1944-04-20

Mr. SPEAKER:: I desire to make a statement to the house.
After His Excellency the Honourable Ray Atherton, United States Ambassador, had presented his credentials to His Excellency the Governor General, he made a formal visit to the Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons, that through them he might tender his respects to both houses.
Mr. Speaker Vien and I returned the visit together and took the opportunity to express not only personal congratulations to His Excellency but the appreciation of Canada that the United States of America had honoured us by accrediting as ambassador to Canada one of the most distinguished members of its diplomatic service, a gentleman whose reputation had preceded him and who in the short period of his stay here has demonstrated vividly that his high qualities have not been exaggerated.
At the same time we expressed our profound thankfulness for the unbounded confidence which existed between our two countries, a confidence strengthened and cemented by that great occasion on 25th August last when the President spoke to Canada in this our own capital.
His Excellency was good enough to say that he would wish to convey our sincere tribute to the President personally. This he did, and on Tuesday last His Excellency received
a letter from President Roosevelt. I have a copy of this letter, and I have permission to read it to the house:
The White House, Washington,
April 6, 1944.
My dear Mr. Ambassador:
I am glad that you told me in your letter of March 23, 1944, of the visit you received from Messrs. Vien and Glen of the Canadian parliament, and of their deep attachment to the great tradition of Canadian-American friendship.
At some appropriate time would you please thank them for their kind words of me, both when I was in Ottawa and when you spoke with them at the Chancery.
I wish also that you would tell them of the instinctive regard and affection for Canada and Canadians which a century and more of successful neighbourliness has engendered among Americans. It means much to us that Canadian-American relations have developed a quality all their own.
I think also that it can fairly be said that we Americans face the immense tasks ahead with greater confidence because of the practical lessons of the past, the strongly rooted cooperation of the present, and the concrete ideals we share for the future.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The Honourable Ray Atherton,
American Ambassador,
Ottawa, Canada.
I would like to say, and I believe the house would wish me to say, that Canada affirms and endorses these utterances of President Roosevelt, articulating as they do ideals which link our two countries. We have demonstrated in what are now ages the blessings of peace between nations; we are proving now that the pursuits of peace have neither destroyed nor impaired the virility of our peoples, and we shall in the future seek, in unity to dwell, a peace which shall be for the benfit of mankind everywhere based upon justice for all.



INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table exchange of notes between Canada and Newfoundland constituting the agreement for the settlement of claims arising out of traffic accidents involving Canadian and Newfoundland vehicles; St. John's, Newfoundland, January 24 and February 7, 1944.
Also exchange of notes between Canada and Newfoundland prolonging for a further period of one year the agreement on the operation of a commercial air service to Newfoundland
International Agreements

by Trans-Canada Air Lines, effected by an exchange of notes, February 6, 7, 9 and 27, 1942; St. John's March 1 and 2, 1944.
Exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America constituting an agreement for the settlement of claims arising out of traffic accidents involving Canadian and United States vehicles, signed at Ottawa March 23, 1944.
Exchange of notes between Canada and Mexico recording the agreement in respect of conscription for military service in Canada and Mexico; Mexico, February 29, 1944.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: In connection with the exchange of notes between the United States and Canada in regard to the settlement of claims for injuries to members of the armed forces, as I gathered it, I desire to ask the Prime Minister if any arrangement has been made with the government of the United States whereby Canadian nationals may have some chance of getting claims against agencies of the government of the United States settled without having to resort to actions in United States courts. Perhaps I could go a little further and say this. It is a well known rule of international law that a foreign government may not be sued in Canada, we will say.' That rule apparently is being extended to cover and include agencies of foreign governments which have incurred obligations in Canada for and on account of a foreign government. In a case that has come to my attention suit was brought against a foreign agency and a default judgment was entered; then, as I understand it, the Department of External Affairs intervened and asked that the judgment be vacated, on the ground of a breach of international comity. Personally I think that is carrying the rule a little far; but the effect of it, if accepted and carried to a conclusion, is that no Canadian national can recover in a court of law in Canada his just claims against a foreign government; he must go to the foreign country to pursue his claim, at great expense to him. If it is possible to make an arrangement in this regard similar to the arrangement made in regard to the subject matter covered by the notes tabled to-day, I suggest to the Prime Minister that some arrangement ought to be made to cover these claims for supplies and materials, we will say, furnished by Canadian nationals to United States government agencies in connection, for instance, with the construction of the Alaska highway. I know of one case where a bill of $30,000 has been unpaid for fifteen months. The person concerned has a judgment which he is being 
asked to vacate, and on which he cannot collect unless he goes to the United States to pursue it. Of course that ought not to be
the case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend would allow me to look into the matter and give him an answer to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): During the course of the discussion on Tuesday on the second reading of the bill for the carrying into effect of the agreement for United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the statement was made by the parliamentary assistant to the President of the Privy Council that if any Canadians wished to serve abroad on the staff of UNRRA, applications might be forwarded to the Department of National War Services, which would pass them on to UNRRA headquarters at Washington.
As a result of the publicity which has been given in the press and over the radio to this matter, I should like to offer a word of explanation as to what the situation is at the moment. There are two classes of positions which UNRRA will be called upon to fill. The first includes administrative and executive posts, and the selection of personnel for these positions rests entirely with UNRRA. Canadians who may be interested in such opportunities should forward their applications direct to the Director General, UNRRA, Dupont Circle building, Washington, D.C.
Should any such applications come to the Department of National War Services, their receipt will be acknowledged and they will be forwarded immediately to UNRRA.
There is a second class of positions for work in the field which contemplates, I understand, small groups of planning and supervising personnel. It is expected that these positions will be filled from voluntary agencies interested in UNRRA activities. We have given an assurance to UNRRA that we shall be prepared to offer our best assistance in organizing cooperation between these agencies and in the recruiting of such personnel.
As mentioned by the parliamentary assistant to the President of the Privy Council, no indication has yet been received by the government as to how many employees will be required under this scheme, nor do we know the requirements in regard to experience.

Questions
However, in anticipation of the receipt of this information immediate steps are being taken to communicate with the voluntary societies and to set up the machinery to deal with applications. The voluntary agencies are being invited to communicate with my department and we will welcome inquiries from others interested in this work. In the meantime, any applications received by my department will be duly recorded and the applicants advised that as soon as any details are available, they will be informed as to the procedure to be followed.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge) moved:: That,-
(1)	The petition of Ernest C. Manning and others, of Edmonton, Alberta, presented on March 29, 1944, praying for the passing of an act to incorporate The Alberta Provincial Bank;
(2)	The report of the clerk of petitions on the said petition; and
(3)	The private bill deposited with the clerk of the house on April 17, 1944, based on the said petition;
be referred to the standing committee on standing orders to consider the suspension of,-
(a)	Standing order 92 (late presentation of the petition);
(b)	Standing order 93(1) (late depositing of the bill); and
(c)	Standing order 93 (3) (a) and (c) (consequential penalty charges).
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister); My hon. friend has given the first intimation of his motion to the house itself. The government has had no previous knowledge of his intention to bring up this matter to-day, and perhaps he would oblige us by allowing the motion to stand until another day.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 86, respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KNOWLES;
1.	With reference to the report on the government-financed expansion of industrial capacity in Canada as at December 31, 1943, issued by the Department of Munitions and Supply, how much of the total commitment of $856,983,614 was allocated for use in each province?
2.	How- much of the total expenditure of $714,258,389 was expended in each province?
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1 and 2. It is impossible to give a money breakdown by provinces, that will properly reveal the extent to which each province is participating in war orders made possible by
(a)	government-financed expansion of industrial capacity, (b) the operations of crown companies, (c) by ordinary award of contracts.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-INSTRUCTIONS TO REGISTRARS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DORION;
1.	Has the Minister of Labour given instructions to registrars under order P.C. 1355, section 6, subsection 1?
2.	If so, (a) to whom; (b) at what date; (c) what were those instructions?
Mr. MARTIN;
1.	No. The Minister of Labour has not found it necessary to act under section 6, subsection (1) of order P.C. 1355.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOUCHER;
1.	Has the government of Canada a contract with the Canadian Stamp Vendors Limited?
2.	If so, does the company sell stamps by use of a stamp-vending machine?
3.	What commission or profit is allowed to the company on stamps so sold?
4.	What was the total amount of commission or profit accruing to the company on stamps sold by vending machine during each year since the contract w-as entered into?
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	No. In 1938 permission was granted the Canadian Vending Machines, Limited, to install machines in certain locations for the sale of postage stamps, as a measure of convenience to tourists, transients and other members of the public who require stamps after
Questions

regular hours when post offices and ordinary-licensed vendors are closed.
2.	The machines vend stamps at the following prices: 4 one-cent stamps, 5 cents; 2 two-cent stamps, 5 cents; 3 three-cent stamps, 10 cents; and a notice to this effect is placed in the machine for the information of the public.
3.	No commission is paid by the department to the Canadian Vending Machines, Limited. All stamps sold through their vending machines must be purchased at face value from the local post office of the city or town in which the machine is located.
4.	The stamps sold through these machines of the Canadian Vending Machines, Limited, are in the same form as the regular rolls of stamps purchased by business concerns, using stamping machines, and as they are purchased at face value from postmasters in the same manner as stamps sold to the general public no record is kept of the amount of postage stamps sold in stamp vending machines.


COAL SUBVENTIONS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How much has been paid by the government by way of subventions for the movement of coal in each of the years 1939 to 1943 inclusive ?
2.	To what firms and persons were these amounts paid?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Subventions which were paid directly in . Canada to the railways or coal mine operators or distributors are as follows on a calendar year basis:
1939	
84,092,399	261940	
4,315,589	831941	
4,489,229	051942	
4,420,380	371943	
2,533,084	182.	Amounts paid during the calendar years 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943 by way of subventions on the movement of coal and before deducting any refunds were as follows:Firm	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943Acadia Coal Co. Ltd....$ 34,624 37	
Algoma Central & Hudson
Bay Railway	 2,512 15	
Canada Coal Ltd	 13,580 00	
Canadian Collieries
(Dunsmuir) Ltd	211,083	28	S 183,173	57	$ 74,025	83	$	103,950	96	$	32,851	02Canadian Import Co	21,083	98	37,863	53	Canadian National Railways	
666,475	23	1,545,588	68	1,005,680	12	939,767	61	538,220	28Canadian Pacific Railways 954,765 35	1,005,386 51	1,505,576 03	1,051,168 01	125,018 93
Crow's Nest Pass Coal Co.
Ltd	 14,111 26	13,147 47	12,342 39	18,971 00
Cumberland Railway &
Coal Co. Ltd.... 37,354	41	14,492	16	2,872	50	Dominion Coal	Co.	Ltd..	1,949,937	04	830,030	39	1,604,348	87	2,126,859 27	1,656,428 29Essex Terminal	Railways.	987	S3	356	08	
London & Port Stanley
Railway	 144	03	124	01		
Maritime Coal Railway &
Power Co.	Ltd	 6,540 28	5,564 84	3,379 71	4,247 74	108 70
Morrissey Fernie & Michel
Railway	 8,490	12	420	18		
Mountain Park Coals
Limited	 17,375 62	13,201 29	8,854 26	
Northern Alberta Railway 78 97	
Sydney & Louisburg Railway	 110,850 01	669,265 87	269,421 53	178,880 97	164,378 39

Questions as Orders for Returns
PAMPHLET "employers' GUIDE"


Mr. DORION:: 1.	How many pamphlets entitled "Employers' Guide" have been printed?
2.	How many have been distributed?
3.	To whom have they been distributed?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	550,000.
2.	469,500.
3.	Direct mailing to individual employers, 162,000; to employment and selective service offices and regional offices, to be available to meet requests from farmers and supplementary requests from mercantile and industrial employers, 279,100; to divisional registrars of the mobilization section, to meet employers' requests and for information, 25,200; casual distribution to interested parties and enquirers, 3,200; on hand to meet further requests, 80,500.


PARACHUTES
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has the government awarded contracts for
testing silk to be used in the manufacture or repair of parachutes to persons or companies in the city of Montreal?	_
2.	If so, to what persons or companies have these contracts been awarded?
3.	During the years 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, what were the amounts of such contracts ?
4.	During the same years, what sums of money were paid with regard to these contracts by the dominion government, and to whom were such sums paid?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What is the total personnel of the British Columbia security commission, and what are the names, position or duties, and salary of each member?
2.	How many are located in Vancouver; how many elsewhere than Vancouver, and at what points?
3.	Has there been any reduction in the staff of the British Columbia security commission during the past fiscal year, and if so, by how many?
4.	How many parcels of real estate formerly owned by Japanese have been disposed of by the custodian of enemy property to date?
5.	What amount has been realized from such sales, and what disposition has been made of the funds so realized?
6.	In what cities, towns or districts was the property situated which has been disposed of by the custodian?


WAR HISTORIES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Will the official history of the first great war be completed?
2.	How many volumes were to comprise the completed history?
3.	(i) How many persons have been employed from 1918 to date in the preparation thereof, and what is the total expenditure to date for, (a) salaries, (b) other expenses; (ii) when is completion of the history expected?
4.	What steps are now being taken to accord an official record with regard to Canada's participation in the present war?


FOREST RESEARCH
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Does the federal government do any research work on forestry projects other than those in the forest products laboratories in Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver?
2.	If so, what type of research work is being done, and by what agencies?
3.	What were the federal government expenditures on forestry research projects in 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941, (a) by the Department of Mines and Resources; (b) by the national research council?
4.	What were the total expenditures of the national research council on all projects during the years 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941?
5.	What is the area of forest land in Canada?
6.	How much of this land is considered as having commercial value at present?
7.	How, and from whom were these data obtained? Are they based on actual ground or air surveys?
8.	Were representations made to the Minister of Mines and Resources in May, 1943, in respect to federal assistance to the provinces for forestry work?
9.	If so, was a brief submitted by these representatives ?
10.	What action, if any, has been taken in respect to these representations?
11.	Did representatives of any forestry industry group meet with and make recommendations on forestry matters to the Minister of Mines and Resources at any time during the years of 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 or 1939?
12.	If so, what was the date of such meeting, and what actions, if any, were taken by the government in respect to these representations?
13.	Is sales tax collected on all lumber sold in Canada?
14.	Is sales tax collected on the production of lumber produced by small portable mills and sold in Canada?
15.	How many such portable mills, if any, are exempted from the payment of sales tax on the lumber they produce and sell in Canada?
16.	How many of these mills are located in each of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, and British Columbia?
17.	What was the total of the taxes, other than sales tax, collected by the federal government from pulp and paper companies in Canada during the years 1940, 1941 and 1942?
18.	What was the total of the taxes, other than sales tax, collected by the federal government from lumber companies in Canada during the years 1940, 1941 and 1942?
Labour Conditions

,, 19- What was the total of the taxes, other than sales tax, collected by the federal government from pulp and paper companies and from e.r companies in Canada during the year 1943 (estimates only) ?


REQUIREMENT OF EMPLOYERS TO REPORT EMPLOYEES FOR MILITARY SERVICE
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Has the government received any protest against the putting into force of the "order of the Minister of Labour, dated the 28th January, 1944, authorized by order in council P.C. 9919 of the 31st December, 1943, obliging employers to report their employees even if such employees are their sons or relatives?
2.	If so, from whom did such protest originate?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $10,549,500 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1944; to make provision for the purchase or refunding of capital obligations of the company, or of any company comprised of the Canadian National Railway system, during the said calendar year and for the issue of substituted securities for such purpose; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal, interest and sinking funds of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $10,549,500 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: It is reported in the press to-day that at the session of the International Labour Organization which convenes at Philadelphia

to-morrow, demands will be made by the workers' delegates for some machinery whereby world trade unions can help to direct any peace treaty or post-war agreements on financial and economic policy. This move if approved would, the dispatch says, greatly broaden the powers of the International Labour Organization, which are at present limited to labour and social policy. Approval of the idea is said to have been given by the British Foreign Secretary, the Hon. Anthony Eden. Has the government given consideration to this point, and, if so, what decision has been reached as to Canada's policy? Have the Canadian delegates to the meeting received any directions from the government relating to the matter?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): The communication which the leader of the opposition has just read to preface his question is a mere press report. H makes no definite statement about anything. It says that the demands of the workers' delegates may be put forward for the reasons mentioned, and that it is rumoured or alleged that Mr. Eden was favourable. I would say to my hon. friend that the government has received no communication with respect to the matter one way or the other. If and when any communication is received it will receive due consideration.


Gordon Graydon: I take it there have been no instructions given?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There could not be any instructions because there is nothing on which to instruct anyone.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: A Canadian Press dispatch of yesterday's date from Hanna, Alberta, says that:
Federal Agriculture Minister Gardiner told a nomination convention here last night he could not predict the date of the next federal general election, but I advise you to get busy immediately." He said Prime Minister Mackenzie King had ruled against extending the lile ot the dominion government.
I do not know whether the word "government" was a misquotation or not.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Wait for Bracken.


Gordon Graydon: He is worth waiting for.
I continue. Having in mind that the Minister

Forces-Welcome to Returning Men
of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson), speaking in Hamilton some weeks ago, indicated that there was a likelihood of a federal election this fall, and in view of this further reported statement of the Minister of Agriculture, will the Prime Minister kindly inform the house if his views coincide with the views which his ministers are reported to have expressed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that I am obliged to disclose my views on any matter, least of all on the subject of the time of a general election. I would say with regard to that matter that I have nothing to add to the statements I have made from time to time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We can assume it would not be before August 25- it could not be.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: An organized effort on the part
of municipalities and groups of citizens across Canada is being made with the very laudable objective of giving to members of our armed forces who are returning to Canada a proper welcome when they arrive. Will the Minister of National Defence kindly inform the house as to what cooperation his department or other departments of government give to these organizations in connection with the work, and whether or not a lead is being given by the government to the formation of such welcoming committees in districts where no committees have been so constituted? Many citizens would like to be on hand to welcome our men from the services when they come back, but very often news of the arrival reaches the public only after the event has taken place. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to indicate what steps are being taken by his department to notify the next of kin of the return of these men and women, and also if it would be possible to inform the public as well as to the date of their expected arrival.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I [DOT] do not propose to make any extended answer to my hon. friend's question to-day because it involves setting out the procedure which has been adopted by the department under various circumstances. I wish to say to the house that there are two different classes of those who are coming home
in respect of whom it is so desirable to extend warm welcomes-those who are on board hospital ships, and those who are on board transports. In the case of the hospital ships it is much easier to give notice in advance because of the fact that no security considerations are involved that is to say, the nominal rolls of those who are on the hospital ships are sent to us soon after they leave the other side, and it is public knowledge that the hospital ship is afloat. We are glad to make it known when the ship arrives and therefore are able to give more advance notice than we can in the case of the transports. In the case of the transports, security provisions prevent us from publishing anything about the arrival of the ship until at least twenty-four hours have elapsed. As a matter of fact men arrive in Montreal generally before it is known that the transport is in. But procedure has been adopted in connection with both cases in order to give the maximum of notice, and I hope to give the house a further statement on it within a day or two.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: On March 6 of this year, or thereabouts, a motion was passed for the return of certain correspondence between the national war service mobilization board of Saskatchewan and certain individuals. Could the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour tell me anything about that return?


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked this question, for I was about to ask that he, together with the rest of the house, agree that we be not required to comply with the order. To do so would mean an examination of some 135,000 files in the office of the registrar at Regina. However, I believe the hon. gentleman is entitled to have the matter cleared up, and it is proposed to appoint a commissioner, perhaps under order in council P.C. 4020, to deal with the matter, to take evidence, and in that way bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no desire to overwhelm the department with work, and I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the parliamentary assistant and to accept his suggestion.
Hyde Park Declaration



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Some weeks ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) announced the regulations in regard to the granting to men in the armed forces of farm leave for spring work. That is now a matter of extreme urgency, because spring work is beginning on the farms. Together with many other hon. members of this house I have received complaints that in the administration of these regulations there is not the uniformity there should be, and that there have been unnecessary delays. I should like to ask the minister what is being done to make sure that commanding officers in all parts of Canada look into the applications for leave and make decisions thereon at the earliest possible day. Men are needed now, and decisions should be made without delay.


James Layton Ralston: I shall look into the matter and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Has the Department of Labour or the national wartime labour relations board received any protest from the association of technical employees against the reported decision of the" board excluding professional employees from the provisions of the new wartime labour relations regulations, and, if so, what consideration is being given to the protest?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. It is true that a protest has been received from the national chairman of the association of technical employees with regard to a reported decision of the national wartime labour relations board excluding professional employees from the provisions of the wartime labour relations regulations under P.C. 1003. With regard to the consideration being given to the protest, it is necessary to quote the decision of the board, which reveals that such protests and their consideration have been anticipated. The decision of the board reads in part as follows:
. . . for purposes of the regulations', persons employed in a professional capacity shall be [Mr. Coldwcll.l
deemed to he employed in a confidential capacity, with the board reserving the right to review its decision in six months.
It will be recalled that the wartime labour relations regulations exclude from "employee" as defined, persons employed in a confidential capacity. By reserving the right to review its decision the board has realized that all interested parties require time in which to prepare their cases for presentation to the board at a subsequent date, when the matter will come up again.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Vien: I would point out to hon. members that questions of a kind which should not be asked on the orders of the day should not be answered when so asked. I have endeavoured to enforce this rule as far as possible, but I must have the assistance of the house in regard to it. These questions should be placed on the order paper. To-day several questions of this kind have been asked and answers have been given. I do suggest that questions which are improperly asked should not be answered.	*


[Stage Direction]
PRESS REPORTS AS TO SUSPENSION On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I hope the question I am about to ask will be in order; it is prompted by the fact that to-day we welcome back the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). We are pleased indeed to see him looking so well, and hope his health will continue to be good. On Monday of this week I asked the Prime Minister a question with respect to the Hyde Park agreement, and the right hon. gentleman was good enough to indicate that he would answer the question when the Minister of Finance came back. I am. only mentioning the matter now as a reminder, in the hope that we may expect an answer soon.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I had hoped to be able to make a statement to-day, but it will not be possible for me to do so. I expect to be able to make the statement either to-morrow or Monday.

War Appropriation-Transport



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 18, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Air services branch-
S.	Civil aviation: operation and maintenance of municipal (terminal) airports, $398,260.
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I should like to say a few words in connection with civil aviation. There are many aspects of the problem, . and when one reads the minister's statement respecting the domestic problem of aviation, and also the international air transport convention, he realizes the vastness of the subject. To my mind however the whole international situation is wrapped up with the question of civil aviation. This matter is both international and domestic, and the settlement of the whole problem will not be easy.
I should like to make a few observations respecting the domestic problems. It is proposed to set up a board, something like the board of transport commissioners, and, as the minister said, it will be charged with the responsibility of-
-advising the government on ways and means of bringing about a rapid and well-planned expansion of transport by air. The proposed board will examine the needs for new commercial services, and make recommendations for their establishment and expansion, in both the domestic and international fields; receive applications for the services and issue commercial licences; establish tariffs and regulate rates; examine the ownership, financial structure, operations, and financial position of carriers; make recommendations for needed financial assistance; advise the government on matters affecting the operation of existing aerodromes; report on the need for new aerodromes; and perform such other allied duties as may be determined.
I agree that this board should be set up, but I think it should be the intention of the government to give the board absolute freedom of action. They should have as much latitude as possible, should act as a judicial body, and should not be interfered with. The board must be free from government or political control, in order that it may operate in the best interests of Canada.
As the minister has said, the board will make a study of the whole situation. From time to time it will have to make decisions, and for that reason it must be free from
political control. I believe Canada should wake up to the necessity of expanding, particularly in the field of air transport, farther than we have gone so far; but that expansion must be'carried on through both public and private ownership. The board will be necessary under any circumstances, even if the government were to agree to the operation of Trans-Canada Air Lines as a non-competitive and non-profit system, with a monopoly of trans-Canada traffic. As the minister pointed out, a second system would probably be wasteful and unjustified at the present time. This may be so just now, but I must point out that our decision as to whether we should have a competitive system in the future will depend on the service given by the one publicly-owned system.
The minister points out he does not want to have a second system in competition because, as he has suggested, we have had an example of ruinous competition in our transportation systems. But I do not think competition in railway transportation systems, as we have seen it before, is parallel with the air transport situation. Moreover, it was competition not only between two systems, but among various systems subsidized by the government. That was what got us into trouble. There was the idea that Canada was not being adequately served and was not expanding sufficiently with one railway system, the Canadian Pacific. There was a clamour on the part of the public for further systems, and when those systems were instituted they found it easy to get subsidies of one kind and another from both provincial and dominion governments. We did in fact get into a serious situation.
The position in connection with air travel is not the same. As I see it, there is no doubt that Canadian Pacific Air Lines is threatening the position of Trans-Canada Air Lines in Canada. But Canada was fortunate in the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company entered the field of aviation. We should be very thankful for the work it has done. I doubt very much if the north country in Canada would have been opened up to the same extent, during the difficult days through which we have passed, had it not been for the enterprise of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and its formation of Canadian Pacific Air Lines. In those times the small and independent private companies, or bush lines, for various reasons were on the verge of ruin. That was not altogether the fault of the former government, but rather the result of the times through which we were passing. Canadian Pacific Air Lines paid fair prices for
War Appropriation-Transport

those lines, and in many cases gave employment to the men who had been their originators.
I think, too, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had in mind their tardiness in entering the field of bus and motor traffic, and they did not want to have a repetition of that type of competition in respect of air lines. Altogether it is my view that they deserve a great deal of credit for the position they have taken. There is no doubt that the divorcing of the air companies from the railways is a blow to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It may be justified at the present time-the minister seems to think it is, but I have some doubts about it. It is my view that a great deal of study is required before such a drastic measure is adopted. The same would apply to the divorcing of Trans-Canada Air Lines from the Canadian National Railways. Much study is required before that is done.
The minister has made a statement with respect to leaving the bush routes and feeder lines open to returned men. Well, to my mind that is just so much eyewash. Why has the minister changed his mind on this point? In 1937, as reported at page 2216 of Hansard, the minister said:
In my view it is only reasonable that the railways should have a part in the development of air transportation.
Then the minister went on to give his reasons, and said:
In the first place they are in the transportation business; and in the operation of air lines there are problems in common with the operation of railways.
What are these problems? They are maintenance of equipment, overhaul of equipment, the safety of passengers, and all that sort of thing. Can that be done better by a number of small companies, or can it be done better by one large company? The safety of passengers is a matter which must be given careful consideration. The minister went on to say:
For instance, both must have ticket offices; both must have facilities for soliciting express and passenger business. The legal problems of both are more or less on a par, and a legal staff trained to railway transportation matters would be valuable in air matters. I could set out many other points where the services are more or less parallel.
As I pointed out a moment ago, there would be the question of overhaul, maintenance and so on. The minister continued:
So it seemed to me from the start that in a properly organized trans-Canada system the railways should have a part.

The minister made a pretty powerful argument in 1937 for railway participation in civil aviation; why has he changed his mind? He continued:
In any event, after the consideration of these matters the government has decided that its agency for transportation, the Canadian National Railways, should be the means of organizing this company, just as it was used as the means for operating such shipping as the government has owned, and the means of operating other government transportation facilities.
The Canadian National Railways, as the originator of Trans-Canada Air Lines, had to Share the aeroplane business of Canada with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but, as the minister pointed out in his statement, the Canadian Pacific did not choose to enter into an agreement with the government. On the other hand, as I have indicated, they have done a splendid job in building up feeder lines and generally developing Canada. The minister continued:
The question now arises: Have we invited the private interests to participate? That question was asked. May I say we did not need to invite them. They came from every part of Canada and the United States, and put on the most persistent lobby in Ottawa that I have ever seen.
Will that lobby be repeated? The minister continued :
The only way we could make progress was to absolutely refuse to talk to them. We said, "Go back home. We will write our bill, and when we get it written and bring it down you will see it. If you then want any part in it we will give you the chance to discuss the matter." How could we make a deal on the one hand with perhaps a dozen clamouring aviation companies, or with one or two of them, and on the other hand bring down a bill which the government or parliament would approve?
Are we to have the same situation develop under this new system proposed by the government? The minister continued:
The thing was absolutely impossible. Some one had to make up his mind as to the proper set-up, pick out the responsible people to take care of the initial financing, and after that sit down and see what these services had to offer in the way of experienced personnel, trained operators, and so on; and then decide whether one, two, four or some other number of private companies should be associated in the new organization, whether each would give it strength or otherwise, and then determine the final set-up accordingly.
Many years have gone by, and the Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Canadian Pacific Air Lines have been developed. I am amazed that the minister or the government should have changed their minds. If the Trans-Canada Air Lines, under the management of the

War Appropriation-Transport
Canadian National Railways, have been successful and have been fulfilling the functions for which they were created, why should there be any change? The Canadian Pacific Air Lines is part of an organization, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which for years has been synonymous the world over with Canada and Canadian affairs. Have they not been giving the people the service they should be giving? Have they been exploiting the public? Have they been exploiting their employees? Is there something wrong with the service? Or is it simply that they are doing a better job than the government-owned organization and are thus threatening the government-owned system? The minister said that he did not want to have to meet ruinous competition, but in my opinion the divorcing of these lines ' from ' the railway will create competition of the worst kind in the carrying of passengers and express.
Has the minister changed his mind in relation to the legal problems? Instead of having a legal organization for each railway, he intends to have a multiplicity of legal organizations all over the country. This will probably be very good for the lawyers. Will the divorcing of the air lines from the railways facilitate the sale of tickets? The minister said in 1937 that the private interests came from every part of Canada and the United States and put on the most persistent lobby in Ottawa that he had ever seen. This will be repeated. I should like to know just why the minister has changed his mind. Perhaps a little later he will tell us. It is hard for me to find any justification for it, unless this is some more of what we call political eyewash. Is there any reason for this action on the part of the government? Is this an attempt to counter the policies of the C.C.F.? Is the government trying to go one better than the C.C.F. in the taking over of enterprises of this kind? So far as I know, the railways are running the air lines quite well. Not only that, but I think there is far more possibility of Canadian Pacific Air Lines providing positions for our boys when they return from overseas. If we are to set up a number of independent air lines, they will have doubtful success.
Is this being done because the United States have decided to divorce their air lines from their railways? I cannot help but think of the position of the feeder lines of Canadian Pacific Air Lines and realize that the shortest route to Europe and Asia is over the roof of the world. I believe one reason for this action is the fact that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines are threatening the position of Trans-Canada
Air Lines. It is doubtful whether the maintenance of a monopoly in international traffic as a continuing policy is advisable. There is no sound reason why we should continue after the war a government-owned system along international lines. The well-entrenched United States lines which cross our border are constantly reaching out for additional entry permits. As I understand it, the United States have eight entries into Canada, while we have only one into the United States. There may be some military reason for this, but I do not think we want to have any competition so far as the development of our country and our airways is concerned. Certainly we should have a quid pro quo basis with the United States so far as entry permits are concerned; that is most necessary. We have the opportunities of developing our air lines, and Canadians should be able to do so on equal terms with our cousins to the south.
Another statement made by the minister is rather alarming. Speaking on March 17 he said as reported in Hansard, page 1578:
Moreover, in thus establishing freedom of transit, countries such as Canada, which are strategically placed, will be making a very great contribution to an effective international system, particularly when, like Canada, their population is not great and the amount of traffic which they have to offer for international carriage would consequently not be large.
Our population not large, the amount of traffic we have to offer not great! That is not my understanding of Canada's position- the senior self-governing dominion, the fourth amongst the united nations from the standpoint of production of war material, the third or fourth largest trading nation in the world. Is this attitude commensurate with the fine achievement of the men and women of our armed forces, or with the assiduity and enterprise of our war workers as manifested by their magnificent accomplishments, or with the willingness of our people to make sacrifices, or with their support of our victory loans? These attributes which, more than anything else, we can read in the statute of Westminster, are the hallmarks of our nationhood. They indicate the important part that this dominion will have to play on the world stage in the days which lie ahead. Is the attitude of the minister as expressed in the words I have quoted commensurate with our untold natural resources to be developed, with our frontier opportunities to the north being more and more pushed back and opened up to us? Is not the past performance of Canadians indicative of the future possibilities of Canada? Is this attitude of the minister commensurate with our strategical position in regard to
War Appropriation-Transport

Asiatic and European civil aviation prospects over the roof of the world? It seems to me that this kind of thinking shows an inferiority complex. "A small population and not much traffic"-that is not what we should be thinking about.
Another question: is our territory to be used merely as a convenience for international traffic? I do not think we ought to take that attitude. What Canada has to do is to assert her place in the aerial world, both as to worldwide transport and as to domestic and crossfrontier position. Canada's hinterland is still open for discovery. The pioneer spirit of our people must be maintained and further developed. There should be room for both public and private ownership of air transport. If there are opportunities for international and cross-frontier transport, the government must take advantage of them as quickly as possible. If public ownership is not adequate for this purpose, it must be done privately, but the government must see to it that we do not lose out. Take as an example the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Havana conference gave Canada some sixty-one channels, only forty-four of which are occupied at the present time. I do not know how many channels the United States got, but I can tell you that they have 912 stations operating, while comparatively speaking we have very few. I do not think we should nourish an inferiority complex in this connection; we must stand up for our rights.
May I point out that the board, as it is to be constituted, introduces exactly the same principle as that advocated by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, that is, an independent board free from government control. This proposal, of course, has been rejected by the Minister of National War Services, but I think a board of this kind would be equally valuable in connection with air transport and with radio.
As regards the proposed convention, as reproduced in Hansard, page 1582, article II, section 1 reads:
Each member state recognizes that every state has complete exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory.
That is as it should be. But then we come to article V, section 4, which gives the duties of a regional council:	.
To grant licences to operate international air services within the region; to withhold licences . . .
And so on. That, it seems to me, takes away the rights we have to sovereignty over our own air.
{Mr. Douglas G. Ross.]
In connection with the convention, if I were sure of Canada's power in representation being commensurate with her strategical importance, with the importance of her potential traffic as fourth trading nation, with her potential industrial and agricultural importance in traffic, with her importance as I have indicated before, not as having a population of 11,500,000 people, but of having 25 to 50 million in the not too far distant future, I would be more satisfied.
Can the minister tell us what the position will be? How many votes will Canada have? Who are the eight designated member states? What will be the proportionment of votes? Will Canada have one or six? Will Canada be one of the designated states?
One factor which must not be overlooked is that Canada's area is vast and the problem of policing the air will be one of much moment. It cannot be taken too lightly to see to it that innocent passage over the country is only innocent passage, and not preparation for future aggression.
Another factor: What effect will this convention have on Canada's position in the commonwealth of nations and the British empire? Will it still be possible for the commonwealth and British empire to have an air transport plan? Are there any understandings with the other empire countries- Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Great Britain and Ireland? Are there any understandings with the self-governing colonies? For myself, I think that Canada has a strategical position in the British commonwealth of nations. Under the statute of Westminster she is a free sovereign and independent nation, and she cannot stand aloof from the world in extreme nationalism. We know that now. We know that distances have very greatly shrunk. We hear rumours of non-stop flights over distances which are far greater than merely across the Atlantic. Canada therefore must assume her responsibilities as well as her advantages in world affairs. She may well, by means of aviation, be one of the strongest forces in knitting together the commonwealth and empire as a power for good and peace in the world. She must be a strong nation in a strong commonwealth and empire, and she can be a strong nation in the formulation of commonwealth and empire policies. Her position and facilities must not be used as a mere convenience. We can use the words of the minister as reported at page 1626 of Hansard and say that Canada may make "as great a contribution as possible to the successful solution of this problem", that is, the problem of international air transport. But this is so largely wrapped up in other

War Appropriation-Transport
international affairs that in making the contribution to air transport she will of necessity make a contribution to peace and stability.
Canada has the opportunity of drawing together, in conjunction with our neighbour, the United States, the English-speaking peoples in their job of enforcing the rule of law and order in the world. In reestablishing the democratic way of life, Canada must have representative power equal to her geographical position, her strategic position and other future possibilities.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: I welcome the fact that the government has given and is giving some consideration to the problem of postwar aviation. I especially greet the decision of the government to implement Canada's air policy through the medium of a strong government-owned air line, both on the international field and on the main-line routes of Canada. I sincerely believe that under present conditions this approach by the government is best adapted to give the country efficient air transportation and to provide opportunities of employment for returning airmen and workers in the aircraft industry.
In his statement on air policy on March 17, the minister said that Canada's position carries with it great responsibilities and great opportunities. What are these responsibilities and opportunities? In my opinion they are as follows-and when I say in my opinion, unlike others who believe they have the last word, I realize that we are discussing something new, the most concrete discussion that we could have over something for the post-war period, and I am willing to listen to the arguments of others. I repeat therefore that in my opinion these responsibilities and opportunities are as follows:
1.	We should strive for cheap, efficient air transport, both inside and outside Canada.
2.	We should make the utmost use of facilities created during the war, but wherever these are not well adapted to commercial use they should be replaced.
3.	We should create employment for returning air force veterans, both in the field of air transport and also in other fields.
In the interest of Canada we have the responsibility to adopt an attitude to the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Britain which will help promote the maximum cooperation in air transport development to our national advantage.
There is prevalent a tendency to overemphasize the importance of probable international air developments, at least as far as Canada is concerned. The glamour of rapid travel to far places stirs the imagination and
focuses attention on the international route*.
But a sober appraisal must come to the conclusion that economically domestic air transport will be much more important to Canada for a long time to come.
In order to get the possibilities into proper perspective, let us examine specific routes and traffic.
1.	North Atlantic routes to England and Europe: For passengers and freight, both the United States of America and England will have the advantage over us.


Mr. REID:: And Scotland too. Keep the record straight.


Fred Rose: You can include Scotland.
They have powerful aircraft industries, and in addition a larger volume of traffic with which to keep their overhead down. However, there will most likely be sufficient traffic to support a line to the British Isles.
2.	Trans-Pacific routes to Australasia and southeast Asia: The Americans have pioneered these routes and undoubtedly will be operating them again after the war. Canada could originate little traffic to these destinations, either passenger or freight. For somewhat the same reasons as enumerated previously for the north Atlantic routes, only more so, it would be folly to expect that Canada could operate in this area without tremendous losses. Many of the American experts do not expect the Pacific routes to be profitable for years.
3.	Routes to South America: Again, Canada could originate little traffic and would face the competition of well established United States lines with a large traffic pool to draw upon. It would be extremely difficult to substantiate our right to enter this field, with the possible exception of Mexico.
4.	Route to West Indies:	Canada could
supply a reasonable amount of passenger traffic and possibly some freight on such a route. Our trade connections with these islands and the established tourist travel to them lend some support to the need for an air service direct from Canada. If we also obtained the right to pick up passengers in the United States there is no question as to the desirability of starting such a service.
5.	Trans-polar routes: These are the much-discussed short great circle routes from America to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, India and China. They traverse, however, a traffic desert for long distance, and this puts a premium on the maximum pay load to gross weight ratio. The long distances between inhabited places will necessitate long hops with fuel using up a substantial part of carrying capacity. This suggests the need for using equipment stripped of all non-essentials.
War Appropriation-Transport

Since it would be extremely difficult to provide even passable passenger facilities on the ground in the polar area, the future of these routes appears to be largely for the carriage of freight where speed is essential. Conditions somewhat less rigorous would be characteristic of the route from Canada over Greenland to the Scandinavian countries and the northern part of European Russia. To make use of Canada's geographical advantages by operating the trans-polar routes would require the active collaboration of 'the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is in this field that the greatest possibilities are apparent for taking advantage of our geographical position. We should operate a specialized air freight service over these routes. We should lose no time in beginning discussion of this question with the Soviet Union.
6.	Carriage of freight anywhere in north America: Canada has led the world in the development of air transportation to handle freight which must reach its destination with all possible speed, such as repair parts, or freight destined for delivery in undeveloped and relatively inaccessible areas. If we could obtam from the United States reciprocal rights for each to carry this type of traffic anywhere in the other's territory, we should have no fear of obtaining our share of the traffic offering.
In addition to our international lines we should make a real effort to benefit from our geographical position by building up service functions to sell to1 foreign lines using our bases on their international routes. Besides the obvious fueling and servicing of planes, the provision of passenger accommodations, weather reporting and radio directions, we should consider the opportunities to be found in the opening up of free port areas in Canada for air traffic analogous to the great free port areas of the world for ocean traffic. For example, if Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg and Edmonton were to become important crossroads on international air routes, then there may be important possibilities in setting up free port areas at these centres, where goods of various nations can be interchanged and even processed without incurring the necessity of passing through customs. For all these services we would of course collect tolls from the foreign lines making use of them.
On the basis of these perspectives, what kind of international air policy is best suited to meet Canada's needs? Obviously the minister was correct in excluding from any general international agreement the question 
of cross border services of contiguous countries. We need this freedom of action to try to obtain from the United States the right to operate special air freight service anywhere.
Freedom of air transit, as defined by the minister in his statement, gives away the geographical advantages which Canada possesses without getting any advantages for us in return which are of practical use. The minister himself admitted as much when he said on March 17, 1944, at page 1578 of Hansard:
Moreover, countries such as Canada, which are strategically placed, will be making a very great contribution to an effective international sj'stem, particularly when, like Canada, their population is not great, and the amount of traffic which they have to offer for international carriage would consequently not be large. On the other hand, the right of transit would be of particular benefit to those nations which have a great deal of potential traffic for international air services, but are less strategically located.
If this means anything, it means that Canada gets nothing useful in return for granting freedom of air transit, while countries like the United Kingdom and the United States do get very real benefits. Why should we give up this right so cheaply? What we should do is to grant this right in return for a very concrete quid pro quo, for example, from the United States some integration of the aircraft manufacturing industries in the two countries by which Canada may be guaranteed an outlet for certain definite types of planes which we can make here, plus the right for us to pick up and deliver in the United States traffic to and from the West Indies; from England, the benefits of cheap air mail rates to empire destinations; from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, reciprocal landing and freight traffic rights on trans-polar routes.
It is quite true that "our interest lies in a liberal course of cooperation with other nations," but "cooperation" does not need to be defined in such a way that it means giving away our natural advantages for nothing in return. Neither should we attempt to play dog in the manger. But it is quite within the realm of full international collaboration for us to ask for and expect to get some usable advantage, such as those just described, in return for making our airfields and services available to the air lines of other nations. As noted previously, for these services we provide we expect to receive a fair fee-not a hold-up charge, but a fair return for services rendered.
We do need, just as do the other countries, a multilateral agreement providing for such

War Appropriation-Transport
things as uniform safety rules and air worthiness standards, uniform plane and ground markings and signals, joint accident investigation, weather and direction reporting. It would also be desirable for the various countries to agree on uniform operating standards and exchange information. Yet there are practical limits to which such an agreement can be expected to go under existing conditions. For example it is naive to expect that an international regulatory body will eliminate subsidies. Every major country that decides to have an international air line will have one whether it requires a subsidy to do so or not. In fact, there are many ways of subsidizing air transport indirectly, and no set of rules could successfully stop the practice. Only a few weeks ago, Sir Archibald Sinclair, the British Air Minister, told1 the House of Commons that British Overseas Airways Corporation would have to be subsidized heavily. A report of this speech appears in the Wall Street Journal for March 17, 1944.
The government policy, already established, of retaining control of all main-line air operations is sound. The minister stresses the importance of encouraging returning airmen to establish bush and feeder routes wherever practicable. I agree with this. I believe our returning airmen should be given all possible help in this respect. While the total employment thus created will not likely be large, it is a field to which the returning airmen will naturally gravitate. However, if they are to be able to start up new air line operations, no matter how small, most of them will require access to capital which is not readily forthcoming from the banks for such activities. It would seem, therefore, that if the government is sincere in its desire to promote this field for returning airmen, it should change the provisions of the Industrial Development Bank bill to make it possible for this institution to grant credit to the airmen to start up in business for themselves. Unless the government takes some such action to make credit available, the creation of post-war employment in this kind of activity will remain a pious hope.
The civil aeronautics administration of the United States Department of Commerce has been planning, and civil aeronautics administration officials have been giving publicity to, extensive domestic airport and facilities developments by the government after the war. It has been strongly recommended that in the first few years after the war the number of airports in the United States should be raised to 6,000, about double the present number. It is estimated by civil
aeronautics administration officials that this will involve an expenditure of some eight hundred millions. At the present time about eighty-five per cent of airport facilities have been built with federal money, so that the planned extension of airport facilities contemplates, in effect, a gigantic public works project largely done by the federal government. This data on United States airport development was given in a speech by William A. M. Burden, special aviation assistant to -the Secretary of Commerce, before the first national clinic of domestic aviation planning, Oklahoma City, November 11, 1943.
If domestic air transportation is to develop as it should in Canada, some comparable expansion of facilities will be necessary. Many of the war-time airfields are in locations which will be of no commercial value after the war, so that despite the expansion which the minister says has taken place, it is evident that much more will have to be done to equip Canada with the requisite- facilities for a large expansion of both commercial and private flying.
For Canada, it is strongly recommended that the air-port and airway developments be done by the federal government in- order to obtain the best possible organization of facilities from the national point of view. The history of Canadian- railroad building, where different municipalities vied with each other to obtain the line through their jurisdiction, should not be repeated with the airways. Financially, none but the largest municipalities can afford to build the type of airports demanded by modern transport planes. Therefore there are both economic and financial reasons for making the provision of airway facilities a federal responsibility. In this way, too, proper standards can be enforced.
The minister's comprehensive statement to the house and the tabling of the draft international air transport convention illustrate vividly the manner in which important postwar policies for Canada are being determined behind the scenes and the country half committed to a policy before any discussion of the issues takes place in parliament. The draft international air transport convention is a document of far-reaching implications. Yet this expression, or suggestion, of policy from Canada was presented to foreign governments for discussion without any previous expression of opinion by the people of Canada or their elected representatives. In this connection we have had a conference in Montreal, and very little is known as to what happened there.

War Appropriation-Transport
The whole question of air policy, both domestic and international, is of such outstanding importance to the future of this country that it should be the subject of a complete and thorough investigation by a complete royal commission. To mention but a few of the important matters which need first a thorough presentation of the facts and then a discussion of policy based thereon:
(a)	The future of the aircraft manufacturing industry: What should be done with the present excessive capacity for peace-time uses? Which plants are best adapted to continue production? What type of planes should they make? Should we produce aeroplane engines? What should be the relation of Canadian industry to its counterpart in the United States and England?
(b)	The planned promotion of commercial operations in Canada: What government public works investment is necessary? Where should the additional facilities be established? How quickly can this be done? What research work should be the responsibility of the government as to safety measures, improved ground equipment and communications, new or specialized types of planes?
(c)	The relations of air transport to other transport agencies: Will the best development of integrated transportation in Canada be attained by the divorce of air lines from the railroads? What changes are required in the organization and personnel of the board of transport commissioners to assure the competent regulation of all kinds of transport by this one body? Or can it be better done by a separate air body?
(d)	The appropriate fields of development in international air transport: What routes can be best operated? What specialized services can we best- offer? What kinds of specialized equipment do we need to develop? What undertakings should be done jointly with other nations? What are the necessary terms of an international agreement suited to our particular needs? What service functions can we develop and what should we charge therefor in connection with the operations of foreign air lines over Canadian airways? What bilateral arrangements should we promote with the United States to assure our air lines an equitable share of the trans-border traffic? Can we develop some integrated services with both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics instead of starting out to try to compete with both?
Until a royal commission has developed the necessary information on all such points and presented it to parliament for discussion, how can we determine an appropriate air policy for Canada? The government should give an
EMr. Rose.]
undertaking not to make any more commitments or to fly any more kites on tentative agreements until this royal commission has brought in its report and it has been discussed by parliament. Only on the basis of a thorough presentation of the facts can an air policy be developed which will effectively bring closer together not only the people of the various Canadian provinces but also the free peoples of the world.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I spoke on this matter at some length on March 20, immediately after the minister had made his statement on the subject of post-war civil aviation. Accordingly I do not intend to make a speech at this time, but I should like to direct a number of questions to the minister. I imagine he can be forgiven for not having answered the questions asked as we have gone along, in view of the fact that most of them have come in the midst of full length speeches, but I trust he will do me the honour of answering the questions I am going to put to him at this time. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the questions one or two at a time, get the minister's answers and then ask others.
In connection with the domestic policy which the minister announced on March 17, I should like to ask if the government is planning to take over the northwest staging route and operate it under T.C.A. May I ask another question which is germane to this one. The magazine Canadian Aviation recently published an article concerning this whole subject, and if my memory serves me correctly the statement was made that Trans-Canada Air Lines was endeavouring to get control of this route. It was suggested that this was unfair to Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Yukon Southern, because they had been encouraged to go ahead with their developments in that part of the country and had no prior intimation that a course such as that now proposed might be adopted at some time in the future. In view of that suggestion I should like the minister, when he deals with this subject, to indicate whether Yukon Southern received any assistance from the government in pioneering that route, in the form of mail contracts or in any other way, and also whether in the early days Yukon Southern was given any intimation to the effect that at some time in the future the whole route might come under T.C.A. That is my first question, with respect to the northwest staging route.


Mr. HOWE:: I think it has been stated in the railway committee that while Yukon Southern has an annual licence from the board

War Appropriation-Transport
of transport commissioners, it holds a contract with the Post Office Department to carry mail on the route, which contract is cancellable on one month's notice. From the time .that service was inaugurated, it has been made perfectly clear to Yukon Southern that the service was temporary, and that at some time the government would wish to operate the service by Trans-Canada Air Lines. The northwest staging route is part of an international route, and it is the policy of the government to operate international routes by Trans-Canada. Perhaps that will answer my hon. friend's questions.
Mr. ^KNOWLES:	From that answer one
might infer, then, that in due course that route will come under the control of T.C.A.?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would point out that two
factors are involved. One is the international traffic and the other is the local traffic. I would not like to be quoted as saying that the government would take over the local traffic on the route. As my hon. friend knows, a number of mail stations are served by Yukon Southern, and I should not like to say how these will be served in the future. I will say, however, that at some time Trans-Canada will operate over the northwest staging route, at least to the extent of operating an international route.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think perhaps it should be on the record at this point, at least I should like to have it there, that when we speak of Yukon Southern we are speaking of a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Further in the same vein I should like to ask if any consideration is being given to taking over the route down the Mackenzie or the route to Labrador.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no established route down the Mackenzie. There are a few air stations which serve local points, a few landing strips which serve the Canol project and also local traffic, but at the moment there is no route down the Mackenzie river, and it is not the intention of Trans-Canada to operate a service in that area. In connection with the route from Montreal to Labrador, that route is flown by many planes, and a good deal of the local traffic is handled by government planes. I am told that Canadian Pacific Air Lines do not have a service there at the moment. The only operation from here to Labrador is by government planes, chiefly military.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with what I referred to as the route down the Mackenzie I should like to point out, though I said I was not going to make a speech, that this serves 100-138
a part of Canada in which there is a great deal of mineral wealth. I believe on the C.P.A. air map of Canada a route is indicated in that region, and I hope consideration will be given to the taking over of this route, in view of its importance to the country as a whole. However, I have noted what the minister has to say in this connection. I should like also to ask if the minister could indicate to us what steps have been taken to make sure that when C.P.A. has been separated from the C.P.R. we shall not have the same interests operating the C.P.A. by whatever name it may be called, with the same financial power behind it and the same ability to threaten the position of T.C.A. or to threaten the policy of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not care to go any further than to repeat that it is the intention under this policy to divest the railways of their holding of air line ownership. I would not care to go beyond that at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister say whether this matter will come before the house this year in the form of a bill or legislation of any kind, or is that asking too much?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A bill will be introduced setting up an air transport board, but we shall have to wait until the measure is introduced to see just how far it will go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now I should like to ask the minister if he feels that the separation of T.C.A. from the C.N.R. is really necessary, if it has any economic advantage or whether it is being proposed merely as a talking point to make it more convenient to insist that the C.P.R. divest itself of C.P.A. If I may repeat my question, is there any economic or other advantage to Canada involved in separating T.C.A. from the C.N.R.?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there to be any other body, apart from the government itself, which will serve as a coordinating agency among various kinds of transportation? There will be an air transport board looking after matters connected with aviation, and a similar board

War Appropriation-Transport

connected with railway transportation. Is there to be a superior board to these, or will coordination of all kinds of transportation, including rail, bus, truck, air and water, head up in the government itself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Road transportation is within the control of the several provinces. The federal government has no jurisdiction over highway traffic. The board of transport commissioners have jurisdiction over railway traffic, and over certain types of inland steamship traffic. The air board will have jurisdiction over air traffic. I presume if there is any serious interference between rail and air traffic, the two boards can compare notes and work out their problems jointly. There will be no super-board coordinating all traffic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the minister's statement on March 17 he referred, and with a sense of annoyance, to the fact that Canadian Pacific Air Lines had been able to get aircraft for its transport services, when Trans-Canada Air Lines and others had not been able to do so. In the publication Canadian Aviation to which I have already referred, the minister is criticized on the ground that the government, of which he is a member, should have known of this and should have been in a position to check on the whole question. Will the minister elucidate further?
Mr. .HOWE: My hon. friend is quite wrong in saying that I spoke with a sense of annoyance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will accept the annoyance, then.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were very glad indeed to see Canadian Pacific Air Lines obtain aircraft from the United States. The planes were obtained for military purposes, or to be specific, to assist the United States army in building the Canol. project, and also in connection with work on the northwest staging route and on the Alaska highway. I simply pointed out that because of the fact they were serving that area, Canadian Pacific Air Lines did obtain aircraft. Trans-Canada Air Lines is a purely domestic service. True, it was performing certain military functions and carrying military personnel; but its appeal in the United States list 'of priorities was not as strong as that of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, which organization was performing services directly for the United States army. That A-as the only point I made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question or two respecting the international aspect of the subject pf post-war civil aviation. Once again may I express my appreciation of any step taken at any time to get something fMr. Knowles.]
started which will deal with the problems cf the post-war period. I have no hesitation in repeating that I am pleased that the government went so far as to throw into the pool its idea as to how an international air transport authority might be established. In fact it seems to me that a mere empire air scheme is not good enough for the kind of world we will have when the war is over. An empire scheme, if established, would in my opinion immediately call for the making of all kinds of bilateral agreements between the empire air authority and other countries or other combinations. After all, far-flung as the empire is, it would not be possible to carry on very extensive routes without cross^ig the territory of other nations, and it would be no time at all until an attempt would have to be made to reach agreements. My fear is that if we start off on that basis it will be no time at all until we have a certain amount of horse-trading as between certain countries or groups of countries. It is my opinion that right at the start we should pull all the weight we possibly can for an international plan in the field of international post-war aviation.
I have no hesitation in expressing considerable concern at the difficulty the world is having in making any progress along this line. Some time ago some of us dared to hope that an international gathering to discuss these matters was shortly to be held. A British United Press dispatch carried in this country on February 15 indicated that a post-war air conference was to be held in the United States within a few weeks after the date of that dispatch. The time the conference was to have been held came and went, but it was not convened.
This matter was dealt with in the issue of Time for March 27. In part it states:
A United States-British-Kussian-Canadian air conference was scheduled to take place in Washington in the third week of March. The third week came and went with no conference, but plenty of conjecture. The scheduled meetings were supposed to be mere preliminaries leading up to a full-dress united nations conference. But the preliminaries to the preliminaries turned out to be a caricature of the minuetlike delicacy with which diplomats approach foreign affairs.
I shall not read the article further, but it goes into details as to the number of plans for international gatherings which were mooted, and points out how all of them went on the rocks. Time then indicated that it looked now as though the best we could hope for would be a series of bilateral conferences. Since that time there have been a number of references in the house to bilateral conferences, and so far as this matter is concerned, that

War Appropriation-Transport
now seems to be the recognized technique. I dare to hope that good will come out of these bilateral conferences; but, as I see it, it will be real good only if these conferences lead up to a real international gathering.
Now that this government has thrown into the pool its proposal, as contained in the draft agreement tabled on March 17, has it taken the lead in trying to convene an international gathering to discuss a plan? Further, since bilateral conferences are being held, has this government endeavoured to hold bilateral conferences with any nations other than those reported upon thus far in the press? Canada's position as the largest of the smaller nations places great responsibility upon her. One of those responsibilities is to make other nations smaller than Canada feel that there is a place for them in international councils and authorities of one kind or another. If the government is unable to get the major powers to meet in conference to discuss plans like this, I would hope that it would approach the smaller countries in South America and in other parts of the world and enlist their support and cooperation in the kind of thing the government has set forth in this draft agreement. I can pick out plenty of flaws in this agreement, but I am not going to dwell on them any more than I have already. I consider it is important to get something like this going and that the little flaws that might turn up are of no great consequence.
Perhaps I have taken a long time to state it, but my question is this: Has the government taken the lead in arranging bilateral conferences, or has it endeavoured to get an international gathering together? I hope the answer is, "yes". If it is not, I hope the minister will be able to give us the assurance that this kind of thing will be attempted by the government as soon as possible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government of Canada has had discussions with all the British dominions, with India, with the government of the United Kingdom and with the government of the United States and has signified its desire to take part in an international conference with very wide representation. All the nations that are actively considering postwar civil aviation have the same objective in mind. At the present time bilateral conversations are going on between a number of them for the purpose of reconciling the views of the different countries, so that when the conference takes places there will be some hope of obtaining agreement.
Canada is active in that direction. It must be recognized that no group of small countries can have any great influence on the final 100-1381
outcome. I think we must question the wisdom of attempting to group the small countries together as a bloc to go into a conference of that kind. To date Canada is the only country that has placed its post-war policy before the world in detail. I think the fact that we have done so has been helpful. Canada's policy has been widely studied and commented upon, and the fact that it is a concrete policy will, I believe, tend to encourage other countries to make their policies detailed. I think we are making a contribution toward a final settlement. I do-not know of any contribution we could make at this time that would tend more in that direction than the policy we are following; now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister know whether any international conference on this matter is in prospect at the p*esent time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To my knowledge no international conference has been called, but it is hoped that such a conference will be called. No time has been set but, as I say, conversations are going on looking toward the obtaining of sufficient cooperation among the major countries to enable the conference to work out a successful conclusion. Simply to call a great number of nations into conference, without having had earlier discussions, would not be likely to produce a plan that would be wise and to which all the countries present would agree, By having a number of plans discussed in bilateral conversations, it is hoped that some plan can be evolved which when put before a conference, will receive i considerable following.


Thomas Reid: Now that Trans-Canada Air
>
Lines are to be under new management and ' are to develop to greater lengths and heights, perhaps this would be an opportune time to bring up a matter affecting the service between Montreal and Vancouver. As the minister knows, the Vancouver air terminus is located on Sea island. Like Topsy, this airport, just grew up. It was started many years ago when a few air-minded individuals obtained a piece of land and on their own initiative and at their own expense started to develop flying. Great credit is due to those people. Following that, the city of Vancouver, which was looking for an airport close to the city and had no available land within the city itself, bought a large tract of land on Sea island, which embraced the original flying site.
Later on Trans-Canada came into the picture. They had to have an air terminus at which to land and they took over the terminus belonging to the city of Vancouver. This was developed until practically the whole island
War Appropriation-Transport

was an air field. While this airport is ideal in many ways, it has one disadvantage. At certain times fog occurs and the result has been that planes have had to return as far as Lethbridge. Back in 1935 when the Trans-Canada began to realize that they were in the flying business permanently, they began to look for new sites throughout Canada, and a chain of sites was chosen by the pilots and aircraftmen of the company. A site known as Langley Prairie was chosen in the constituency of New Westminster. This is some eighteen miles from Vancouver and it was picked out as an emergency landing field. Since it was free from fog, planes which could not land at Sea island because of fog could land at Langley Prairie and the passengers could be taken into Vancouver or New Westminster by car.
Later on, with the approach of the war this and other fields were taken over by the Department of National Defence. When the war broke out some $150,000 had been spent on this field in clearing, levelling, seeding for grass, ditching and draining, and the whole field was made in readiness for aeroplanes. However, only the odd plane landed there. In 1940, schools were set up throughout Canada to train pilots and it was expected that this emergency field would be used as an overflow for some of the training schools. However, with the advent of Japan into the war the training schools on the Pacific coast were moved farther inland and operational schools were set up in their places to act as defence units in case of attack by enemy aeroplanes. The result is that the field at Langley Prairie has not been used. I suppose it has been thought that it is not large enough to be used by the large planes used by the operational schools at Boundary Bay and Sea island.
My suggestion to the minister is that something be done about this field. I would recommend that the matter be looked into, and in saying so I am not adopting what is sometimes termed "the Vancouver view" of wanting to "hog it all", because Vancouver has to have an airport and should have the airport at Sea island continued. But looking to the great development which Trans-Canada must have folio-wing the conclusion of hostilities, steps should be taken to find an airport close to the city of New Westminster or Vancouver and free from fog; and it can be found. Many projects were put before the department; but, since they were recommended by la3rmen or so-called laymen, the authorities just pooh-poohed their ideas and turned down their suggestions.
I seriously advise the minister that the entire countryside be looked over, because we must have more airports than Sea island. Van-
{Mr. Reid.]
couver and New Westminster must have a better service. Although the flight from Montreal to Vancouver does not take very long, under certain conditions aeroplanes have had to turn back as far as Lethbridge. Under these circumstances it is time we had an airport better located than Sea island, close enough to Vancouver and New Westminster so that these cities can be reached by car, and one free from fog. Already we have one available at Langley Prairie, and I ask the minister to find out what use can be made of that field. I feel sure that if he does so, his officials cannot take the point of view now that it is of no use to them, because I remember that when the project was first put forward they positively asserted that it was one of the best sites in the country, although 1 think at that time I could have found a better site in that district. Now it sits, with $150,000 expended on it, not being used at all, although to my mind, since it is fog free, it would make a splendid emergency landing place for planes heading for Vancouver and New Westminster. I put this matter seriously before the minister and ask that note be taken of the suggestion.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I view the subject of civil aviation, to be one of the most important and far-reaching topics ever to be discussed in the Canadian parliament. Upon the policy governing civil aviation, and particularly what is termed "international air policy", will depend to a great degree the future of this nation's commerce. The policy adopted with respect to international aviation will undoubtedly influence our foreign policy. As a matter of fact the aviation policy in the international field can only reflect the foreign policy of a coun-. try, and vice-versa. The decision which Canada will have to make is so important and far-reaching that it may have a bearing on the whole course of our history. It will certainly be the turning point in our history, profoundly affecting the whole economic structure of Canada. Many are convinced that civil aviation is destined to become one of the most potent factors in civilization.
To discuss this subjects adequately one must discuss the foreign policy of Canada, particularly our future foreign policy. To my mind the two are indivisible. I should like only to remind the committee that air transportation will to a great degree displace land and water transportation sytems. This is what a reputable United States magazine, Fortune, has to say in its March, 1941, issue:
Perhaps the most significant geopolitical fact of our time is the overwhelming possibility of the air as a new road to world power and trade.

1 Var Appropriation-Transport
Two decades ago, Admiral Sims stated categorically that "command of the air" gave "command of the surface, whether it be sea or land."
That article states further:
What does this mean to us? It means that just as men and nations from the beginning of time have fought for control of the sea and land routes as highways of commerce and communications, so must they inevitably fight for control of the air and for the ocean and continental bases, which, like the naval bases and bunker stations in the grand strategy of sea power, will enable them to fasten their grip on the coming routes of the air. It means that just as sea power dominated the conceptions of major nations fronting on the sea, so must the air increasingly dominate the conception of all nations having the technical skill, the industry, the capital and the imagination to embark upon it. And just as the shifting patterns of sea power held the key to the rise and fall of ancient empires, through the expansionist mercantilism of the 17th and 18th centuries and into the great period of the British sea power, so the unresolved patterns of air power must inevitably hold the key to the rise and fall of existing empires and others not yet born.
To quote further from the same article:
. . . what the rise of air power means to the future of ... as a world power, not only in moral and strategic terms, but in terms of trade-in terms, finally, of the great merchant fleets of the air, the carriers of goods and people, which will come as certainly as the ultimate peace, and which like the merchant marine and the seafaring class . . . concept would constitute a "shield of defensive power" behind the protection of which we could, if attacked, develop a "reserve of strength."
So much, Mr. Chairman, for the importance of air transport system at this time.
May I now state that I am unequivocally opposed to the proposed air policy announced by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) on March 17 on behalf of the government. Unlike other hon. members who spoke on behalf of other groups in this house, I disagree with the civil aviation policy which this government has embarked upon.
First, in the domestic field, the proposed domestic policy as announced by the minister is purely and simply a state monopoly scheme. I do not believe in either private or state monopoly. Next, by adopting this policy the government is entering into the business field itself instead of directing the policy. Further, by adopting this policy the government will adopt the policy advocated by the socialists. It appears as though the government intends to head off the socialists by putting socialistic measures into practice.
In the international field I am opposed to the government's proposal for the following reasons:
1. The government's international air policy as announced oy the minister is anti-British, anti-British commonwealth of nations, and
anti-Canadian. It is pro-international world authority, which will operate under a financial dictatorship.
2.	It is the negation of the principle of the British commonwealth and of Canadian sovereignty.
3.	It is a move toward a world dictatorship under the authority of a world police force of international finance advocated by Clarence Streit. Incidentally, the government should tell us whether they received congratulations from Mr. Streit for putting his proposals into effect. If the proposal advanced by the minister is accepted and supported by this house it will constitute a segment of the international dictatorship scheme.
4.	If Canada adopts the proposed international air policy it will have adopted a foreign policy which is international in principle and ideology.
5.	The proposal discards and throws overboard certain heritage fought for by the British and handed to us with no cost to us whatsoever.
6.	For the first time in our history I believe, the government has departed from a major common policy, from a policy which could have been very well worked out to serve the entire British commonwealth of nations.
Speaking in the house on March 17, the Minister of Munitions and Supply made several significant assertions and thereby revealed the strong leaning of the government toward internationalism and federal union proposals and away from the principles upon which rests the British commonwealth of nations. In Hansard of March 17, at page 1575, the minister is reported to have said:
The young men so engaged-
He meant in aviation.

will be internationally minded.
On the same page he states:
There appears now to be a general agreement that this whole field must be brought under the control of a new and expanded international authority.
Another significant statement made by the minister on. page 1577 was:
What is true of relations between the various parts of Canada is true also of relations between the nations of the world.
Then Ihe minister made another statement which is most interesting:
The briefest fashion in which I can describe the situation which will exist at the end of the war is that the position and sovereignty of the Canadian government have been protected completely in all arrangements that have been made.
War Appropriation-Transport

But a little later the minister forgot what he had said about the protection of Canadian sovereignty and made this statement:
As I have already mentioned, on April 2 last year the Prime Minister gave a statement *of the government's position with regard to international air transport, making it clear that our policy would be one of international cooperation and collaboration and that we would support whatever policy seemed best calculated to serve not only the immediate national interests of Canada, but our overriding interest in the establishment of an international order -which will prevent the outbreak of another war.
In explaining this view, the minister leaves -no doubt as to the viewpoint which the gov

ernment holds. It is plain that the government supports a world authority and has committed Canada to this international policy *rather than to a common policy for the entire British commonwealth of nations.
It must be remembered that Canada is one [DOT]of the senior partners of the commonwealth, and by taking this stand she influences other members of the commonwealth to take a similar stand. This can only result in diminishing the status of the British commonwealth of nations from a European world power number [DOT]one to that of a secondary power. To my mind, a policy of this sort is the height of folly; it certainly is not in the interests of Canada.
Then at page 1580, March 17, the minister repeats the same viewpoint when he says:
Our representatives in the international discussions, therefore, will be authorized to support or initiate such proposals as, in the government's opinion, will be likely to result in the establishment of an international air transport authority. . . .
Finally, the minister endeavours to impress upon the house that when, under his chairmanship, the Canadian delegation participated in the discussions held in London in October last there was a "broad general agreement". This is what the minister said, at page 1579:
No final decisions were taken in London, but I may say that it was evident from the outset that all participants had the same general objectives in view-the objectives which I have described earlier in this statement-and that there was a broad basis of general agreement as to the rvay these objectives might best be attained.
The minister told us that there was a general agreement on broad principles. Well, let us see. In an article entitled "Britain in the Post-War Air" appearing in Fortune magazine, March, 1944 issue, the following report is given:
He said-
Meaning Lord Beaverbrook.
-the British government wanted to see if the dominions were prepared to work with it 4Mr. Hlynka.l
and with one another as a unit, and, if so, how far they wrere prepared to commit themselves to a basic policy. If we could establish a common denominator, then he w'ould go to the Americans, and from them to the Russians. Afterwards we could deal with the rest of the world.
That I suggest was the proper stand to take. But the article continues:
But Canada and Australia came to London to argue that the air must be developed for the common good under an international body that would also keep the peace. Their representatives held fast to this thesis long after the Beaver had impatiently dropped it as impracticable.
The article said that "the British were prepared to be just as international in their air policy as the rest", and that "it did not take long for the dominion representatives to become convinced that a common policy was going to be hard to find". Yet the minister tells us that there was a general agreement. That is not all. The article states further:
Canada, the senior dominion, presents a special problem, in many respects the most serious of all.
One of the most important statements, however, is the following:
Now some Britons descry an anomaly in Canada's attitude toward her commonwealth partners. The Liberal government of Mr. Mackenzie King favour relinquishing control of international civil aviation to an international agency intimately associated with a world security body. Why then does it hold back from allying its air policy with that of an empire which even the South Africans, their traditional separatist instincts notwithstanding, have decided is still by a long way the most widespread and influential unit in world affairs.
And yet the minister told us that there Was a widespread agreement.
Finally, the article has this to say about the agreement:
Nevertheless it is clear that his (Lord Beaverbrook's) scheme to forge a common empire policy has come-at least temporarily- to a dead end. In the phrase of the British foreign office official: "The conference agreed there would be no agreed policy."
How could there be when the senior member of the commonwealth is bucking in favour of international world authority? But the minister and the government are not alone in this. They have company in our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said on March 20, as reported at page 1650 of Hansard:
On behalf of the group with which I am associated I wish to say without any hesitation that w-e welcome the statement made on Friday by the Minister of Munitions and Supply.

War Appropriation-Transport
The leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, said on the same day, as reported at page 1656 of Hansard:
I think in the field of civil aviation we must have international understanding, international operation and international control. I should like to see the world go beyond where I think it can go to-day. I should like to see an international system owned internationally.
Further down he says:
I welcome this step forward.
So that there may still be a union of the Liberal and the C.C.F. parties. To be sure, it appears that the Liberal party is crowding the C.C.F. with respect to socialistic principles.


Gordon Graydon: Is the hon. member 6ure there is not a union now?


Anthony Hlynka: That is what Clarence Streit calls it. They are apparently travelling in the same direction and much along the same path at least in this international arena.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quoted Lord Bennett in support of the government's proposal. May I quote Lord Bennett's more recent view which he expressed in the British House of Lords on this subject, when he said:
Unless this country recognized the importance of air, largely as a substitute for sea, with respect to our prestige and importance and place in the world, we shall cease to be a first-class power. That is a terrible statement to make, but I believe, and I believe it strongly.
Again, as late as March 29, the Canadian Press cable carried a dispatch from London, and Lord Bennett is quoted as having said:
If we are going to maintain our lives, we must see to it that our foreign policy is the policy of all the dominions as well as this country.
Then Sir Archibald Sinclair, Secretary of State for Air, during an all-day debate on civil aviation in the British House of Commons last June, made this statement, and the government should take note of it:
After the war we shall be one of two things: Either we shall be a small island of forty-five million people in a world dominated by the great United States of America, with 130 millions, and a great Soviet Union, with a . . . population . . . which may reach up to 200 million-either we shall be in that position or we shall be the centre of a great empire which will be bound together by our air routes, with all the business of the empire greatly simplified by the fact that ministers and high officials will be able to move rapidly and easily from one part of that empire to another.
My view is that at this point of history we should refuse to support any policy which may reduce the power of the British commonwealth of nations to that of a secondary position. Canada, in my opinion, should assist in the
shaping of the commonwealth policies and should not engage herself in any wild goose chasing on her own. I believe that Canada's international foreign policy should commence with a common denominator suitable to every member of the commonwealth; then a complete agreement should be sought with the United States, and finally with the rest of the world. It has been said that control of the world's air routes will be the richest economic prize of the war. Let us then make sure not to commit a blunder of giving away our rights to some strange international power, which owes no allegiance to any flag and which is not committed to any set of Christian principles.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I think the position of this group has already been made sufficiently clear, and if, as the last speaker intimated, the government is attempting to head us off, then I say that is reason for congratulating the government.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: It will not help the country though.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I may say personally that we are pleased to find that the government has taken steps to secure for the Canadian people in the domestic field the vast investment which the Canadian public has made in the aircraft industry in this country during the war. That industry at the beginning of the war was a mere midget, struggling for existence. To-day it is a flourishing giant. It has been built throughout the war years on the strength of government contracts and public money. Canada to-day has well-equipped airfields, is well equipped with air navigation facilities and is well equipped with trained personnel. Technological improvements have been made in that field and paid for over the years out of the war. These improvements should make it possible, when the war ends, to reduce considerably the cost of passenger travel by air, the cost of carrying freight by air, and the cost of carrying our mail. That cost was the greatest single handicap to air transportation up to 1939. The investment of large sums of public money will make it possible for air lines to use these facilities after the war without the payment of heavy carrying charges, which should go a long way in the reduction of the costs of travel to which I have referred. The use during the war of multi-engined transport planes also should go a long way in helping to solve the problems of freight transportation, and unquestionably air facilities will be used much more in that field.
These possibilities raise many questions with regard to the future of the entire aircraft industry in this country. While the govern-
219S
War Appropriation-Transport

ment has set forth its policy in regard to the future of our air lines, I am not so sure that any policy has been set forth as to the future of the aircraft industry, and this afternoon I want to ask the minister a few questions on that subject. I shall state all my questions while I am on my feet, and I hope the minister may be able to make a statement with regard to the policy of the government in this matter. First, what is to be our position after the war with regard to the acquisition of aeroplane engines? That matter has been discussed time and again during the last few years. I think the minister made it quite clear that it was not the policy of his department to embark, during war years, upon the manufacture of aeroplane engines in this country. He suggested, and I think perhaps rightly, that our war effort could be better facilitated by importing engines from countries that had much more experience in that field. The question arises, of course: are we to remain indefinitely in the position of being dependent upon other countries for the engines we will use in our commercial aviation? That is the first question I submit for the minister's consideration. The second question is: what will 6e our position in post-war days with regard to the production of transport planes? My information is that one-third of all the planes of the United States army and navy are transport planes, and that in the United States they have huge factories engaged in the production of these planes. On Tuesday evening the Minister of National Defence for Air indicated that Canada will be or is dependent upon the United States for transport planes to be used in training on our own fields, and that the government had received information that a number of these transport planes would be delivered by United States factories later this year. Are steps being taken to ensure that we can produce in Canada the type of plane that will be needed for heavy transport in the post-war years?
My third question is: what is to be our position in regard to the ownership of the aircraft industry, which at present is partly government-owned and partly privately-owned? The Progressive Conservative party, I assume, have announced their stand on this question; I should like to give my understanding of their position, and if I am wrong I am sure the leader of the opposition will correct me. Both the Premier of Ontario and the leader of the opposition, speaking in the Toronto district, voiced considerable protest over the placing of contracts for transport planes with the Vickers plant in Montreal instead of with the government-owned plant at Malton. I presume their protest was based upon the fact that a privately-owned company 
was getting that contract rather than a publicly-owned company, and that as a result the privately-owned plant would have a lead over the government-owned plant in post-war years. I am quite sure both these gentlemen are much too big and much too concerned with the national welfare to take a geographical or provincial point of view on that question. I am quite sure the basis of their criticism was not the fact that this business was being given to a city in a sister province rather than to a city in Ontario. As yet the government has not announced its policy; whether in the post-war years it will lend its support to the publicly-owned aircraft plants or to the privately-owned plants, or whether the one or the other or both are to be assisted in developing Canada's post-war civil aviation.
Another question is with regard to the government's policy concerning assistance in the post-war years to the aircraft industry, whether publicly or privately owned. As I have indicated, this industry has been built up over the years by the expenditure of public money; and I think it is generally agreed that if the aircraft industy in Canada is to compete with that of other, larger countries, regardless of whether it is publicly or privately owned, it will, in large measure, have to depend upon government support and assistance in order to meet that competition. It will need assistance, perhaps by way of subsidies or government contracts that will be assured for a given number of years, so that in the realm of manufacturing costs it may be able to compete with Great Britain and the United States.
Another question is: what type of plane is to be developed as most useful for the postwar period; upon what designs are we to concentrate? Has the government given any consideration to this question; has it reached any decision, or is that matter being investigated at the present time?
There is the further question of our position with regard to designing staffs capable of competing with similar staffs in other countries. I think it is generally agreed that if Canada is to maintain a successful aircraft industry in the post-war years, such designing staffs as we have at present should be retained in Canada, and in that industry. Unquestionably some government consideration and government support will be required to be given in that field.
Then there is the question of how such work as will be available in the aircraft industry after the war shall be distributed among the firms, both publicly and privately owned, which are now in that business. Decisions will have to be made as to which of those plants, or how many of them are to remain in the business in the post-war years.

War Appropriation-Transport
There is a vast number of people in Canada interested in the future of the aircraft industry, and consequently I believe the committee is entitled to a more complete statement than has been given to date regarding the future of the industry. My information is that at the present time there is a committee of men, headed by Mr. Bell of the minister's department, which has made a study of the subject, and has made definite recommendations to the government. I say the committee should be told what those recommendations are, what attitude the government is taking, and what decision it has reached in respect of recommendations made to it. I am sure a statement of that kind would be in the public interest, because to-day that industry has become a most important one in the industrial life of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I have gone fully into the subject of aeroplane engines in earlier statements.
With respect to the future of the aircraft industry, I believe I have made it clear that at all times the government will give that industry all the backing it is possible to give. But to ask me to make plans for more than eighteen months ahead, or more, shows lack of appreciation of the uncertainties of war programmes. Production of war planes, including bombers and fighters, will continue. I can say that so long as there is any need for aircraft of that type, our industry will produce all it can. Plants producing trainer aircraft have passed the peak of their production for the present, just as the air-training plan is curtailed, the production of trainer aircraft will be curtailed. The war planes we are making are the best of their type, and we expect continued production at a high rate.
So far as post-war plans are concerned, we would like to .know approximately the date when the post-war period will commence before we announce our plans too definitely. Plans which might suit the ending of the war in 1944 might not at all suit the ending of the war in 1946. Steps are being taken to see that Canada enters the field of civilian aircraft production on the best possible terms, and I believe we shall be able to supply any demand made on Canada for that type of aircraft. So far as costs are concerned, may I say that our costs are just as favourable as those of Great Britain or the United States. I see no reason why the Canadian industry should not be in an excellent competitive position with the industry in other countries.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Following what the minister has said with regard to the manufacturing of aircraft in Canada, may I ask if the government has considered 100-139
the establishment of a school of aeronautical science in Canada, as has been done in England? I understand that in Great Britain they are proposing to, or have already established a school of aeronautical science. Does Canada intend to do the same, so that we shall have our own plans and specifications for aircraft? I am, of course, referring to new models.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the statement that there has been established a school of aeronautical engineering is hardly correct. There are courses in aeronautical engineering given by our universities. As a matter of fact I recall that the university of Toronto took the lead in that matter, before the war and I know that similar courses are given in certain United States universities. Further, courses in aeronautical engineering are given in certain universities of the United Kingdom. I know of no college of aeronautical engineering.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am referring to aeronautical science. I find something in the British Hansard for December 1, 1943, which I might draw to the minister's attention. On that date Mr. Bowles asked the British Minister of Aircraft Production whether the aeronautical research commiitee had yet made any report regarding the possibility of founding a school of aeronautical science. The Minister of Aircraft Production, Sir Stafford Cripps, replied:
Yes, the committee has made a report, the main recommendations of which have been approved in principle by the government. With the agreement of my colleagues, I have appointed an interdepartmental committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Fedden, to prepare and submit detailed proposals for the establishment of a school of aeronautical science within the general framework of these recommendations.
Mr. Bowles:	While thanking my right hon.
and learned friend for his reply, may I ask whether he could give the house the terms of reference of the committee?
Sir S. Cripps: The terms of reference were:
"To prepare and submit to the Minister of Aircraft Production detailed proposals for the establishment of a school of aeronautical science within the general framework of the recommendations of the aeronautical research committee in their report of tenth August to the minister."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Without knowing anything about it, I should imagine that the school established would be inside a university, or that the reference is just another way of saying that courses in that science will be added to the curriculum of a university.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But it would have to be subsidized by the government, so that the university would have

War Appropriation-Transport

plenty of money to find ways and means of perfecting new machines. That is what the British government have done-and they certainly have the best designs in the world.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not believe it follows automatically that a. new course in a university must be subsidized. As a matter of fact the federal government has given some help to the university of Toronto in establishing courses in aeronautical engineering, and I presume it is prepared to give reasonable help to other universities. The science of aeronautical engineering is no different from the science of mechanical or civil engineering. It is just something to be added to the curriculum. I presume it should not be placed in too much of a preferred position.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister think we should have the very best planes in the world?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What relation has the hon. member's suggestion to that?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If we have men here in Canada who can design planes, and if we make money available for purposes of experimentation we shall have the planes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Students do not design planes until they have graduated.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The young boys who are coming along to-day are designing planes, on their own, and they want to put those ideas into effect later on.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Mr. Chairman, I am not at all sure that what I have in mind might properly be discussed now. However, it will be recalled that, after the last war, not only members of the armed forces but the civilian population in general were anxious to get away from anything and everything that savoured of war. In sharp contrast with that prevailing thought there were small groups in many centres of Canada who envisioned what air transport could mean to the development of this country. These small groups of individuals formed themselves into flying clubs. These flying clubs through the activities and energy and self-sacrifice of certain individuals have contributed a great deal in the way of money and otherwise to creating an air consciousness. They were primarily responsible for maintaining a semblance of air service in many parts of Canada and they provided facilities for the training of young men. These flying clubs promoted model aircraft leagues, made up of the youth of the country who were thus able to acquire skilled knowledge in con-
nection with amateur air construction and aeronautics. When Canada began to lay the foundations of an air force she drew heavily upon the personnel of these flying clubs.
These clubs grew to such proportions that they ultimately banded together into the dominion fljdng clubs association. I have been present on occasion when the minister and his worthy deputy, Commander Edwards, and other members of the Department of Transport have expressed their tribute in glowing terms of the work done by these flying clubs. When war broke out and the department established elementary flying schools, in many cases they turned to the flying clubs and asked them to manage the schools. This was done with conspicuous success as is evidenced by the repeated statements of the Minister of National Defence for Air and many members of his department.
Matters have progressed to the point where elementary training schools and air schools in various parts of Canada are being abandoned. In the building up of these schools there has been developed a group of individuals who are experienced in administration, while another group has obtained considerable skill and experience in the mechanics and repair of aeroplanes. A number of trained airmen have been employed in the last three or four years as instructors and as managers of elementary flying schools.
I do not wish to be narrow or provincial in my remarks, but I can best illustrate what I have in mind by referring to the Regina flying club which has managed No. 15 elementary flying school during the past four years. This is one of the schools that are to be abandoned. It has a civilian personnel of some 258 persons, who, as I have mentioned, have gained considerable experience and skill. I should like to know if in the development of civilian air operations there will be a place for the men who have gained this experience. Is there to be a place in future civilian operations for the flying clubs in recognition of what they have done for aviation during the last twenty or more years?
I wish to know if in the development of civilian aviation there is any immediate prospect of the development of routes in western Canada, either north or south of the main line of Trans-Canada Air Lines, which would provide opportunities for the individuals to whom I have just referred? We hear frequent rumours of the desire and inclination of certain United States lines to enter western Canada, in particular Northwest Air Lines which operates from Chicago and Minneapolis, through Regina to Edmonton and on into Alaska. Can the minister tell us of any

War Appropriation-Transport
possible developments which would provide opportunities for the men to whom I have just referred? I know the minister will be glad, as he has been on previous occasions, to pay tribute to the excellent public service which members of the flying clubs throughout Canada have rendered to the development of civil aviation and the proud position which Canada occupies in the air picture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am very glad to endorse everything the hon. member for Regina has said about the flying clubs. These clubs rendered a great contribution to the development of aviation in Canada prior to the war, and have also performed great service in the advancement of the war effort by sponsoring elementary training at various airports across Canada. The Department of Transport has been a strong supporter of these flying clubs since their inception and an annual grant is still made to the flying clubs association. While the work for which the flying clubs were organized has been suspended, the usefulness of the clubs has not ended. In some cases the flying clubs which undertook responsibility for elementary training have finished their work, and it will be necessary for them to suspend training activities for the time being. Because of the necessity of saving gasoline, and for other reasons, it has been determined as a matter of policy that training activities, for the time being, shall be confined to the Royal Canadian Air Force, but the day will come when we shall be glad to have the flying clubs resume training in which they were engaged before the war.
My hon. friend has dealt with the activities of the men who supported the flying clubs. I suggest to him that the policy of the government in connection with the operation of feeder lines, may offer a field of activity for some of the men who supported the flying clubs prior to the war. It is our desire to have a number of small operations in civil aviation to supplement the Trans-Canada operation. It is our desire that the men coming back from overseas should be able to enter into civilian flying as owners rather than as employees; I suggest to the directors of our flying clubs that they could find a very useful field of activity in surveying routes that could be made self-supporting and in banding themselves together to sponsor that kind of civilian operation. I throw that out for what it is worth. My hon. friend asked the question, and I am giving him an offhand suggestion.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
100-139J
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock..


Mr. NEILL:: I suppose I ought to begin by expressing my gratitude for the courtesy of allowing me to speak at all at this time. It is a somewhat belated courtesy, but better late than never. I would have spoken three hours ago had the hon. member who was then in the Chair adhered to his written and verbal promise. It [DOT] is a small matter, but adherence to good faith in these small matters of priority in speakers does help to prevent friction in carrying on the business of the house. I suppose I might be expected to go a little farther, although the words rather stick in my throat, and express my gratitude, slavishly and crawlingly, for being allowed to speak this week at all, because had I been headed off until next Tuesday, when the amended rules of the house come up for consideration and the government, with its majority, can no doubt force them through, then the opportunities of a private member expressing his own views or the views of the people who sent him here will be very greatly reduced.
However, to proceed to the item under discussion, I should like to ask the minister three questions and they are all to the point. Is it the policy of the government to aid the formation of municipal air bases in the vicinity of towns? If so, to what extent? If, for instance, the site were provided free by the municipality, what contribution would the government be prepared to make?
Most of these claims put forward by private members centre around some particular case in their respective ridings, and it is no different in my own case. The situation I have in mind is this. The city of Port Alberni has requested me to bring forward its claim for assistance toward an aerodrome in the vicinity. The Alberni valley contains a population of something like 10,000 or 11,000 people, and Port Alberni is the largest centre in it. We are cut off from any of the air facilities, and it takes us a day to go to Vancouver where we can get such. Primarily we are looking forward to the use of this aerodrome in connection with the development of the town and there are ample evidences that such service will be increasingly required. The town is growing, not only from war development but by reason of certain industries recently located there, and while the most outstanding feature in our mind is the usefulness of this provision as developments occur
War Appropriation-Transport

after the war, yet I have in my hand evidence that it would be useful to a certain extent [DOT]during the period of the war itself.
I will not give any names, because it might possibly be of interest to the enemy, but planes come from Vancouver and the east [DOT]coast over the Beaufort range to the west coast to certain air bases that lie a considerable distance beyond Port Alberni, and when they come over that range of mountains they are apt to run into a foggy condition preventing them from going on. They circle around a bit; their only alternative is to go back to Vancouver, and they might possibly not have enough gas to go there, whereas if they had a landing stage in the vicinity of Port Alberni they could land there and wait a few hours, when the fog would lift and they could go on, or at any rate they could make a safe landing without any danger of crashing from fog or lack of gas.
An air base has been located in the vicinity, and I think I can say it would cost the government nothing because the site would be presented to them. It is a suitable site which would not be too costly to develop. Last fall the city tried, and I did my best on their behalf, to get the department over which the minister presides to put a landing base there as a war necessity, but we were turned down from the point of view of spending money out of the war vote; yet the opinion was expressed by the deputy minister that a landing strip in this area would be of much value.
It was stated that the war need is not sufficient to justify the expenditure that would be involved in carrying out the development at this time, and further that the matter is viewed now only from the point of view of military necessity. It is admitted, however, that it would be of some value even to those who are directing military affairs under present conditions, and I imagine what leads them to this conclusion is the condition I have outlined, where a military plane might come over the mountain and find itself unable either to go forward or to turn back.
I want to emphasize what I might call the present-day value of such an undertaking, even though they might not go to the extent of spending all the money that might be required at this time. The suggestion, therefore, is this. Will the department, either for its usefulness, or partly for its usefulness under wartime conditions, and partly for its usefulness in the future as a development base for the city of Port Alberni-and remember that fogs will always be there in the future and there will be the same necessity of having a safe landing place-give any consideration towards construction, and, if so, to what extent?
'
The other question I wish to ask is this. The Aeronautical Institute of Canada is holding its annual convention in Toronto on May 2 and 3. I have before me the programme of its meetings. They propose to deal with thirty-four different subjects and it will take them all their time to dispose of those in two days. These subjects are all connected with aviation and they relate to the benefits of airports, increased tourist traffic, post-war market expansion and so on. Is it the intention of the department to be represented at the meeting? This does not appear to be a moneymaking scheme. Apparently they are anxious only to develop the aeroplane industry for the benefit of Canada. They do not seem to be interested in any particular aeroplane company or in any particular place. Would the minister tell us what assistance his department is prepared to grant, if any, to municipal air bases, provided the municipality furnishes the site? Second, will his department have representatives at the meeting on May 2 and 3?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Prior to the war it was the policy of the Department of Transport to assist municipalities in building airports. A sum of money was voted by this house for the purpose, and that money was allocated to various municipalities, to help local activities in building airports. When the war broke out, that work was entirely suspended, and since the war began it has not been the policy of the Department of Transport to assist municipalities in building airports. The only airports that have been built are airports that have been selected by the aerodrome committee of the Royal Canadian Air Force. The Department of Transport has one or two representatives attending that committee. Since 1940 the military needs have been the sole consideration. My hon. friend spoke of part military and part local need. That has not been recognized. It must be a wholly military need to warrant the building of aerodromes at this time.
I think we can safely assume that after the war is over, the policy of assisting the municipalities will be resumed. In the meantime if my hon. friend thinks the need at Alberni is urgent, a survey could be made by the department and placed on file for action when the policy I spoke of is once again reestablished.


Alan Webster Neill: What was the nature of the
assistance given before the war, and to what extent was it given?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As the first requirement the
city had to furnish the site; beyond that other considerations entered in. I do not

War Appropriation-Transport
know that I can say that there was a definite uniform policy, but the assistance given by the department was substantial.
The second question had to do with the Aeronautical Institute of Canada. This is an informal organization, I think, designed to promote interest in aviation in Canada. If I may comment on the point of view of the department, there is quite enough interest in post-war aviation at the present time. We would very much prefer that the Aeronautical Institute be not quite so active until the war is over, when the department can devote expenditure to the development of civil airports. Therefore the Department of Transport is not 'taking active interest in the affairs of the institute at this time. I daresay the institute will be a very useful instrument after the war.


Mr. HANSELL:: We are now discussing
an appropriation of the Department of Munitions and Supply which, according to the little schedule before me, constitutes an fexpenditure of about $6,500,000. I am a little at a loss^ to understand just where the civil aviation announcement that the minister made a week or two ago fits into the general appropriation of war expenditures. However, I am not going to make a particular issue of that. Perhaps it does not make very much difference whether it comes out of the war appropriation or out of some other fund. I wish, however, to make one or two observations with regard to the announcement that the minister made the other day, in which he gave us some light on the negotiations that have been carried on in respect of world airways in the post-war period.
I believe that the importance of his announcement has not been recognized in Canada as seriously as it should- have been. The significance of the announcement cannot be entirely grasped without a bit of diagnosis of the tendency of movements and events in this present day in this present world. The wheels of time grind slowly but, as the sage has said, they grind exceedingly well. What one generation may accomplish or fail to accomplish or destroy is left for a succeeding generation either to enjoy or to suffer. One generation after another passes on, each playing its part in the process of events leading either to the world's happiness and sweet content or to the ultimate destruction of civilization.
Governments that have been given power by the people have authority, but with that authority there comes a grave and great responsibility. In making these observations and criticisms I wish to lay down a premise which I believe to be a fact, namely, that the world is gradually moving on toward a world dictator; that the stage is gradually being set.
Over the process of time the props are gradually being placed upon the stage, and perhaps the time is not so far distant when the stage will welcome the entrance of a world dictator. I state now unequivocally that any move on the part of any government of any nation that plays into the hands of international authority or control is aiding and abetting a programme which sets the stage for that coming world dictator.
Let me make it clear that I have no objection to cooperation with other nations, or, as the hon. member for Lethbridge says, we have no objections to coordination with other nations. We have no objections to international cooperation and coordination. But to propose anything in the nature of international authority and international control is another matter altogether, and I, for one, am personally opposed, absolutely and positively, to any authority and control being passed over from the Canadian people to any outside body.
May I make a little analysis of the minister's speech of March 17? I find that on page 1577 of Hansard the minister is reported to have stated:
The briefest fashion in which I can describe the situation which will exist at the end of the war is that the position and sovereignty of the Canadian government have been protected completely in all arrangements that have been made'.
I do not know whether the minister made a little slip there or not; but I do wish to ask him when he thinks the Canadian government ever became sovereign. If he had talked about the sovereignty of the Canadian people that would have been another thing, but I maintain that particularly to-day there is a vast difference between the sovereignty of the Canadian people and the sovereignty of the Canadian government. I maintain that very little is done in this house by the present government that is in any way at all a reflection of the sovereign will of the Canadian people. I stated the other day that I doubted very much whether issues of this kind were ever brought before the entire Liberal party.
I do not want to take time further to emphasize statements I have made previously in this chamber, but I know what happens in regard to the provincial government of Alberta. The government there has a majority of the seats in the legislature; because of their particular electoral system they have a majority vote of the people reflected in that legislature, and when that government desires to introduce any piece of legislation that legislation is brought before a caucus of the entire party in order that the caucus may
War Appropriation-Transport

represent to the government what they believe to be the will of the citizens of that province, [f the caucus says, "No, this does not meet the wishes of our people," the government makes no further move. That is the procedure followed in a province, which is much smaller than this whole country; but when it comes to the larger and perhaps tremendously more important matters, what do we find the government of Canada doing? We find a handful of men attempting to impose their will upon the people of Canada without attempting in any way whatever to ascertain the will of the people. Therefore, I say that the government of Canada is not sovereign except as far as it reflects the sovereign will of the people, and who is to say whether or not this agreement as to international airways is what the people want? I am going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the people realized all the implications involved in this international agreement certainly they would turn it down. Of course I am only a small fish in a big puddle; our group may cry with a still small voice, but I would say to my Conservative friends that in connection with ,a measure of this kind they are missing the [DOT]opportunity of a lifetime to place before the people of Canada the tremendous implications involved. I take it that a measure like this is the thin edge of the wedge to sell out to an international authority the sovereign rights of the British people.
Now let me go a little further; I shall return to that point later. I was analyzing the minister's speech, and at page 1577 of Hansard I .find these words:
We believe that in the field of international *air transport our interest lies in a liberal course of cooperation with other nations.
I have no objection to that if it means cooperation; but the thread of the minister's speech seems to go beyond international cooperation and to deal with international authority and control. On the same page I notice these words:
What is true of relations between the various parts of Canada is true also of relations between the nations of the world.
I wonder whom the minister thinks he is Tooling in making that statement. Does he mean to say that the relationship between certain parts of our own country-if you want to take the extreme, say the relationship between the province of Quebec and western Canada- is the same as the relationship between the Canadian people, as part of the British commonwealth, and the Japanese or the Germans or the Italians or the people of any of the South American countries? Certainly it is not. You cannot talk of the relationship between
IMr. Hansell.]
the people within a nation being the same as the relationship between nations; not at all, unless you are going to break down all international boundaries. If you do that, then I say you are doing the very thing with which I prefaced my remarks; that is, you are paving the way for a great world order under a great world dictatorship. Again on page 1577 of Hansard I find these words:
As I have already mentioned, on April 2 last year the Prime Minister gave a statement of the government's position with regard to international air transport, making it clear that our policy would be one of international cooperation and collaboration-
That is all right.
-and that we would support whatever policy seemed- best calculated to serve not only the immediate national interests of Canada, but our overriding interest in the establishment of an international order which will prevent the outbreak of another world war.
First, I should like to know who are the calculators. Are they the seventeen or eighteen men who constitute the government of Canada? Further, I want to ask what authority the minister has for being so bold as to say that such cooperation and collaboration in an international world order will prevent the outbreak of another world war. I say to this committee that it is a false philosophy to teach that a world order will prevent war. I venture the suggestion that under a world order, if war ever does break out it will be a world civil war. I do not say there should not be international cooperation; but the very moment we tie up our sovereign rights, or hand them over to any international authority with, shall I say, interlocking treaties bound up with that international authority, then when war breaks out between two smaller nations the world itself becomes plunged into blood.
I want to go a little farther with this analysis. The minister says at page 1578 of Hansard:
The decision which the united nations must make in the near future in the post-war organization of air transport thus is vital, and an enlightened settlement will go a long way toward establishing a lasting peace, and a new world order of security.
Once again he is presupposing something that is false, that a world order will bring security. A world order may and I believe will bring about world war.
He said again, on the same page:
From the point of view of practical politics the problem is to find some method of international control.
Once again he harps upon control. There cannot be any international control unless

War Appropriation-Transport
somebody gives some body international control, and if we give up our control to some international body then we are handing over to an outside power what is the sovereign right of our own people. That is my contention.
Again, at page 1579, he said:
Not only should some international air transport authority supervise the administration of the freedoms and rights suggested above, but the authority should also have power-
Note those words-authority, control, power. -to regulate international air services in order to prevent the dangers of unnecessary and uneconomic duplication.
Again, at page 1580, speaking of Lord Beaverbrook as chairman of the London conference of some time ago, he says:
Lord Beaverbrook added that it had been agreed that "the international air transport authority should be intimately associated with and responsible to any united nations security organization which might be established."
So that you see the plan ties us up with any united nations or international security organization. What we are doing here is simply tieing ur whole airway scheme up to an international authority which will have as its bodyguard some force in order to protect its interests in the international field. I say once again that it is a false philosophy to think that an international organization or authority can prevent world war.
Nor do I agree with the policy that is sometimes stated by leading diplomats that in the post-war order, peace must be secured by force. I believe that force is the absolute antithesis of the freedom of man. We all heard Mr. Anthony Eden, standing where you are sitting now, Mr. Chairman, addressing the members of the House of Commons and the Senate, when he distinctly declared that in the post-war world some international authority would have to use force in order to maintain peace. I say to you, Mr Chairman, that it is absolutely contrary to the freedom of mankind to use force. What we want is a world order where there is no need of force, and that can be obtained by a proper approach.
I have finished with my analysis of the minister's speech and I wish to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in which he welcomes the government's move but, of course, is sorry it does not go farther. I do not need to comment on that, for I am sure I could not speak any more forcefully than the hon. member for Vegreville did this afternoon when he tried to show, and did show, the committee that the present government of Canada is indeed going socialist. I could not point that out better than the hon. member for Vegreville did, and
when he was trying to point out to the committee the danger of any policy that would' tend toward the disintegration of the British empire, the feeling came over me how strange it was that here was a man born in the Ukraine who came here with his family at two or three years of age and was brought up and educated in Canada, and now in his youth was standing here in the House of Commons and calling for the safeguarding of the sovereign rights of the Canadian people under British democracy, while all around us and by the minister's own policy we are attempting to take away some of the sovereign rights of our people and hand them over to some outside authority. Is the minister Canadian? Is the Prime Minister Canadian? For they are the ones who are responsible. Is the cabinet truly Canadian and British? I say that in this matter I will bet on the hon. member for Vegreville as being the truly British Canadian. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I want a government in Canada that will safeguard the rights of our Canadian people.
I was going to refer to the statement made by the leader of the C.C.F. party who also welcomes the government's stand, but I shall refer to it only in this way. The leader of the C.C.F. party must really try to distinguish between cooperation and control. This is what he says at page 1656 of Hansard:
Accordingly in the field of international air transportation it becomes apparent and, I think, important, that only public control should function. International cooperation does not mean, in reality, a diminution of national sovereignty. What it really means is, sometimes, the transfer-
Mr. Martin: The expansion of it.
Mr. Coldwell: -of national sovereignty between nations.
He continues, but he does not get along very far before he uses the term "international control." We are in favour of international cooperation, but I for one am not in favour of any centralized international body controlling anything inside Canada.
In what I have to say now I do not intend to pose as an authority on constitutional matters. I might as well confess at the start that I do not know anything about them. Strange as it may seem, I am going to talk about something about which I do not know anything. That is just a simple confession; the rest of the members of the House of Commons have never confessed that as yet. I doubt very much whether a constitutional government has any right to sign an agreement or treaty of this kind. I have done a little browsing, some snatching here and some
War Appropriation-Transport

snatching there, in order to get a little information. I read the British North America Act, and the only thing I could find in it referring to foreign treaties or agreements was section 132, which reads:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
I tried to study what might be meant by treaties. Generally speaking, I think that would be confined to peace treaties and international trade agreements. I can quite understand the logic that nations must make agreements with other nations, but I doubt very' much whether any agreement that purports to hand over any of the sovereign or civil or other rights can be made by any government. Whether or not that would be constitutional, I do not know, but I doubt very much that it could be done. It certainly is not common sense. I should like to ask when the people of Canada gave the government power to hand over any of the sovereign rights of the people to any other country, much less to any international authority that would be responsible to no one.
In connection with treaties and so forth I also did a little browsing. I have before me a book entitled, "Methods of Ratification of Treaties," published by the government printing office at Washington. This covers the history of certain treaties. On page 11 reference is made to the treaty entered into at the close of the last war, and I quote as follows:
. Lloyd George made the following statement in the House of Commons, on February 11-
That would be 1919.
-in regard to treaty ratification:
The third question asked about the peace conference was whether the treaty will be placed upon the table of the house before ratification. I believe that is the ordinary course. Of course, subject to the ratification of the treaty, the representatives of this country will follow' the same course as the representatives of every other country and provisionally sign the treaty at the peace conference. The treaty will undoubtedly then be placed upon the table of the house for ratification. I believe constitutionally there are parts of the treaty which must be placed upon the table of the house by the constitution of this country. If the House of Commons chooses to repudiate the treaty the House of Commons is all powerful.
I know what the minister will say to that, namely', that that is exactly what we are doing

here. I have not made a study of what parts of the treaty Mr. Lloyd George was referring to when he said:
I believe constitutionally there are parts of the treaty which must be placed upon the table of the house by the constitution of this country.
There must have been something in there which he did not consider the government had a right to sign apart from the approval of the house. Reference is made on page 16 to what Mr. Gladstone said along the same line in days gone by. I have very little more to say except that I question the right of any government to sign over to any other authority anything that belongs to the people of Canada. I can understand a gift of money being made such as has been done in the past few sessions; I can understand a gift of materials, but I cannot understand how any government has the authority to hand over the rights of the people. It is very easy to hand over the sovereign rights of the people, but it will take a war to get those sovereign rights back again.
I conclude by saying what I started out to say, that the picture is gradually being filled in. I believe that in the world to-day there are two great forces at work. That applies not only to this country, but to the world in general. One force is attempting to bring about a world dictatorship under a certain type of world state socialism. On the other hand there are those who are struggling to maintain the freedom of man. I know that some one will accuse me of uttering platitudes, it will be said that I am talking in terms that are ethereal and so forth, but may I make the following quotation:
Some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacturing are afraid of somebody, are afraid of some thing. They know there is a power somewhere, so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
That is a statement by the late President Wilson of the United States. I say that there are sinister forces which operate behind the scenes of human affairs and have for their objective the ultimate destruction of free agency among men, and this cannot be assigned to mere chance. I cail upon the members of the House of Commons to rise in defence of the freedom of our people. I know the minister will say that this does not interfere with their freedom, but I say it is dangerous in that it represents the thin edge of the wedge, in that it seeks to establish that a few men at the head of the government can hand over control to an international body.

War Appropriation-Transport


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann):: The hon. gentleman has exhausted his time.


Ernest George Hansell: I have just a few more words, Mr. Chairman, and they will take me only a minute. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said that the picture outlined by the minister was a rosy one. It may not be such a rosy picture if it is looked at with the proper focus. If we want peace, we must eliminate the causes of war. But that is not the primary purpose of this. What is proposed by the planners is the preservation of the present system with all its evils, but in order to make it work and to preserve it they want to put in policemen. As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) said the other day, what the world needs is a physician, but what they are providing her with is a policeman.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a word in reply to my hon. friend. I have listened with great interest to the foreign policy of the Social Credit party. I think this is the first time it has been expounded in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: International anarchy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I find that the hon. member for Vegreville has declared for an extreme imperialistic policy, and accuses this government of catering to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.
I suggest that his party are trying to take the place vacated by the late Conservative party, and I think perhaps he has "something there," because Progressive Conservative foreign policy as enunciated by the various and several leaders of that party seems so different from the old policy that there may be a place for the Social Crediters.


Gordon Graydon: Don't joke about it, now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may make a speech-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Talk
about something you know something about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will those who are always
complaining about being abused and appealing to the protection of the chair please remain quiet while I make a few remarks, if they do not mind? I did not rise to make that comment, but I wanted to say something about the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod. He sees great danger in entering into international agreements for the control of international aviation. I may say that we have been a party to international aviation agreements for a great many years. The conference on international air navigation which was held in Paris in 1919 or 1920 laid down rules for international navigation, and Canada was
a signatory to the agreement of that date, That agreement provided for certain freedom of the air. It laid down specific rules for safety standards and control of air navigation,


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that
not a purely voluntary affair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was a convention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was it
ratified by this parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was. It has been in effect for many years. It is believed that at this time we should take a step toward greater freedom of international transit. My hon. friend is familiar with the fact that there is freedom of the seas, and that freedom of the seas is maintained by international agreement. That freedom allows a ship of any country to enter a harbour of any other country. It gives to that ship certain rights by international agreement, while in that harbour.


Ernest George Hansell: That is not control.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it would be a backward step if each country undertook to establish its sovereignty and to deny to the ships of friendly nations the rights which, guaranteed by international agreement, make world traffic on the oceans a right of all friendly nations.


Ernest George Hansell: We are not opposed to international agreements.
Mr. HOW'E: Well, what are we attempting to do in the Canadian proposal for regulation of international air transport? Prior to the war, in order to extend our air service, we will say to South America, it would be necessary for the government of Canada to enter into a treaty with every country which must be crossed en route. If one country objected, then unless it were possible to avoid that country by plotting a route around it, the service would be impossible. Air services are now established under that arrangement, but with extreme difficulty. Take, for example, the ease of Canada, which stands at the crossroads of all the important air routes of the northern hemisphere. We will say that Canada refuses to enter into any international agreement and that it will permit planes to fly over our territory only by agreement with each country concerned. What would be our position? Every country in North America and in Europe would be demanding from Canada a bilateral agreement. Suppose we gave it to one country and refused it to. another; would that lead to friendly relations, or would it lead to war? Suppose we refused permission for Russia to cross Canada with
War Appropriation-Transport

an air service to the United States, yet permitted the United States to cross Canada to fly to Russia, would that be a comfortable position for Canada? We believe that there is potential disagreement of a serious nature in such a system of carrying on international air transport by bilateral agreement. It is not impossible, but it certainly has presented in the past great difficulties, and will in the future present great or greater difficulties as the volume of international aviation steps up.
We believe that all countries can agree on certain freedoms. One is freedom of innocent passage; that is, the right of a plane of a peaceful country to fly over the territory of another peaceful country. We also believe that there should be the right to land to refuel in any country, by international agreement. on the same principle as the freedom of the sea. However, it is accepted, by those who know the technical difficulties of flying haphazard over another country, that there must be regulation of the exercise of the right of innocent passage and the right to land and refuel.
Canada has proposed certain other freedoms which can be exercised only by international regulations, namely, the right to pick up in another country passengers destined for the country of origin of the plane, and to take from such country of origin its own nationals destined for another country. These freedoms can be exercised only by international regulations. Therefore Canada proposes an international body to carry out the provisions of these four freedoms in the interests of international aviation as a whole.
The document submitted is Canada's proposal. It is by no means a treaty. We are not asking the house to ratify a treaty. We have advanced it as a proposal. from Canada for a basis of agreement with other nations interested in international aviation. It has been suggested, I believe, by the last speaker that Canada is doing this surreptitiously without the support of the majority party in this house and without the knowledge of all members of the house. I cannot imagine how that conclusion can be reached. Canada is the one country of the united nations that has placed its full air policy before the house and before the people of the country. We invite discussion on the policy and, when the time comes, if agreement can be reached, we will then follow the tradition of the British government. The government will take the responsibility for agreeing on the part of Canada and later will ask parliament to ratify Canada's signature to the agreement. That is British policy, which has been followed for a great many years. I think my hon. 
friend will find that the doubts he has expressed in that regard are unjustified. I do ask him to study the past history of international aviation and to read the agreement of 1919 to which Canada is a party and then to make up his mind whether further freedom under a convention is not in the best interest of post-war civil aviation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: When the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) spoke I did not know that there was to be a world dictator. However, I am not going to speak in that, regard other than to say I do not want the position if I have to pay income tax.
I am rising now to reply to certain remarks made this afternoon in connection with the airport outside Vancouver, because I am interested in that question. I was given two weeks' holiday to go to Vancouver, a distance of 6,000 miles, involving eight days' travelling, which would have allowed me eight days at home. But someone stole my car at Vancouver and it took me four days to find it. Someone says that I should not live there. Well, I do not know who stole the car, but I may remark that the C.C.F. were holding a convention there, and Bracken was trying to form a club.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) this afternoon rather left the impression that planes coming to Vancouver suffer on account of fog at certain periods. I do not think he intended to convey exactly the impression which he did, but that was what I gathered from his remarks. I do not want the. committee to get any such idea, because the minister knows that one of the best airports in Canada is the airport at Abbotsford, forty-two miles from the centre of Vancouver. I am not going to go into any details, but I can assure the committee that that airport is big enough to handle any bomber made on the American continent. For the minister's benefit I may say about three weeks ago a fifty-passenger transport took off across the centre of the field. It did not have to use the middle of the runway. That will give hon. members an idea of the kind of airport that is there. 1 simply want to correct the impression which may have been left by the hon. member for New Westminster as to existing airports near Vancouver, and in this regard I have the authority of Grant McConachie. I do not know this gentleman, but I do know that my hon. friends of the Conservative party consider him an excellent man and that they would

War Appropriation-Transport
prefer to have him in charge of Trans-Canada Air Lines and all the rest of the airways. Let me quote what he says:
The Fraser delta was not only inadequate to handle big plane traffic but outright dangerous due to prevailing wind conditions.
I do not wish the impression to get abroad, which was created, in my mind at any rate, by the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster, that a plane would have to return to Lethbridge if the fog were down. While I hate to say that anything can be wrong with that part of the country, I may admit that in October of last year we had a fog which lasted for three weeks. And how! someone says-not Howe the minister. Whoever says that simply means that it was a very bad fog. Well, for seventeen days in that period the T.C.A. landed at Abbotsford, and not at Lethbridge.
I have nothing to say about the international aspect of this matter, because if I did say anything about it I would have to follow the example of the hon. member for Macleod and preface my remarks by admitting that I know nothing about it. The only difference is that whereas it took him forty minutes to make that admission, I can state it in just so many words, that I know nothing about it.


Mr. ROY:: On March 17 the Minister of Munitions and Supply made a statement to the house on the international discussions on air transport policy which took place in London in October last. He told the house that all the participants were desirous of improving the air services between their territories, and agreed that such development must take place within an international framework, and that closed discriminatory systems could only promote disharmony, and endanger the chances of reaching that broad agreement which is necessary.
The minister also tabled the draft international air transport convention which, by consent of the house, was published in Hansard of March 17, at page 1580. I would not be surprised, Mr. Chairman, if you thought it necessary that I should make the same confession that was made so humbly a minute ago by the hon. member for Macleod, namely, that I am going to speak about something I know nothing about. Strange as it may seem, one cannot be misled if one listens to the voice that is heard in one's subconscious being or the voice that comes through a very faithful kind of aerial, the voice that gives us warnings of dangers to be encountered. If we listen to this voice we cannot be misled, and it tells me that this project of international control for
air services in the post-war period does *obviously present some dangers to the autonomy of the country.
A careful examination of these agreements makes me believe that we are preparing another monster cartel which will take charge of all air lines of the world. We have had already for many years, and more specially in these last years, and again these last days, the occasion of complaining about monopolies and cartels; and lately we heard from reliable authority that if we are in the midst of the most terrible cataclysm ever known in the past, it is due to the work of those monopolies and cartels. At the present time, we are endeavouring to prepare a post-war policy and are studying all kinds of projects for social security and post-war reconstruction; but my contention is that if we do not go to the root of the sore, if we do not remove the real causes of the present conflict, if we allow these monopolies and cartels to survive and not only that, but if we encourage the formation of new monopolies and cartels, we shall be again facing, not an enduring peace that everybody desires, but only a temporary truce.
Without commenting for the moment on the opportunity of nationalizing our large enterprises, but favouring in all cases a direct and efficient control over these large enterprises, I think it must, without doubt, be admitted, with regard to air transport, that these Canadian air lines companies have been formed under Canadian laws and certainly have some recognized rights.
Enterprises like our railroad systems and air lines services are so huge that there can be no question of provincial or municipal control or of any cooperative ownership. Nevertheless the government would do the wrong thing to force them into an international cartel, and so much the better if they are willing to remain independent. These companies, having largely contributed to the easing of the transportation of war materials and members of armed forces as well as civilians, deserve a better reward for their admirable achievement.
I should like to mention also the help that was given to the development of the unknown sections of the country by companies like Trans-Canada Air Lines, Canadian Pacific Air Lines and many other smaller companies, which have all contributed, to a large extent, to geological surveys, to the development of our mining areas and to the exploitations of our hydraulic powers, and therefore to the development of all our natural resources.
Having always been opposed to all the cartels, I strongly objected to the amalgamation of our railway systems, because I believed that such an amalgamation would result in another
War Appropriation-Transport

monopoly which would become the supermaster of all our transportation systems; and unfortunately not to the benefit of the public. I wonder how, being opposed as the majority of our people are, to such an amalgamation, when it comes to air lines, which is another means of transportation, they could accept a project such as the one proposed in London last October. I am under the impression that the public would be very suspicious of this project, especially when it is brought up by a government that has lost the confidence of the people.
I wish to recall the fact that for the last two years the government has lost every byelection; and this, according to the Prime Minister's own word in this house in 1934, shows that this government is no longer the representative of the people of this country. Therefore, how can a government be entitled to adopt a policy that will bind the future of our country, especially with so vast a scheme as the one coming out of this London convention? Furthermore, this is much more important, when everybody knows that as soon as the government decides to hold a general election, it will be thrown out of power.
The public would be interested to know- and I wonder if the minister could not give the committee some information in this regard- who are the real sponsors, and who are the technical and financial advisers who led the political authorities to such an agreement. I wonder if we would not find among them some who are very closely connected with this famous Bank of International Settlement?
There is so much yet unknown in this project; it requires so many explanations. People are so worried about the future of the country, that they will ask themselves if we are still heading to the aim for which we are supposed to be fighting. The people would be so glad to be assured that our war targets are still the defence of civilization, the maintenance of our liberties and the safeguarding of property rights and so forth. With all that is going on to-day, wfith all these new schemes, they are asking themselves if they will not be once more misled, especially when they consider that the establishment of the post-war policy comes from a government that, as I said a few minutes ago, has no longer the confidence of the electorate. Would it not be only fair, logical and just to submit this future policy, which is such a drastic one, to the decision of the people, so that the democracy for which we are supposed to be fighting at the present time would not be a "vain mot?"
Furthermore, a project such as this one makes the people much more suspicious, when they know that within a short time there will

be in London an imperial conference, at which other like projects may be adopted, which will bind the future of our country. Our people would like to rely on Prime Minister Churchill's statement wdien he said that an imperial conference would take place in London at which all the dominions would be represented by newly elected prime ministers. There is only one way to correct all this, only one way to assure the people of the country that nothing will be done against their will, namely, the immediate holding of a general election. No one can conceive that a government, which is supposed to know what is going on in the country, would refrain from asking the people to confirm its mandate, and to renew it, so as to enable the government to make such important commitments.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod and also to the address made by the hon. member for Vegre-ville, and I do not think the minister answered the thesis that they advanced. I agree with the minister that in so far as this discussion is concerned it is but an exploratory one for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the members of this committee, and that the convention is merely tentative. But I should like to have a statement from the minister this evening in regard to several matters, some of which I dealt with when I spoke on March 23. I asked a number of questions on that occasion, but the minister did not have an opportunity that evening to answer them. Unless we have an answer to a number of questions that were asked this afternoon and also earlier in this debate we are merely shadow-boxing with unrealities. We should know the position the government is taking, first in connection with the international set-up; second and very important, the attitude of the government toward a British empire or commonwealth air scheme operating under an international authority, and, finally, various matters in connection with the domestic field which as yet have not been explained.
I intend to ask a number of questions in order that we may get the picture as to what has taken place at the various conferences that have been held in recent weeks; something of the decisions made or the agreements reached at the Beaverbrook conference that took place in October, and the reasons that have caused the minister to change the opinion he expressed in the past, that railway companies were an ideal medium to operate airways in this country.
I was surprised at a statement made by the minister in reply to an hon. member who-

War Appropriation-Transport
referred to some contention that had been made by the Aeronautical Institute of Canada. The minister, if I took down his words correctly, said, "We would prefer that the Aeronautical Institute of Canada was not so active in regard to post-war aviation at this time." Why? The minister has enunciated the policy which the government is to put into effect one year after the cessation of hostilities. Why should the institute not be allowed and, indeed, invited to consider the propositions that have been put forward, and to make suggestions in order to ensure that the domestic policy to be put into operation in this country will be the very best available?
The hon. member for Macleod referred to an international authority, and the minister stated that there had been previous conventions, beginning with what was known as the Paris convention of 1919, and so on through the years. I ask the minister whether under the Paris convention any power was conferred upon an international authority similar to that contained in article VII of this convention, which provides:
If an air carrier licensed by the board or a regional council is of the opinion that the airports or other ground facilities on the territory of a member state are not reasonably adequate for the safe, regular, efficient and economical operation of the air services which it is permitted by its licence to perform, it may so inform the government or governments of which it is a national. . . . Each member state undertakes, at the earliest practicable moment, to give effect to the request of the board or regional council.
The next section deals with the matter of expenses. Is it not a fact that this article goes farther than any other convention designed to ensure proper, safe operation and the like? Does not this article in . fact grant to an international authority jurisdiction over the sovereignty of each of the member states, which heretofore has not been contemplated under any previous international air agreements? I ask him also whether the suggested international convention represents only the viewpoint of the government of Canada, or does it represent the consensus of nations with which there have been discussions? Has the U.S.S.R. been consulted as to its willingness to enter an international organization? I ask that question because 1 notice that provision is made for bilateral agreements between member states and adjoining, contiguous states. If that be so, the Soviet Union, having on its boundaries practically all the nations of the world, would not be required, in the operation of its airways, to enter an international organization unless it saw fit to do so.
Then the minister made reference to the doctrine of freedom of transit, which all accept
as necessary in the interests of post-war aviation, and which, as he pointed out, is somewhat analogous to the doctrine of freedom of the seas. Are the great nations of the world willing to accept the principle of freedom of transit? Have there been consultations; has there been any agreement in regard thereto? Furthermore, in an international set-up the position will be that T.C.A. will operate transoceanic aircraft. Does the government intend that T.C.A. shall operate a service round the world? If not, what portion of the world is it contemplated will be served by aircraft operated by T.C.A.? Without some knowledge of these matters any discussion of the question of international aviation is merely theoretical.
I now come to the next phase; this is something as to which I particularly wish to ascertain the position of affairs. I refer to the aviation position of the British empire or commonwealth. When the hon. member for Macleod mentioned the British commonwealth the minister rather forgot himself and departed from his usual dispassionate consideration of matters such as these to suggest that the Social Credit party was taking up the position of the official opposition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no; I said, "the late Conservative party".


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a play upon words.


John George Diefenbaker: It was said with a sneer, and quite unnecessary in any serious discussion of this problem, and quite unjustified by anything that had been said. I am trying to discuss these matters without heat and without partisan considerations. When it comes to a consideration of the British empire and our relations within the empire, it seems passing strange that as yet the house and the country have been given no report, not even a cursory one, as to what occurred at the Beaverbrook conference. On October 18, 1943, in London, the minister vouchsafed an answer to newspaper correspondents who interviewed him:
The empire will enter future conferences on post-war civil aviation with a common viewpoint as a result of the recent imperial air talks here, Hon. C. D. Howe, Canadian munitions minister, said to-day.
To a press conference questioner who asked if this indicated a British delegate -would represent the whole empire, Mr. Howe replied "No." He said the dominions would have their own representatives. . . .
The minister reiterated previous declarations that the recent conference, to be followed by one with others of the united nations, was merely a clarifying "family discussion" on the background of the question and said only "broad principles" were discussed.
TFar Appropriation-Transport

la it true that a common viewpoint was arrived at in the conference which took place in London? Did the various parts of the empire agree that the proper solution of the empire situation was not to set up an empire scheme within an international set-up? I ask him also to say whether Canada's position was one of opposition to an empire scheme, and, if so, in taking such a position did Canada take it in opposition to the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia?
I read, too, a Washington dispatch of October 29, 1943, which quotes the New York Times in a Washington dispatch as saying:
. . . that the commonwealth air conference in London went as far as President Roosevelt in favouring freedom of the air. But Canada's position was said to have differed from England, New Zealand and Australia. The mother country and these two dominions share a 'ommon view.
Both of these analyses cannot be correct. The minister stated that we had a common viewpoint. I ask him, therefore, was the question considered at this conference of an empire set-up within the ambit of a great international organization, and, if so, did Canada's representatives agree or disagree with that -suggestion? I may have some further references to make with regard to the suggestion that I placed before parliament and the country on March 28 last, that we should set up an empire scheme without prejudice to the setting up at the same time of a great international organization to govern safety, after the minister has answered these questions, and to assure that after this war airways development and the development of aircraft will not spell the beginning of another world war.
To come now to the domestic field, much has been made of the fact that under the set-up suggested by the minister for the domestic field, our men who are overseas will be able to return to greater opportunities of employment than they would have under a scheme whereby there would be competition between the national lines and the lines of private companies operated by the railway companies. Doctor George Weir, speaking recently, said that he believed that after the war there was the possibility that 25,000 of our airmen might be able to secure employment in post-war domestic aviation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is Doctor Weir, may I ask?


John George Diefenbaker: Doctor Weir was
employed in connection with recommending to the government the setting-up of post-war schemes for employment. In any event, he made a survey in order to assure . that after the war the roseate promises that had been

made of employment to the men overseas when they return to Canada would, in fact, be carried out and the work be available to them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was brought here from British Columbia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was minister of education there?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister asked me who Doctor Weir was, and that surprised me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know at least three Doctor Weirs, and I was wondering to which particular one the hon. member was referring.


John George Diefenbaker: I said Doctor George Weir.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand now to whom the hon. member is referring.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister asked who Doctor Weir was. It shows that Doctor Weir could not have consulted with him in connection with the post-war employment of the men who return from overseas. I ask the minister, was Doctor Weir's estimate founded upon information given him by his department?
Furthermore, the minister made a statement recently in which he said that a very, large number of applications had been made for domestic airline franchises in Canada, but that no franchises would be granted until after the war. How many such applications have been made by Canadians and how many by nationals of other countries?
Finally, I ask the minister to explain what changes or alterations or developments have occurred since 1937 which have made it necessary for him to require that the railway companies dissociate themselves from the operation of air lines in the Dominion of Canada. That is a matter on which I think the country should have information. There may be valid reasons known to the minister himself, but as yet the information has not been made available to the country.
The picture so far as the post-war situation is concerned is that Canada holds out the promise to the men who are serving in the air force that some twenty-five thousand may secure employment in aviation in Canada when the war is over. If we do not carry out that promise to the men we shall be doing them an injustice that is totally unjustifiable. I ask the minister how many are employed to-day in Canada in connection, first, with the T.C.A.; and second, how many are employed by private companies within Canada, and how many is it expected will be employed immediately after the war? These are matters

War Appropriation-Transport
that must not be considered from a partisan point of view. They are matters for which we as members of parliament will remain responsible to the men when they return. It is they who want to know the answers to these questions. Our servicemen are not asking for charity. They are asking for the effectuation and the implementing of the promises that we make that there will be employment for them. Has the government considered both sides of the equation? Has it considered how many men returning from overseas could be employed should the present system of domestic air lines be continued, and how many more men could be employed if the proposed change is effected one year after the war? I ask the minister to explain these matters in detail, because all that we have had so far is a general statement. We have not had the evidence to support what the minister has said, nor have we been given the background which he alone can furnish to the house and the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has asked
several times for the conclusions of the London discussions. I may say that the discussions of a committee headed by Lord Beaverbrook with committees representing the various dominions was not a conference. It was stated clearly at the time that it was a family discussion, the purpose of which was to endeavour to arrive at a common viewpoint among the empire countries. All countries, including India, were represented. Many different ideas were presented. Naturally all parts of the empire would not think alike on a matter of this kind, but I can say that a common viewpoint was reached. I assure my hon. friend that the statement on international aviation which was presented to this house, and the draft convention which was placed on Hansard are wholly consistent with the conclusions which were unanimously reached in those discussions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is the result of the conference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is an elaboration of the viewpoint of the conference. The conference discussed general principles and Canada has elaborated upon those principles. Naturally a three-day conference could hardly write an elaborate convention. Doing so involves study by experts.


Gordon Graydon: If the policy enunciated by the minister in this house prior to the Easter recess is the policy which the government intends to propose to the world on the question of civil aviation; if that is the result of a common viewpoint which the minister says was reached in the empire discussions,
will that be followed up by other parts of the commonwealth making similar declarations to the world?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The various governments of the empire perhaps will have their own ideas as to how much each should take their parliaments into their confidence at this stage. We feel that we have gone quite far in that direction, that being the policy of this government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You did not do it with the war.


Gordon Graydon: I do not want to interrupt; I just want to clarify this point. If the other nations of the commonwealth take their parliaments into their confidence as this government has done in this instance, is this the policy they would present to their parliaments in view of the common viewpoint which the minister says was unanimously arrived at?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is stretching the point quite far. I said that certain principles were agreed upon by all commonwealth countries, or rather that there was reached by those countries a common viewpoint which is wholly consistent with the document which was placed on Hansard here. A corresponding document prepared by another country elaborating those same principles, might contain quite different clauses.


John George Diefenbaker: It is only a matter of language.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every point in this long document naturally was not discussed in detail. I will say, however, that it was cabled to London for comments before it was submitted here, or submitted to any other country. No comments were received which were material. There were one or two small comments, and one or two changes were made as a result. But the point I make is that there was no material difference in viewpoint. I will say that perhaps if London had been preparing this document it would have been different in some particulars, but my point is that it is not inconsistent with the common empire viewpoint.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask this question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not mind being interrupted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You never interrupt anybody. May I ask a question? If I have not your permission, I shall sit down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.
War Appropriation-Transport


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister be good enough to state the principles upon which agreement was reached by the London conference, so that we may be able to interpret for ourselves whether this convention is a correct interpretation of those principles? We are entitled to that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think you will have to take my word for it. I have stated definitely that they are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You say they are not inconsistent; that is as far as you have gone.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the conclusion of the discussions in London a press statement was prepared and agreed to which gave the gist of the discussions. I do not think, as one member in attendance, that it would be proper for me to expand upon the information given at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would not be taking us into your confidence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I have gone a long way in that direction. I thought I had the questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre clearly in mind, but I must say that there have been a few rabbits across the trail, since he spoke.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I could help the minister. I was asking about the British empire scheme. I asked whether a British empire scheme by which aviation would be established within the empire under an international set-up was before the conference. I would point out that the minister is reported at page 1580 of Hansard as saying:
Lord Beaverbrook emphasized the unanimous agreement which the conference had reached on every issue presented to it.
What was the empire issue that was presented? Did Canada agree to an empire set-up? What was the attitude taken by the conference with reference to that matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say that I am not just clear as to what my hon. friend means by an empire set-up. There was a discussion of routes between empire countries. Routes between empire countries are wholly consistent with the principles which were laid down in the discussion of international aviation. But there are routes apart from empire routes. If the British empire were to confine its aviation to flying between British countries, that could hardly be called a comprehensive international system of aviation. I think the empire countries hope to have routes to countries outside the empire. Naturally an international pattern should be broad enough to include both.

My hon. friend was rather shocked by a provision that if airports in a member country were not suitable for international traffic other countries could provide funds to improve the airport and, if necessary, to do the work of providing an airport. May I point out that this is a voluntary association of nations; it is not imposed on any nation. A nation signs the agreement in order to obtain rights in other countries. Each country will have the use of airports in other countries, and I suggest that it is hardly fair to offer a country first-class airports in other parts of the world and not have that country offer in return first-class airports within its own boundaries. It is quite conceivable that certain countries will not be in a financial position to provide these airports at their own expense, but as members of a voluntary association there could be, I think, no possible objection to permitting other countries to do the work if the sovereign country is financially unable to meet the situation.
Perhaps my hon. friend will give me his next question.


John George Diefenbaker: With regard to the empire scheme, the minister said that he did not quite understand what I had in mind. What I had in mind was a set-up similar to that constituted under the agreement of 1935 between the United Kingdom, Newfoundland and Canada, whereby a transport company was set up with ownership in definite proportions being held by each of the countries. Was any such proposition for an empire set-up considered by the conference, and, if so, what attitude did Canada take with regard thereto?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think every country that is familiar with the agreement of 1935 would be reluctant to propose another such agreement. It was entered into with great hopes, but it failed to function. Few countries would wish to be a minority shareholder in an international air line. However, no proposal of that kind was put forward, and it was generally conceded that the agreement of 1935 is no longer applicable.
A further question was, why should I change my mind? It is regarded as inconceivable that I could have one opinion in 1937 and another in 1944. I think it was the Hon. Joseph Howe who said there was nothing he valued so little as his own opinion of yesterday. I think that is a very sound position to take.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was on the spot when he said that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I had little experience in 1937. I have gained a bit in the intervening

War Appropriation-2 ransport
years, and I have come to the conclusion that the policy of developing air transport as an enterprise separate from surface transportation is the correct form of procedure. Not only that; the United States arrived at the same conclusion in 1938. It took us six years longer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was for another reason.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same reason exactly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The reason why the United States arrived at that conclusion was that they did not want the railways in a position to hold their railway rates in place.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not the main reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I differ with the minister, and I have read as much about it as he has.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so. But there are other reasons. For example, I said in 1937 that the ticket-selling facilities of the railways would be very useful to the air lines. It took only a matter of a few short months to determine that the ticket agencies of the railways could not sell air transport successfully. A wholly different brand of salesmanship is required; and even though the ownership of Trans-Canada Air Lines was maintained by the railway, the ticket-selling facilities were completely divorced some years ago. There is very little in common between the two operations; they are quite different fields of activity, and I have come to the conclusion that they can best develop separately.
It has been suggested that the separation was an attempt to weaken private operation by forbidding consolidation into a great system. Private air transport in this country was developed as a series of small enterprises, and I believe that the development was more sound as a small enterprise group than it was as a unified enterprise. Unless the individual routes could be interconnected by another transcontinental system, I think there was ample evidence to show that the economy of operation was not as favourable under the larger system as it was under a series of separate operations.
The leader of the official opposition has had a great deal to say about small enterprise. I must say I agree with him, and I am shocked to find that he thinks there is no place in the air for small enterprise. I believe that the development of air transport as a series of small enterprises was a sound and healthy one.
It lacked certain safeguards which have since been provided. The weakness of the development was that as soon as a small enterprise became successful, another small enterprise would enter the same area, and if both were successful, still a third would enter, until the competition was overdone and one of the three had to go.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there not control for that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at that time, no. We passed the Transport Act in 1938 which prevented that sort of competition. Perhaps we were too late in doing so. Had we done so ten years before, we would have had a much more solid growth of these small air lines.
The policy of the government is to allocate areas to a separate air line, to protect each area against competition, and to give such assistance to the enterprise that it can grow into strong and healthy air enterprise capable of serving the needs of its particular locality.
I believe that is the sound method of development. It gives a place for small enterprise, and it allows returned men to enter the field of air transportation not as employees but as owners.


Gordon Graydon: Well, does it? That is a point which has been bothering me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, quite.	.


Gordon Graydon: Just how will an airman coming back from overseas be able to start in on one of these air routes which the minister is-theoretically-holding out for him when he returns? I must confess that I have never been able to convince myself that the minister's statement is a possibility. I cannot see how a young fellow coming back will start up his own line as the minister suggests. I think the committee, like myself, would like to know, how does the man practically go about it? Could we have the mechanics of-how it is done?


Mr. SLAGHT:: He applies to the authority for his licence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, he has to have money and backing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had groups of business men in every large and medium sized community in Canada, as well as in a number of smaller communities, that have been willing to support aviation enterprise financially. I believe there are thirty-three or thirty-five flying clubs across Canada supported by citizens in their districts, interested in aviation, who have supported the enterprise financially and given of their time to its business direction. Those groups are still interested in
War Appropriation-Transport

aviation, and I believe that if a profitable aviation enterprise is open in that neighborhood-and we intend to have a number developed which our experts believe will offer profitable operation-the same group of citizens would be glad to support a group of returned men in that operation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister a question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, now, just a minute.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right, I do not want to interrupt the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Could I explain my theory a little?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, the minister is very interesting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A bill has been introduced in this house for a commercial bank. The purpose of that bank -would be to finance an enterprise of this kind. A promising enterprise, offering the probability of profitable operation, with the good business management offered by the group I suggest, would find backing at that bank.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a new thought, but it was not told to us in the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that if the hon. member reads the bill he will find that it is suitable for just that type of operation. My hon. friends opposite are very sensitive about being interrupted and I have not been able to say twenty consecutive words since I rose in my place.


Gordon Graydon: We are eager for
information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the desk pounders keep quiet. That is all they ever do here.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The hon. member is the worst offender in the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend's next question was how many airmen-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves that question, may I ask a question?


An hon. MEMBER:: Keep quiet.


Gordon Graydon: Be polite over there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I ask the Chairman to request this hon. member, who never does anything but pound his desk and abuse other members, to withdraw that remark. The remark was shouted at me across the

floor to keep quiet. That, of course, is an improper thing for him to say to me when I am on my feet addressing a question to the minister. I wish to know whether, when arriving at this policy-and this is the only place for learning from the minister, by cross-examination-of divorcing the railways from the operation of the proposed policy of operating air lines, private enterprise was in any way consulted-private	enterprise which had
invested millions in the air lines of the country, private enterprise whose business is to be destroyed by this policy. Were they consulted or given any advance notice?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me say at once that no business is going to be destroyed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It looks like confiscation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no confiscation
involved either. The properties were taken over either in 1940 or in 1941. Small enterprises were taken over by large enterprise. The individual companies are certainly not weaker in 1944 than they were in 1941. They will be returned to separate operation. As a matter of fact, many of the smaller companies were never consolidated into Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I believe that only about fifteen per cent of the mileage was actually consolidated into Canadian Pacific Air Lines. In the other cases Canadian Pacific Air Lines are simply the majority shareholder of separate enterprises.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury)': That is not my question. Were they consulted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Separate enterprise will be reestablished and I see no reason for any loss. I assume they were bought at a reasonable price and that the equipment was worth the value represented on the books of the company. I have every confidence that the operations can be separated without loss to any one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was private
enterprise consulted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a complete answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government made their decision. Public enterprise was not consulted, nor was private enterprise. The decision was the decision of the government, announced in the House of Commons, which again is respect for democratic institutions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. It is just Hitler rule; that is all it is. You come to a decision before parliament is consulted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.

War Appropriation-Transport


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose the correct procedure is to come and ask parliament to make up the mind of the government; is that the idea?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The correct procedure is to come to parliament with a policy and not to announce an accomplished
fact.
Mr. CRU1CKSHANK: The correct procedure is to have a leader of the opposition in the house.


Gordon Graydon: You are just an echo of the Prime Minister; that is all you are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The number of employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines at December 31, 1943, was 2,343, of whom thirty-five per cent were women, and Canadian Pacific Air Lines, I happen to know, had a considerably larger number than that, many of whom were engaged in overhaul work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They were doing work for the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, some 6,000, all told.


Gordon Graydon: How many men coming back from overseas, coming out of the air force, does the minister estimate can go into the type of private enterprise which he is theoretically holding open under this policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should think Doctor Weir's estimate of 25,000 is not unreasonable. My hon. friend will appreciate that it takes from twelve to fifteen men on the ground for every man in the air. Doctor Weir did not mean
25,000	pilots, but 25,000 personnel. The present personnel, I presume, would be about
9.000,	and 1 expect a very much more dense operation when we can obtain aircraft freely. I should think that within twelve months after demobilization we would easily have
25.000.


Gordon Graydon: Out of those 25,000 how many would be aircrew?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be one in twelve
perhaps.


Gordon Graydon: That would mean that
very few of the actual airmen who are flying would get jobs so far as the question of flying is concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that that is a fair conclusion. Airmen can work on the ground as well. All our traffic men are airmen. Perhaps all men qualified as airmen may not be flying, but they certainly would have jobs in aviation, other than mechanics. Was there another question?


John George Diefenbaker: I did want to ask
the minister some other questions. I realize
how difficult it is to be asked a number of questions and then to be asked a large number of others in between, I know the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) will agree with that.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I agree that there is a consistent monopoly over there.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the international set-up I asked the minister whether the united nations had been consulted . and, in particular, whether the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had agreed to an international set-up, whether along the lines indicated in the convention or otherwise, and who the eight nations were that are referred to in the tentative agreement or covenant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me make one thing clear. No nation has agreed with any other nation to do anything about post-war civil aviation. Can I make that clear? There have been certain conversations to obtain viewpoints, but nothing has been reduced to agreement. Not even the empire discussions have been reduced to agreement. There has been no ratification. None was asked and none given. My hon. friend asks how many nations have agreed; I do not think any nation has agreed with any other. He asked whether Soviet Russia had agreed. Certain delegates of Soviet Russia are on their way to North America to hold discussions of the type that have been referred to here to-day. I believe there was some delay on account of weather, and I am not sure whether the delegates have arrived on this side or not. They have an engagement to hold discussions in the United States and have been invited to hold discusions in Canada and in London, and other bilateral discussions of that kind are in the offing. It is hoped that, as the weeks go by, all the countries that are concerned will have had a chance to discuss the problem with other countries in an informal way, and it is also hoped that out of these informal discussions will come a basis for agreement. Final agreement can be reached only when all the countries interested sit down round a table for a formal conference.


Mr. NIXON:: The map at the back of the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines shows the proposed extensions of a line running from Toronto through Sault Ste. Marie to Port Arthur and so on. Could the minister tell us what the plans are for carrying out the proposed extension and also for locating an airfield at Sault Ste. Marie?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have said several times that no material development of civil aviation can be expected in the war years. The post-war plans will certainly call for an airport at Sault

War Appropriation-Transport
Ste. Marie to implement the Trans-Canada Air Lines map that was published in the last annual report. The intention is to have a more direct route from Toronto to Sault Ste. Marie, the lakehead and Winnipeg, to supplement the longer route that is now being operated. I am not suggesting that the longer route will be abandoned; it certainly will not be, but there will be a shorter route for through traffic, which will include Sault Ste. Marie and the lakehead.


Mr. McNEVIN:: I wish to make a few ' observations with respect to civil aviation. I shall not deal at any length with the international aspect of the situation except to say this: It might be well if we refreshed our memories with respect to the four freedoms of the Atlantic charter. As I recall them, they are, freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of worship and freedom of speech or freedom of expression. I think most hon. members will agree that if we go back at least to the years immediately preceding the great war and up to the present time we shall find that nationalism was rampant throughout almost the entire world. I believe one of the ideas contained in the four freedoms would be the replacing of nationalism with internationalism, and that being true, I think we should at least be prepared to support the internationalist idea in civil aviation in the post-war period.
With respect to civil aviation there is a local matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. During the period of preliminary investigations with regard to the aerodrome sites secured for the British commonwealth air training plan a number of sites were investigated in the riding of Victoria, Ontario. The city of Peterborough and the town of Lindsay, together having a population of well over 40,000, represent the two largest inland populated places between Ottawa and Toronto with the possible exception of the town of Pembroke, I think an aerodrome site located in that area would be on an almost direct route between Ottawa and Toronto. At least one or two sites in the vicinity of Lindsay warranted flight checking and quite extensive investigations.
I was pleased to note in the minister's remark this evening that he intimated in the post-war period consideration would be given to reenacting the principle of giving some assistance to municipal airport enterprises, and I should therefore like the area to which I have referred to be remembered when further consideration is given to civil aviation in the period immediately following the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that we shall be
glad to keep the needs of Lindsay in mind. We should like to have an airport there. My hon. friend knows it is difficult country in which to locate an airport. We hope that after the war the combined wisdom of the area can find a suitable spot and that we can. have an airport there.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to the operation of air lines along the Mackenzie river valley. A gentleman from that country told me some days ago-he may not have the picture correct, and in what I am about to say I am repeating what he told me-that the airfields all the way down as far as Fort Norman are more or less under the control of United States groups. Whether that is so or not, I do not know, but I should like to know.
What will be the position of the airfields built between Fort Norman and White Horse? I expect to fly there this coming summer. I believe that airfields have been built all along the Canol pipeline. I do not know whether that is so or not, but if they have been built, to whom would they belong and under whose control are they at the present time? Are they wholly under the control of the United States army? Then, from the places I have mentioned down to Aklavik, under whose control are the airfields? By whom were they built? I know that some were built by Canada, but have additional ones been built by the United States army, and, if so, what is the position with regard to those airfields at the present time, and what will be the position when the war is over?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ownership of all airfields in that area is Canadian. Certain air strips were built in connection with the Canol project as part of the project. They were built by the Americans who built the project. The fields', if you can call them that, are probably under the control of the Americans at the moment except in a few instances. Most of the transport work is handled by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. United States planes undoubtedly fly there as well. It is not like an organized air line; it is simply a landing-strip, or what we would call a bush operation, but there are services-


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is between what
points?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is along the Canol project, up toward Aklavik.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister kindly tell us a little more about the situation between Fort Norman and White Horse?

War Appropriation-Transport


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are two or three
emergency strips there which were used in constructing the pipeline. A trip can, I suppose, be made by land planes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do C.P.A. planes fly
between those two points?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, they fly there. Control of the staging route is in the hands of the Royal Canadian Air Force. My hon. friend was speaking of the airfields along the Mackenzie river. To-day probably three-quarters of those airfields are under the control of the Americans who built them and are working in the vicinity. Two or three have been taken over by the Department of Transport, and control of the others will be taken over as soon as that can be done conveniently. I presume that by autumn all those airports will be under the control of the Department of Transport.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Supposing I want to fly from Fort McMurray to Fort Providence, and then from Fort Providence to Fort Norman. Will I travel on a United States plane or on a C.P.A. plane; do I land on C.P.A. fields or do I land on fields under the control of United States officials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you go at all you must go on C.P.A. planes, for any United States planes flying there do not carry tariff passengers. The fields in that area represent the ideal condition we are trying to bring about in international aviation, in that there is freedom of transit, freedom to land and refuel, and freedom to deliver passengers. You will have no trouble; if a field is there, you can land on it. As a matter of fact, my officer tells me that the field at Fort Providence has recently been taken over for Canadian operation. If my hon. friend lands at Fort Norman, however, at the moment it will be a United States operation.


Mr. LACOMBE:: On March 30 of this year the following question was passed as an order for return:
1.	Has J. Francois Leduc, consulting engineer and associates, whose offices are located at No. 354 St. Catherine street east, Montreal, obtained any contracts from the dominion government during the years 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942. 1943 and 1944?
2.	If so, for what total amount?
3.	What amount has been paid to them up to the present time by the government, and how much money ivas paid them during each of the above-mentioned years ?
The reply, as contained in sessional paper No. 263, was as follows: Contracts between the Department of Transport, air services branch, and F. J. Leduc and associates, covering the inspection of materials at various airports
under construction by the Department of Transport, were: Mont Joli, authorized contract, $12,877.80. amount paid $11,539.73; Saguenay, authorized contract, $19,000, amount paid $15,702.09; St. Honore, contract authorized, $12,000, amount paid, $11,968.36.
(Translation) Mr. Chairman, since we are discussing the appropriations of the Department of National Defence for Air, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee what is, to my mind, a downright abuse. A friend of the government who is a member in the Quebec legislative assembly has been awarded government contracts for $43,877.80 solely for the inspection of materials at three airports under construction. That member, Mr. Francois Leduc, has already been paid by the government $39,210.18 for the mere inspection of materials.
Why were the questions I asked in that connection passed as orders for returns? I would not believe that everything was arranged so that the government's answers might not appear in Hansard. That is far from my thought. But I want to know, down to the least detail, about the staggering price paid for the inspection made by Mr. Frangois Leduc, because I want and have a right to know, as a member of the Canadian parliament, where the people's money voted by this house is going. I wish to know whether the inspection of those materials was detailed or special or whether a general inspection was made.
Mr. Chairman, as civil aviation is becoming more and more important, we must provide immediately for the evolution of this system of transportation. All sections of our vast country should be the subject of a thorough survey. Civil aviation is destined to render priceless services in all fields: agriculture, commerce, industry, mail carrying, etc. It will become our most efficient protection against forest fires and other major calamities. Epidemics, which so often have decimated the populations far removed from large cities, will be tamed by the easy availability of adequate medicine, doctors and nurses. In other words, civil aviation will play a worthy part in the protection of our natural resources as well as our investments and man-power. I can visualize it in a still nobler role. It will furnish the quickest and most powerful help to future pioneers and missionaries. It will greatly facilitate the civilization of Canada and the spread of the gospel throughout the country. These last two accomplishments alone would be sufficient to deserve for civil aviation the best that our government can offer.
War Appropriation-Transport


Mr. JAQUES:: It seems to me that the minister replied to the hon. member for Macleod in a disparaging way. I gathered that the impression the minister wished to leave with the members of the house, and, I suppose, with people outside the house, was that this scheme contemplates nothing further than what is connected with civil aviation. On March 17, when the minister introduced this scheme to the house he said, as reported at page 1577 of Hansard:
As I have already mentioned, on April 2 last year the Prime Minister gave a statement of the government's position with regard to international air transport, making it clear that our policy would be one of international cooperation and collaboration and that we would support whatever policy seemed best calculated to serve not only the immediate national interests of Canada, but our overriding interest in the establishment of an international order.
That seemed to me a horse of a totally different colour. This scheme is a great deal more than merely dealing with civil aviation. It contemplates an international order: in other words, a world government. I call the attention of the committee to another international scheme which this government is behind, namely a scheme for the international control of exchange and currency stabilization. Let me read this statement which I take from the Keynes scheme for world currency stabilisation :
(a)	The union might become a pivot of the future economic government of the world.
(b)	It might set up an account in favour of an international policing body.
(c)	It would provide excellent machinery for enforcing a financial blockade.
(d)	We have here a genuine organ of truly international government.
This is not the right time to say any more about that scheme, but we shall have plenty to say later. I should however, like to leave this thought with the committee, that there is a great deal more about this apparently innocent scheme of civil aviation than meets the eye.


Liguori Lacombe: Will the minister kindly give me the details regarding the contracts which the department let for work at Saguenay, Mont Joli and St. Honore?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry I have not the information at hand, but I shall be glad to look it up.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I desire to clarify, if I can, the real situation regarding Canada's position in post-war civil aviation. I believe that the members of this house and the people of Canada owe a deep debt of gratitude to the

minister and his government for the position he has taken on behalf of our country with reference to this problem. It will be recalled that he crossed the ocean in October for the special purpose of attending a conference with Lord Beaverbrook in London, and there met with the representatives of India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa; and the nations of the commonwealth sat down and evolved in an exploratory way the attitude they felt they should take on this important subject. The minister placed on Hansard at page 1580, on March 17, the joint press release that followed that conference, and may I remind hon. members again of what was issued:
The- conference with the dominions and India on civil air transport, which has been meeting in London since Monday last, concluded its sessions this morning. The conversations were informal and exploratory, and the conclusions reached are subject to confirmation by the governments represented at the conference. Unanimous agreement was reached as to the recommendations which should be made regarding the lines on which civil aviation should be developed after the war, and as to the contribution which the governments of the commonwealth and empire could make towards international cooperation in this field.
Then, on the same page of Hansard, Lord Beaverbrook, in referring to the issues which they had discussed at the conference said that they were "adequate for testing immediate opinion in relation to civil aviation". That is as far as the commonwealth nations have gone. Canada, we are agreed, occupies probably first place strategically and geographically on the map of the globe with regard to post-war civil aviation. You must cross Canada going east, west, north, or south, in practically any direction. So that we are a pivotal country in whatever plan is ultimately agreed upon. I am sympathetic with the curiosity of hon. members, particularly those of the official opposition, who ask so many questions and endeavour to put the minister in a position where he might appear not to be taking the committee into his confidence as fully as he might with regard to the exact programme.
But let me point this out. The commonwealth nations have had their conference in an exploratory way. It yet remains, before any final agreement can be reached, to sit down with the United States, Russia and China. We are fourth in war production among the allied nations, and before the war we stood fourth or fifth in world trade. Yet it seems to me that, by the aggressive attitude our minister and government have taken, in the matter of civil aviation, Canada now occupies first position among the nations of

War Appropriation-Transport
the world because, instead of having a national isolationist attitude such as was taken by the great leader of the gentlemen of the official opposition a few years ago when he said he would blast a way for Canada into the markets of the world, this government has adopted the very opposite attitude. We have had the courage, and we have been the only nation in the world to have the courage, to lay before the parliament of our country Canada's full, all-out exact attitude with regard to international post-war civil aviation. That policy which we have been the first to announce it seems to me is a splendid declaration of international friendship and cooperation. We are now in a position to go with outstretched arms not only to the United Kingdom and the other nations of the commonwealth but to all the countries of the world and say: We have had the courage to tell you what we think should be the world basis for post-war civil aviation. Here is our plan. Now let us sit down with you as soon as conveniently possible and discuss it, and make changes where changes are necessary. But here is a basis for us all to gather around and discuss at the conference table, to bring about a final solution of this all-important problem. What more could one ask of any country? If the official opposition in congress charged the authorities of the United States with not naving placed before them a declaration of their all-out post-war civil aviation policy, there might be some point in their criticism. If some member of the mother of parliaments took the same position there might be some point in it, but as far as this country is concerned we stand first, the other nations in the world coming after, in the matter of friendly proposals for a final, definite authority and cooperation. This committee might well recognize that fact to-night. I wish to pay my personal tribute to the minister and his government for having had the courage to take a position of that kind and be the first to endeavour to bring a real and final policy into being among the nations of the world.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This evening the minister told the committee that the industrial development bank which is to be set up would look after boys returning from overseas who might want to establish air lines. I find that the preamble of the industrial development bank bill states:
Whereas it is desirable to establish an industrial development bank to promote the economic welfare of Canada by increasing the effectiveness of monetary action through ensuring the availability of credit to industrial enterprises.
The interpretation of "industrial enterprise" is given as follows:
"Industrial enterprise" means a business in which the manufacture, processing or refrigeration of goods, wares and merchandise or the building of ships or vessels or the generating or distributing of electricity is carried on.
It does not say anything about aviation; in fact aviation would be entirely out. In the banking and commerce committee there was some discussion about a ceiling on loans, and the governor of the Bank of Canada said that there should not be a ceiling. Mention was made of men returning from overseas, and the governor of the Bank of Canada said that there was no reason why loans of $10,000 or $15,000 should not be made. However, no mention was made of aviation and, as I say, no mention is made of aviation in the industrial development bank bill.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Change the bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The bill will have to be changed. Evidently the minister was under the impression that the bank could take care of things of that kind. When the boys return from overseas many will be wanting to establish garage and repair shops along our tourist highways, and that is not covered.


Donald Alexander McNiven: It should be.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It should be, absolutely. When mention was made of loans of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 to permit boys returning from overseas establishing businesses, it was practically left out. We were talking of loans of $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000, and then we got down to $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000. I think this bank should be able to take care of what has been mentioned to-night, namely, aviation enter* prises and garages which the boys returning from overseas will want to establish. There is every likelihood that our tourist trade will be greater than ever. The government is setting up a tourist committee, and a convention was held the other day to discuss these matters. I think everything possible should be done to encourage boys returning from overseas to set up garages along our tourist routes.
Mention was made to-night about Peterborough and Lindsay. We should have a field there. The deputy minister has stated that surveys have been made in the Peterborough district. That city is most anxious to have an airfield. It is one of the industrial centres of Canada. I think the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, (Mr. McNevin) stated that Peterborough and Lindsay had a population
War Appropriation-Transport

of about 40,000. Peterborough and its suburbs have a population of about 32,000. The country there is rolling, but it is a beautiful country. Perhaps it may be hard to put in an airfield, but they have put them in in more difficult places. I think everything possible should be done along that line.
Mention has been made of the possibility of establishing small air lines, and I was wondering if the minister had in mind the selling of bombers and other types of planes. In a return that was brought down I notice that six Boeing planes were sold to the T.C.A., and one to the Maritime Central Airways Limited. Is it the intention of the government to sell these planes in order that, transport lines may be established for carrying freight and passengers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Boeings referred to by
my hon. friend were an old model of transport plane. They were suitable for transport work, if no better type was available, but they were outmoded. It would hardly be a kindness to anyone preparing to start up in the transporta-r tion business to sell him a bomber or military plane. If certain military planes are capable of being converted economically to transport planes, that conversion will be made, but very few military planes are. The intention is to make any reasonable use of military planes that can be made, but it is not to sell military planes just for the sake of selling a plane to someone to fly hither and yon. Unless they can be converted economically they will not be sold to air lines or to the general public.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The
disposal committee will be selling some of these planes after the war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some of them, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And
some of those planes will be suitable for carrying freight?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Possibly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In
the United States some planes have been turned over to passenger lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Certain military planes are capable of being used for freighting with a different fuselage, but such planes have not been turned over to the air lines. The Liberator is used as a bomber, while another version is used as a freighter. Both have the same wings and the same engines, but the fuselages ire different.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What use do the T.C.A. make of the Boeing machines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For carrying passengers and
freight, but the Boeing is a civilian model.


Gordon Graydon: The conversion of our
aircraft from military to civilian use brings to mind one type of plane which the minister has not mentioned, the Lancaster. Can he give the committee any information as to the possibilities of using what Lancaster bombers may be still usable when the war is over, for cargo or passenger carrying purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Lancaster bomber is being used by Canada to transport mail and a few passengers across the Atlantic. It has not been converted for use as a passenger plane; at least it is not an economical civilian plane. It is a veiy useful plane; it carries a very large load of mail, larger than any other plane that crosses the Atlantic. But it will carry only a few passengers; it is not a plane which could possibly survive in competitive conditions after the war. However, as I mentioned the use of a civilian fuselage on the Liberator bomber, the same is possible with the Lancaster. The York was an attempt to put a commercial fuselage on a Lancaster assembly, but it has not proved to be the type of plane which is required on this continent. I believe a few have been built for use in Europe. We are hopeful that a fuselage will be developed which will produce a commercial plane that will be competitive. We are looking forward to that, but it will be a matter of a good many months before that can be brought about. That is the hope we have regarding use of Lancaster planes in the post-war period.


Gordon Graydon: My understanding,
although perhaps the minister can enlighten the committee on this, is that the Lancaster is a much better machine from the point of view of transoceanic travel than the D.C. 4 would be. Would the minister give some information on that from a post-war point of view?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not understand what my hon. friend means by a "better" plane. Better for what? It is a better plane to drop bombs, but if you ask me to go in competition with a Lancaster plane to-day against a DC 4 plane across the north Atlantic, I can tell you at once that the Lancaster plane operator would starve to death. When we are talking about civilian planes, the earning power of the plane is the important factor. The DC 4 carries forty-two passengers across the Atlantic. The Lancaster will carry ten passengers. If it is a matter of freight, the Lancaster will carry a bigger load of freight than the DC 4 across the Atlantic; but, as my hon. friend knows, freight is not a pay load in peace time.

H. R. H. Princess Elizabeth


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend is, of course, speaking of the Lancaster as at present built, but he intimated a few moments ago that experimentation is proceeding so far as the fuselage is concerned, presumably with the object of increasing the passenger possibilities and to put it in competition with the DC 4 or another passenger plane.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. That is one of a great many planes that are on the drafting board to-day as post-war possibilities. I do not think anyone can predict the performance of a plane on the drafting board. It takes anywhere from four to five years after a plane is first flown to make it a first-class aeroplane. I do not think anyone should speak with great certainty about what the Lancaster will be with a passenger fuselage. I think we shall have to wait and see.


Gordon Graydon: I assume the situation at the moment is such that there is a possibility that the Lancaster may yet be the plane best adapted for passenger and freight use in the ' post-war years. As I understand it, there is no definite decision with respect to either the DC 4 or the Lancaster so far as post-war possibilities are concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do know the DC 4; we can go and look at it. There is at the moment no such thing as a post-war Lancaster passenger plane. As I say, it is on the drafting board, just as are twenty other planes, for postwar use. Which will be the best plane of the lot, I am sure I cannot say. All I can guarantee to my hon. friend is that none of them will be flying within two years.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one matter on which I should like to get some information, having to do, I suppose, with the establishment of the new type of machinery designed to control aviation in this country. I will refer to what the minister said, as reported in Hansard, at page 1574.
It is proposed to establish a new board, to be called the air transport board, which will confine all its activities to air traffic, and which, in addition to performing the regulatory duties now lodged with the board of transport commissioners, will be charged with the responsibility for advising the government on ways and means of bringing about a rapid and well-planned expansion of transport by air. The proposed board will examine the needs for new commercial services, and make recommendations for their establishment and expansion, in both the domestic and international fields; receive applications for the services and issue commercial licences; establish tariffs and regulate rates; examine the ownership, financial structure, operations, and financial position of carriers, make recommendations for needed financial assistance; advise the government on matters affecting the operation of existing
aerodromes; report on the need for new aerodromes; and perform such other allied duties as may be determined.
Is that board to be merely an advisory board, or will it have mandatory powers such as are to-day possessed by the board of transport commissioners in so far as transport in general is concerned? If it is to have mandatory powers, then it will have to control all our international as well as domestic routes. If it is to have merely suggesting powers, then it is a body that in reality has no powers whatever; it is a pseudo-judicial body whose decisions may or may not be accepted by the government. Is the minister prepared to explain what he has in mind, and particularly whether the decisions of this new board are to be subject to the veto of the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The nature of the proposed board is quite different from that of the board of transport commissioners. The board of transport commissioners is a judicial board administering an act. The proposed air board is almost an exact parallel of the civil aeronautics authority of the United States. That board functions within the department of commerce and through executive powers of the president. The air transport board will be a board within the aeronautics branch of the Department of Transport and will get its power through the Minister of Transport. I think my hon. friend would not seriously propose that the government divorce itself entirely from air policy. That would be an abrogation of responsible government. The policy must be determined by the government, and administered with the advice of the air transport board.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 21, 1944