That has not been considered.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has not
answered my question with regard to an air route from Canada to Australia and New Zealand. Can he give us any further information on that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is being considered.


Howard Charles Green: There is no further announcement to be made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 6-part II-new section 8 agreed to.
On section 6-part II-new section 9-Investigation and surveys.


Howard Charles Green: I should imagine that in connection with investigation and surveys assistance by way of technical help and
Aeronautics Act

engineers would be required. Can the minister say what plans he has in mind in that connection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The air services branch of the Department of Transport has highly trained technicians who could assist the board, and doubtless the board will be able to obtain any technical assistance it needs from within the department.


Howard Charles Green: Is the board not to have technical assistance of its own?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If necessary, but it is not believed it will be necessary. The board is more a planning board. If technical work is to be done, the resources of the department will be at hand.


Howard Charles Green: It is not intended to have experts working directly under the board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is possible, but not probable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6-part II-new section 10 agreed to.
On section 6-part II-new section 11- Regulations.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I am suggesting that this section be amended by inserting the following as paragraph (i) after paragraph (h):
Prescribe maximum hours and other working conditions for pilots and co-pilots employed by any air carrier.
The remaining paragraphs will be relettered (j), (k) and (1).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The amendment seems to be one that will be particularly welcome. There does not seem to be much chance of this bill being completed to-night, and I wonder if the minister would allow this to stand as a notice so that it may be dealt with the next time the bill is in committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was hopeful that the bill would pass, because unfortunately I must be away on business next week. It is a simple amendment I am proposing, which permits the board to make specific regulations to deal with working hours for pilots and co-pilots.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am with the minister in his desire to get this bill through, but there might be employees other than pilots and co-pilots to be considered. What about groundcrews and other employees?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those are subject to the Department of Labour. Piloting is more a profession than a craft, although there is a pilots' association.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a question of safety.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are security matters to be considered. The other employees of an air company would ordinarily have a union agreement. In fact such employees have union agreements with the management already.


Howard Charles Green: This section brings up many different points. Even if it were carried before eleven o'clock there is no possible chance that section 12 would be carried to-night. I suggest that the section be left over in order that we may consider this change in section 11.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While this amendment
is being considered, I should like to call the minister's attention to another matter. This section sets out the specific types of regulations which the board may make. In looking through the Railway Act, T find that sections 316 to 347 set out the specific powers of the board of transport commissioners to prohibit discriminatory practices so far as rates and other matters are concerned. The sections in the Railway Act are quite specific. A company cannot give undue preference or discriminate against customers, nor can it do anything that is prejudicial. There is a great list of things that the railway companies must not do in the way of discriminatory practices. The question of the control of free transportation is referred to in the act. In fact, it is here that I find that members of parliament are accorded passes on the railways. I am not stressing the point, but it may be that some of us may hope to get the odd trip on the T.C.A. I am asking the minister if it would not be desirable to grant some power to this board so that it may prevent discriminatory or unfair practices on the part of the air lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the intention that a provision of that type will be included in the regulations. The purpose of the amendment to the act is to permit the aeronautics board to build up its own jurisprudence, just as the board of transport commissioners has built up jurisprudence over the years. In 1938 we attempted to apply the regulations that had been built up for the railroads to transport by air, and we arrived at some absurd situations. I could mention several that were quite proper under railroad operation, but which did not apply to air. Purposely we have not attempted to tie the hands of the board, but rather we have intended to give the board the power to make provisions applicable to the air.

Questions


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I sense what the minister is saying, but I would call his attention to the fact that the Railway Act contains specific provisions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We could write in the regulation about passes, but that does not apply to transport by air. You simply cannot carry free passengers by air.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could you not have a short clause which would give the board power to make regulations of that kind, or is there a clause hidden in the bill which I have not seen?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will notice that paragraph (k) provides that the board may make regulations providing for the effective carrying out of the provisions of this part. That is an omnibus clause that allows the board to pass anything it likes.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, Jnly 10, 1944