1946-08-17

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. B. ISNOR (Halifax) presented the fifth and final report of the special committee on war expenditures and economies, as follows:
The special committee on war expenditures and economies begs leave to present the following as its fifth and final report.
Under date of March 22.1946, your committee was appointed "to examine the expenditures defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for national defence and demobilization, and for other services directly connected with the war. including the disposal of surplus war assets, and to report what, if any. economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government, may be effected therein."

The committee met four days after its appointment and since that date it has held forty-one sittings and heard twenty witnesses.
A steering committee was set up and recommended procedure which was approved by the main committee.
In giving consideration to matters coming within the scope of its reference, your committee decided to pursue the inquiries initiated during the last session, and accordingly turned its attention towards the operations of War Assets Corporation, its organization, functions and policies in the marketing of surplus assets, its priority system, etc. It also inquired into the methods of declaring surpluses, and the receiving, checking, and storing of such surpluses before final disposal.
Arising out of these inquiries, it rvas found expedient to secure evidence from the three armed services, viz.: navy, army and air force with a view to ascertaining what quantities of material and equipment had been transferred to War Assets Corporation for disposal and whether, in the interest of economy, stocks held by these services are limited to their requirements under post-war establishments.
A visit was made to the head office of War Assets Corporation, at Montreal, so that firsthand information could be sought and a study made of the general organization and set-up of the corporation.
Before the committee had proceeded at any length into the study of quick disposals it was felt that a change in respect of priorities should be given consideration, so that the disposal of surplus material could be effected with greater expedition by revising the method of granting priorities insofar as the time element was concerned. It wras, therefore, recommended and approved by the house "that in respect of priorities granted to federal, provincial and municipal governments, the thirty day period now- in effect, be reduced to ten days."
From the evidence submitted it w'as ascertained that greater care should be exercised by the armed services and War Assets Corporation wdien surpluses w'ere being turned over, and. accordingly your committee recommended, and the house approved, "that when surpluses are to be declared by the armed services, or from any other source, advance notice be given to War Assets Corporation so that a representative of the corporation be on hand to cheek and receive surpluses."
A statement tabled by War Assets Corporation showed gross sales of declared surpluses, from 1944 to July 31, 1948 as follows:
To March 31. 1945			 $ 9.507.127	00
1945-		
April 	
1.386.291	16May 	
4.566.293	80June	
2.132.337	S3July 	.... 7.231.162	22August 	
6,308.356	54September 	
3.047.375	08October 	
6,345.218	20November 	
10.007.956	83December 	.... 10.153.689	231946-	January 	.... 14,477,019	19February 	
16.331 943	54March 	
42,830.725	34April 	66May 	
22.608 326	47J une 	04July 	43Total 	
$228,523,150	26
War Expenditures-Final Report
The witness representing the Royal Canadian Naval Services presented statements as to their wartime and peacetime requirements, the disposal of surplus assets and the policy to retain sufficient consumable stores for three to five years, based on the anticipated rate of consumption of the peacetime navy, and for the retention of special equipment.
It was shown that the total surplus declarations made by the navy from V-J day to the 31st March, 1946, was as follows:-
Stores (cost value)	 $ 14,353,284 75
Ships (cost value)	 223,391,221 93
Properties (cost value) . ..	12,503,132 92
Total	 $250,247,639 60
The naval service witness also supplied a list of yachts chartered commercially, or on a nominal basis, or donated, and a statement showing the disposition made of such yachts, and including moneys required to recondition them for return to their owners. A summary showed:-
25 vessels on commercial charters;
27 vessels chartered at $1 a year;
5	vessels sold and
6	vessels on loan without cost from other departments.
The army witness outlined: -
1.	(a) The background of army equipment.
(b)	The organization of provision within the
army to assist in categorizing information deemed necessary by the committee.
2.	The equipment policy to provide for the post-w'ar army, based on the following:
(a)	An active force;
(b)	A reserve force;
(c)	Supplementary reserve;
(d)	Cadet training.
3.	Implementation of the equipment policy.
In connection with economy, the governing
factors were outlined in respect to:
(a)	Disposal of surpluses at rates consistent with diminishing requirements.
(b)	Retention of stores and equipment required for the post-war army.
(c)	Acquisition of modern stores required to ensure a high degree of efficiency in the post-war army.
It was shown that the army vehicle surpluses amounted to 24,055, of which 15,955 had been disposed of up to April 1, 1946, and the balance of 8,100 to be disposed of by the end of 1946.
Categorizing of army stores and equipment were shown under the following classifications:
1.	General stores
(a)	Clothing.
(b)	Camp and barracks equipment.
2.	Technical stores
(a)	Ammunition
(b)	Small arms
(c)	Radio and telecommunication equipment.
(d)	Engineer equipment.
3.	Vehicles.
(a)	Load carrying and passenger vehicles.
(b)	Armoured fighting vehicles.
4.	Mechanical equipment, including mobile and self propelled engineer equipment such as graders and other road machinery, equipment required for clearing snow, etc.
As at April 1, 1946, the approximate cost of these holdings amounted to $509,286,897, and the approximate cost of materials disposed of to $86,042,008.
The witnesses were questioned in respect of all these holdings, the need of some and the final disposal of any surpluses.
Your committee desires to draw to the attention of the house, and particularly to the attention of the Minister of Defence, that in prewar days there were 93 personnel carrier vehicles and that the post-war requirements show 4,133 vehicles of this type, which number appears excessive.
Witnesses from the Royal Canadian Air Force also appeared before the committee and gave a general outline of the policies and practices affecting equipment during the latter years of the war, since the cessation of hostilities, as well as those in effect at the present time.
The statement dealt with all forms and types of equipment, provisioning and contract cutbacks, stock retentions, disposal policy and other matters of policy. In connection with declared surpluses, it was shown that the air force had declared, as at May 1, 1946, equipment of an approximate total cost of $624,677,000.
Considerable discussion centred around the destruction of material at Penhold, Calgary and other depots. A statement was submitted which did not meet with general approval. The committee, as a whole, was critical of the manner in which the R.C.A.F. admittedly acting under general authority from War Assets Corporation, had brought about the destruction of equipment at these R.C.A.F. depots. This equipment, which was termed unserviceable (i.e., beyond economical repair) and had been listed as of no marketable value, was marked for physical destruction.
It is to be regretted, and is indeed unfortunate, that no collective statistical data was kept of the equipment which was reduced, to produce as it was not apparent at the time that there was any advantage to be gained from the additional administrative work involved. It was pointed out by the R.C.A.F. that all serviceable bits and pieces and parts were extracted. The destruction, nevertheless, took place; and although the policy, in this respect has been changed, your committee take the definite stand that no such procedure or action should have been followed or allowed. According to R.C.A.F. witness no further destruction has taken place since August, 1945.
Witnesses were also heard from the special service branches of the navy and air force and from the joint services advisory committee on welfare, voluntary and auxiliary services, Department of National War Services, respecting donations of materials, equipment and furnishings for the comfort and enjoyment of men and women of the services and the final disposal of same, by sale or otherwise.
Your committee recommends that such donated equipment, materials and furnishings above referred to and still in stores, be disposed of and that the revenue derived from this source be used for the benefit of the personnel of the armed services.
Because of articles appearing in newspapers and magazines respecting the destruction of war materials, it was deemed advisable to call before the committee the writer of certain of these articles which charged the air force with the alleged mutilation and scrapping of batteries delivered from No. 1 Equipment Depot, Toronto. A report dealing with this subject had previously been received from the Department of
[Stage Direction]
War Expenditures-Final Report
National Defence for Air under date of 29th May, 1946, as appears in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of June 6, 1946.
The writer of those articles made what appeared to your committee serious charges against the air force and War Assets Corporation. One of his statements was that, while he had not counted the number of batteries on a junk pile he figured the volume of one battery, and then using a correcting factor, arrived at a number of 2,000. The R.C.A.F. witness stated that only 371 batteries had been released from No. 1 Equipment Depot from 25th June, 1945, to October 3, 1945.
Another allegation by the same witness was to the effect that he had purchased for $5 a damaged 5J22 battery, which cost the taxpayers §80. This statement w'as contradicted and invoices produced to show that this type of battery (5J22) cost the taxpayer only $14.68.
Certain other figures of costs as submitted by this writer witness were challenged, and figures of actual cost were given to show the incorrectness of statements contained in printed articles, although the great majority of figures of cost have not yet been examined.
Your committee's inquiry in this connection had not reached a stage where further comment on the evidence can be made, but your committee feels that what appear to be sensational articles, should not go unchallenged.
Another subject which your committee had under consideration and to which it devoted much time and study, is the question of making war surpluses available for instructional and school purposes.
Witnesses were heard in support of a more generous treatment to educational institutions. The policy and procedure whereby War Assets Corporation disposes of surplus material and equipment to educational institutions were submitted to the committee. These dealt very fully with all phases of this important question, and members of the committee gave careful attention to means whereby useful equipment could be made available to educational institutions with the least possible delay. While, in the opinion of your committee the present policy of indefinite loan is sound from the viewpoint of War Assets Corporation, your committee recommends:
1.	That the present policy of indefinite loan to educational institutions be broadened to include equipment not readily saleable.
2.	That official educational representatives be permitted to visit and inspect such material and equipment as may be considered of educational value.
3.	That there be granted to educational institutions a discount equal to that received by any dealer for similar lines.
In the interest of economy, it is further recommended that additional outlets be found, or other suitable steps taken, with a view to speeding up War Assets Corporation's sales, and thus save storage and maintenance charges and. at the same time, place much needed material on the market.
The following measures are also recommended to speed disposal, viz.:
(a)	Decentralized "sales-at-the-site";
(b)	Selecting "short-supply" civilian items for immediate sale;
(c)	Disposing of real property as quickly as possible, consistent with the protection of public interest;
(d)	Making all building material immediately available for construction purposes;
[Mr. Isnor.l
(e)	The non-employment by War Assets Corporation of persons otherwise interested in outside business;
(f)	Greater publicity by War Assets Corporation in respect of the sale and disposal of all war surpluses.
With a view to effecting economy in the armed services, it is further recommended that all branches review, before the end of 1946, or, as early thereafter as possible, the need of retention of consumable stores, particularly with respect to the building up of reserves of clothing and equipment, bearing in mind the present shortage of many lines required for civilian consumption.	_
It is also recommended that a review should be made of post-war requirements.	_
Your committee recommends that a similar committee be appointed immediately after the opening of the next session. In this connection, it is respectfully suggested that study be given to the advisability of merging the work of this committee with that of the standing committee on public accounts by broadening its reference to include all war expenditures, and that the committee be known as the special committee on national expenditures.
Your committee wishes to express its appreciation of the cooperation and assistance received throughout its deliberations, from officials of War Assets Corporation, representatives of the armed services and other departmental officials.
A copy of the minutes of .proceedings and evidence taken by your committee, consisting of 1130 pages, is annexed hereto.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Gordon B. Isnor,
Chairman.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I ask the chairman of the war expenditures committee whether there is to be a motion this session for concurrence in the report?


Mr. ISNOR:: That matter was considered by our committee, and if an opportunity presents itself I shall be pleased to make such a motion.

On the orders of the day:


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply a question, in view of the rather uncertain answer given by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), the chairman of the war expenditures committee, to the question whether or not a motion for concurrence in the report of the committee on war assets disposal will be made this session? Will there be an opportunity for discussion of this matter on any of his estimates?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I expect that my estimates will be considered to-day, and I shall be very glad to have the discussion on an appropriate item. I will specify an item when my estimates come on.

Labour Conditions


Gordon Graydon: So that there will be an opportunity, for instance, to deal with the Brown charges, with which, I think, the report deals very unsatisfactorily, in the nature of a whitewash.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as requested by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith)
I wish to lay on the table copy of the report of W. D. Card, K.C.; industrial disputes inquiry commissioner, in connection with the dispute between the Winnipeg Free Press Company Limited and the Southam Company Limited (Winnipeg Tribune Division), Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the Winnipeg typographical union, local 191, of the international typographical union.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I ask the Minister
of Labour if he has given consideration to changing the status of Mr. Justice Richards from that of an informal investigator to that of a commissioner in connection with the typographical dispute?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think it makes much difference what Mr. Justice Richards' official position is; for as my hon. friend remembers, we have had many commissioners in that dispute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only two.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; we have had three. We had a commission in British Columbia, headed by Brigadier Lett, and two in Winnipeg. The Lett report was made public also. While I see no objection to calling Mr. Justice Richards a commissioner, I do not think it would make much difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It gives him a little more authority.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, if he needs the authority, my hon. friend can rest assured that he will get it.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-PENSION RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg
North Centre): May I ask the Minister of Labour, now that he has tabled the Card report, if he will also table the report of Mr. Harris Johnstone with respect to the C.P.R.
1919 pension dispute? The reason I couple the two together is that the minister refused my request once before, saying that these things have to cut both ways, and since there was an objection to the tabling of the Card report he could not table the other.
Humphrey Mitchell: At the time I spoke of the thing cutting both ways the circumstances were different; they have changed somewhat since I gave my hon. friend that reply. Now, just wait a minute; don't sit there and smile.


Gordon Graydon: It is not unparliamentary , to smile.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: "Smile, and be a
villain!".


Humphrey Mitchell: Anyway, it is a change to see my hon. friend smile. Since that time the report has been tabled and discussed, the contents of the report of Mr. Justice Sloan, of British Columbia, are known, and also that of Magistrate Hanrahan of Windsor, and Mr. Justice Roach, in the steel case. With the development of labour relations, the use of commissioners has made them to all intents and purposes, or almost akin to, conciliation boards, and I have taken the position, let the sun shine in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I am asking for.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute. As we
submit to the parties concerned, the reports of conciliation boards, I have reached this opinion over the last few weeks, that these commissioners being to all intents and purposes conciliation commissioners, it is probably better to follow the law and the precedents with respect to conciliation boards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has not answered my question about the Johnstone report.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will table it.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) moved that the third report of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons appointed to examine and consider the Indian Act, presented to the house on Thursday, August 15, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the junior member for Queens (Mr. McLure) asked me the following question on Thursday:
Has the government of Prince Edward Island completed arrangements with the federal government for the tax relief compensation as per provincial conference claims submitted?
In reply I may say that no tax agreement has been concluded with the government of Prince Edward Island since the conclusion of the wartime tax agreement in the spring of 1942.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised a question of privilege respecting a return which was brought down, and pointed out that some letters were missing and that what the house received was an expurgated edition of the files. When I raised the question yesterday, the leader of the house announced that I would be answered yesterday by the Minister of National Defence. He also indicated the degree to which I would be answered. Apparently the minister did not follow the admonition of the Minister of Labour a moment ago when he suggested that the sun be let shine in. I rose on a question of privilege yesterday to do just what my hon. friend the Minister of Labour suggested was the proper course; and I would ask the minister now to advise when these documents are to be placed in the records of the house. I think they should be tabled to-day. There should be no dilatoriness on the part of parliament in its demand that civil servants, when there is an order for the production of all the documents, shall in fact bring down all the documents.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): I rather resent the lecture of the hon. member to civil servants in that connection. I think all lion, members will concede that civil servants are usually very diligent in fulfilling their duties. The leader of the house was under the impression that

this principally concerned the Department of National Defence. I ascertained that it does not, and that most of the correspondence was correspondence between the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour. I obtained a copy of the hon. member's remarks and just a little over half an hour ago had an interview with the deputy minister of justice about it. I asked him to go into it very carefully and to prepare a memorandum on the observations that the hon. member made. I again wish to assure the hon. member that as far as I know the civil servants, they endeavour to carry out their duties fully and responsibly.


John George Diefenbaker: If it was not the civil servants, then the responsibility rests right on the government for having taken these documents, and we know now who is responsible.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My hon. friend is much too quick to jump to conclusions. I signed for the Secretary of State the cover sheet of this report and I did not examine the report, but I looked and saw that there were signatures of three deputy ministers on the report and therefore, without checking its contents, I signed it and it was tabled in that condition. I did not know until the hon. member raised the question in the house that there was anything referred to in the correspondence that was not included in the report.	[DOT]


Mr. POULIOT:: It is a very good thing to know what he jumps at.


Gordon Graydon: I have a suggestion to make which I intended bringing forward before in connection with orders for returns passed by the house from time to time. I have noticed that they are signed by various civil servants and simply given the imprimatur of the responsible minister, and then they go on to the house. I think the member for Lake Centre has a very good point, recognition of which will be of value both to this government and to governments in the future. I do not think an order for return should ever be brought down until a minister of the crown has thoroughly understood and gone into the whole matter, instead of relying, as the leader of the government has done, on civil servants -and I am not criticizing him personally in the regard-and putting the responsibility back upon them. That should never be possible as far as government is concerned, because the responsibility to parliament with respect to the accuracy of these things is not

Judges Act
the deputy minister's. It rests entirely over there, in those seats we are looking at across the way.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I quite admit that the responsibility rests here, and if it is the desire of hon. members that a return be not brought down until a minister will have had time personally to investigate the files and to satisfy himself that the return is complete, that will be quite satisfactory to the government, but it will involve much more delay than is now experienced in the filing of these returns. There are other matters that cabinet ministers have to attend to besides going over the files to pick out the documents included in motions for returns.


Gordon Graydon: That is a strange admission from the leader of the government. The cat is out of the bag; we now know that ministers do not bother about questions but simply leave them to civil servants and the minister hands them to us.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nonsense.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the acting leader of the government that when he talks about responsibility of ministers in other directions, he has no greater responsibility elsewhere than to members of this parliament.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: When the hon. member who has just taken his seat will have experienced some of the responsibility of holding office, and not shadow office, he will have another view of the duties a minister has to discharge in the interests of the country.



JUDGES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, August 2, consideration in committee of bill No. 250, respecting judges of dominion and provincial courts-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) : When this bill was before the committee on August 2, all the clauses with the exception of 27 had been passed and 27 was allowed to stand for further consideration. Clause 27 is the one which amends a former clause in the Judges Act which had to do with the possibility of the chief commissioner or the deputy chief commissioner of the board of railway commissioners, if he was a judge of the high court before appointment, being treated in the same way as if he had remained with the high court until the date of retirement from the board of railway commissioners. Section 27 proposes to extend that to other offices under the crown.
The section is of course not an integral part of the Judges Act, and it met with considerable opposition and criticism in the house. I endeavoured to redraft it in a manner to restrict it to high court judges who might be elected to the court of international justice, to high court judges who might be appointed ambassadors, or who might be appointed chief commissioner or deputy chief commissioner of the board of railway commissioners, and in the amended form I discussed it informally with some hon. members who had raised objection to the original clause. After giving it consideration they informed me that even in the modified form they felt so strongly about it that they could not allow it to pass without dividing the house on it.
I must say there are also several members on this side of the house who would naturally prefer, as I would myself, that the Judges Act have nothing to do with anything that is not strictly and essentially connected with the administration of justice, and I would also very much deprecate having a division which might be on party lines over any clause of the Judges Act. In view of the apparent overwhelming proportion of opinion in favour of all the substantial provisions of the Judges Act, and the statements that have been made to me that this clause, even in the amended form, could not pass without a division of the house, which might be on party lines, I prefer to drop both the proposed amendment and the clause, and have this act, not one sponsored by any party but one which meets the views of the large majority of members of the house regardless of party.
If it is the pleasure of the house I would ask that clause 27 be dropped, and' that would dispose of the whole act. But there is one other point that has arisen since. Hon. members will recall that the act provides for increasing by one the judges of the exchequer court and increasing by two the judges of the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario. Since the bill was before the committee we have been informed that the situation in Ontario is such that they would greatly desire to have these two additional appointments made before 1947, when the act would come into force, and I would therefore ask leaves of the house to revert to section 39 of the bill, which is the provisional section that would come into force light away, and add
Judges Act
[Stage Direction]
to it an. amendment that would allow the additional judge of the exchequer court and two additional judges of the supreme court of Ontario, to be appointed at once-of course that will be at the salaries which now prevail- instead of having to wait until after January 1 to make these appointments. This would be accomplished by adding to section 39 the following:
(2)	Section 6 of the Judges Act is amended by substituting the word "three" for the word "two" in paragraph (b) thereof.
(3)	Subsection 1 of section 8 of the Judges Act is amended by substituting the word "fourteen" for the word "twelve" in paragraph (e) thereof.
John George Diefenbaker: How would the section then read?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The way in which we propose to do it is to amend sections of the existing Judges Act, replacing "two" by "three" in the present Judges Act with respect to the exchequer court, and replacing "twelve" 'by "fourteen" in the present Judges Act for the trial division of the high court of Ontario. That amendment will come into force as soon as the bill is assented to, and like the rest of section 39 it will be exhausted when the new act comes into force, but it will allow these additional appointments to be made under the old scale of salaries instead of waiting until after January 1 to make them. The department of the attorney general and the chief justices of Ontario have represented to us that the dispatch of business in Ontario makes it desirable to have that done at once.


John George Diefenbaker: First with regard to the withdrawal of the section in question, I think the minister has followed the proper course. The other day some mention was was made of the fact that in 1931 an amendment had been passed to make provision for the resignation of a judge from a superior court and his appointment to the railway commission in such a way that the time he was on the commission, along with the period he occupied the bench, would count in the determination of his pension I looked up that debate and found that the point which was made at that time both by Mr. Guthrie, the Minister of Justice, and Mr. Bennett, and concurred in by Mr. Lapointe, was that in the case of the chairman of the railway commission the appointment was in the nature of a judicial one, and that the railway commission was by statute a court of record.
So far as diplomatic servants are concerned I am sure the minister will be able to cover the situation by making provision that those

who serve in foreign fields shall in fact receive no less consideration than those who serve in our country.
With regard to the other amendments suggested, we of course support them. In view of the glut of work in the courts in Ontario it is necessary that these judges be appointed. We give support to the request for the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I ask one of my colleagues to move the motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.
Mr. POULIOiT: Before the change is made may I say that I have a recollection of what was done some years ago by Mr. Bennett for General McNaughton. There is an analogy between what was done for him and section 27 which will disappear. He was chief of staff at a certain salary and was appointed president of the national research council at a higher salary. The position at the national research council carried no superannuation. The evidence of that is that Doctor H. M. Tory, who was president before, had nothing more than his salary. The engagement is considered a ten-year contract; but when General McNaughton was transferred from the position of chief of staff to that of president of the national research counoil he was seconded by the army to that position. In law the word "seconded" means that the man carries with him all the advantages that he h'ad in his previous position, even though there are no such advantages attached to the new position. Because of that seconding General McNaughton was superannuated from the national research council at a pension of $8,000 per annum instead of $4,000 and his wife will be entitled to a pension of $4,000 per annum when he dies. I am greatly surprised that that matter was not used in Qu'Appelle; it is enough to defeat a man, although it is strictly legal. Also Major General Vanier, When he was plain colonel, was secretary for a time to Howard Ferguson when he was high commissioner in England. It was a civil service position. He wias seconded by the army to that position, and he was entitled 'to more benefits. What I wanted to say is that the thing has been done by other parties in cases that were quite similar.
While I am on my feet I should like to say a word about Judge T. C. Davis, whom I know personally, and for whom I have the greatest respect. I regret some of the things that have been said about him, because in the discharge of his duties he has done exceptionally well. His name must be vindicated in the house.

Judges Act
He contributed to a large extent to making Oanadia better known in Australia, and he has done a lot for the boys who were there. I wanted to pay this tribute to him. Although I have personal views about the judiciary- and I have some very dear friends among the judges, men whom I respect very much-it does not mean that because a man is a judge he must be free from criticism when such bills- as this one come before the house. But the criticism must be fair and must be on a higher level than what took place on this bill and which could be called an aspersion on Judge Davis. It was not fair.
Section 27 withdrawn.
Amendments to section 39 agreed to.
Section 39 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.


William Ross Macdonald: When shall the bill be
read a third time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of the house, now.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved:
That Bill No. 250, respecting judges of dominion and provincial courts, be now read a third time.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: While taking part in this debate previously I was asked a question by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), and I should like to take just one moment to convince the hon. member that I did know what I was talking about, though he caught me unawares at the time. We were talking about political appointments of judges in Britain, and since that time I have made a few inquiries. I am going to deal with Scotland, however, because I am more certain of my facts there than in connection with England, though in days gone by England has depended upon the good lawyers coming from Scotland to give justice there. In Scotland the judges are recommended by their brethren of the bar association; their names are submitted to the secretary for Scotland and the appointments are made official by him. That takes away entirely the political aspect of the appointment. I feel quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that this is done in England- as well. In any event they are positively not appointed because they were Liberals or Tories, but for their ability to dispense justice without bias. I might mention some of the legal lights in that class:	Thomas Shaw, later Lord Shaw of
Dunfermline; Alex Ure, formerly lord advocate of Scotland; and there was also Scott Dickson, a Tory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And Lord Haldane.


William Scottie Bryce: Many other names could be added to this list. I am quite in agreement with the suggestion that the bar association should make these representations, because they know their members and their ability. I have always maintained that the bar association or the lawyers' union is the strongest union in the world, and I should like them to remember that. They discipline their members; they maintain order and dignity in the profession, and I think it quite right that they should recommend the men to be appointed as judges.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to say just a word before this motion is carried. I was admitted to the bar thirty-two years ago; for the last fifteen or sixteen years I have not practised.


Mr. MacNICOL:: You have graced the bar, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. I am quite free to express an opinion on judges, who must be considered with fairness. In the minds of the people regulations that have been passed by minor clerks are the law of the land. The private individual makes no distinction between a statute studied and approved by both houses of parliament which later receives royal sanction, and an order which is signed by a minor clerk, because the result is the same. If a citizen infringes the statutory law or the regulation he has to pay a fine or go to gaol. The other day I spoke of Gulliver; but the case of the Canadian citizen is rather different, because Gulliver did not give to. the dwarfs of Lilliput the rope with which he was tied. On the other hand we give to the dwarfs of the civil service plenty of rope with which to tie not an individual but all Canadian citizens. We supply the rope by giving them a great deal of power, and as a result the judges suffer because the necessary distinction is not made and cannot be made by the private individual unless he takes a course in law.
There is another question in my mind. The judges have to apply the law. Does that mean that the law is justice? It would be a great mistake to contend that justice and law are synonymous. I believe in equity; I believe not in the strict interpretation of the law but in its interpretation in a broad manner taking into consideration all the human facts and
Judges Act

factors related to the application of the precepts of law. Therefore we cannot very well speak any longer about the sanctity of law, except the law which derives directly from the ten commandments which ruled the world for centuries because men abided by them and followed their spirit.
There is another principle of law that the individual has no excuse for ignoring. At the present time I do not know how a candidate for legal honours can be qualified to pass successfully an examination on all the orders made during the war, which are the law of the land. At this time I must pay a special tribute to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) for his endeavour to improve conditions which could easily become chaotic in the legal domain; and he can rely on the able assistance of the Solicitor General (Mr. Jean) who for. several months has been pruning the orders in council and orders with real success. When I listened to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) a moment ago I wondered if his suggestion was that in each department the minister should dictate all the correspondence of that department. That would be beyond the physical capacity of any man, so perhaps there was a little exaggeration there. But when there is a trend in the right direction, it must be noted, approved and encouraged. In this connection I have been complaining for years about the absurdity of some of the regulations, but there is still some hope when we see the work being done under the Minister of Justice by the Solicitor General, and I congratulate them both.


William Ross Macdonald: May I remind the hon. member that the principle of the bill was approved on second reading. The motion now before the house is that the bill be now read a third time, which does not allow for a general discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am referring to the laws which the judges have to interpret. If there are no laws, there would be no judges and this bill would be just a waste of time.


William Ross Macdonald: This discussion would have been in order on the second reading, but I submit it is not in order under the motion now before the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the first time that I have been called to order in a case like this. If there was no law, there would be no judges. I do not think I am out of order when I refer to the improvement of the law to facilitate the work of the judges. We are here to pass laws, and if a bill enables members of parliament to introduce some improvement in legislation I think it would be one similar to this one.


William Ross Macdonald: Apparently the only difference between the Speaker and the hon. gentleman is that the Speaker is of the opinion that this discussion should have taken place when the second reading was being considered.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not insisting, but I think these matters could be mentioned on any section of the bill or on any reading of the bill. I shall conclude what I have to- say by recalling to hon. members that the task of the judge is quite hard. He must be like Caesar's wife and be above all temptation.
Mr. GRAYDON': Above suspicion.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is a difference.


Jean-François Pouliot: Caesar's wife was above both, and I am referring now to temptation. There is an impression in the minds of the public that it is difficult to undertake an action against a wealthy corporation because the plaintiff may not be able to carry his case through all the courts to which it might be taken by the corporation. You, Mr. Speaker, know from your successful experience at the bar that all men are considered to be alike in the eyes of the law. To permit such an impression to continue would be unjust to the judges and unjust to the law makers.
A judge may be absolutely independent, and that is why I support this bill. I am glad the Minister of Justice has sponsored it. Perhaps it has come at the wrong time and, as in many other things, perhaps the government has waited ten or fifteen years too long before adjusting the salaries of judges. This bill has been brought in at a critical and difficult time. It will be seen from what has been said by members of the bar who are members of this house and who are familiar with conditions all through the land that amendments are necessary to the Judges Act.
Before concluding I have another observation to make. The other day the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) sponsored a bill to amend the Judges Act. I agree with him in one thing, that judges should be appointed to investigating commissions but they should not be appointed to administrative or managing commissions. A judge is experienced with witnesses, he knows how to deal with them and how to protect them so that they will receive fair treatment. A judge has the respect of the community and he is well qualified to preside over a commission of that type, provided that sufficient judges are still available to try the cases in the court so that the public will not suffer.


William Ross Macdonald: I would again remind the hon. member that that is a matter

Judges Act
which goes to the very principle of the bill. It would have been in order in the debate on the second reading before the principle was approved, but the principle has been approved. I feel I have been most generous in my interpretation of the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the main provisions of the bill now before us have to do with increasing the salaries of judges. We in this group have listened to the arguments that have been put forward but we remain unconvinced that it is urgent that such steps be taken at this time. As we have indicated previously, we are in favour of raising the standard of living of all Canadians, and we would not except judges from that view, but there is such a thing as priorities. We feel very strongly that for this parliament to pass the measure at this time and to fail to deal with such an important matter as old age pensions would be a disgrace. We have stated that position before, and in spite of the arguments that have been offered in support of this bill we do not feel that this is the time for it to be given third reading.
Various arguments have been put forward in favour of increasing these salaries, such as the contention that it is necessary to pay higher salaries in order to get the best men on the bench and to assure that we shall have judges who will be perfectly fair. As we said before, we regard this argument as something of a reflection upon those who hold or aspire to this high office. We feel that impartial and fair judgments are not to be obtained by paying for them. Surely a measure such as this can wait until some of these other matters of greater urgency are dealt with.
The proposal was made that something should be done this year about old age pensions. On June 24 we thought we had a promise from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) that a measure would be brought before the house relating to the amount of the old age pension. When I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) about that on July 5 he asked for time to answer, and a week later indicated that in view of the intention to introduce an amendment to the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, any legislation respecting old age pensions would have to wait until next year. During the weeks and months we have been discussing these matters the cost of living has gone up and other difficulties facing the old age pensioners have increased. We feel very keenly that our scale of values is all wrong if we go ahead with this measure and then
in a week or so prorogue without dealing with the case of the old age pensioners and others we might mention.
I would also mention the argument that was advanced in another place-I do not refer to the senate, but to a room between here and the senate-that any increase in wages of over ten cents an hour is not to be considered at the present time because it would be a threat of inflation. If that argument is valid it applies to these increases as well.
For these reasons we feel that now is not the time to give a third reading to this measure, and therefore, so as not to take any more time on it, I now move, seconded by my deskmate the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That the word "now" be left out and the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end of the question.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictoui (Mr. McCulloch). Had I voted I would have voted' against the amendment, and perhaps he would have too.


Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GILLIS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. McGarry). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. WEIR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


William Ross Macdonald: The question is on the main motion.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Before the bill is read the third time, may I indicate why I feel that I should vote for it. I too take the attitude that people in lower income brackets should have higher incomes. I too take the attitude that old age pensions should be raised. And if I had thought for one moment that, by not raising the judges' salaries, the old age pensioners would get any more, I certainly would vote against the bill.
Mr. DEPUTY" SPEAKER: Order. I would remind the hon. member that the principle of the bill was approved on second reading and general discussion of the bill is not in order at this time. The motion before the house is "That the bill be now read the third time".


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. It is my contention that the hon. gentleman is entitled to give a personal explanation at any time about the stand he takes on a bill. If he is not permitted to say why he is voting as he is, why he is supporting a bill, we might just as well shut up now, put a 
padlock on the chamber, and go home. To me it is the essence of liberty, the essence of parliament, that a member should be free to say why he does something in the house, and the bon. member was saying so in his splendid way. I hope, sir, you will reconsider your decision in this case.


William Ross Macdonald: May I remind
the house that there must be some regularity in debate. The rules have been enacted by the house for a purpose, and the purpose of second reading is to approve or disapprove the principle of the bill. On the third reading the question of the principle of the bill is not debatable. The only question that is debatable is whether or not the bill should now be read the third time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gave certain reasons why he thought it should not be read the third time and he moved an amendment accordingly. I do not wish unduly to restrict debate; my object is merely to bring that fact to the hon. gentleman's attention.


Mr. LOW:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have before us now a motion for the third reading of the bill. Surely the rules of the house are all so framed as to permit any member to say why he intends to support that motion for the third reading or, on the other hand, to oppose it. If your objection, sir, is sustained, it will deny us the privilege of stating our position on the motion for third reading, and that is not in the best interests of the work of the house. In my opinion the hon. member is entirely in order in stating his reason for supporting the motion for third reading.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Macleod would be in order in giving his reasons for supporting the motion for the third reading of the bill. He had an opportunity, and all hon. members had an opportunity, to give their reasons why they were for or against the principle of the bill, and that question has been resolved, the house having decided on the second reading that it was in favour of the principle. The rules of the house are so prepared that there shall not be needless repetition, and once a question has been decided it has been definitely disposed of.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I was listening carefully to the hon. member and I do not think it was his intention to call in question again the principle of the bill.


Solon Earl Low: That is right.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I gathered that he was merely explaining his attitude towards it, without venturing upon a general discussion

Combines Investigation
of the principle. I believe that if the hon. member were allowed to continue he would not be apt to infringe the rule by a discussion of the principle, which has been decided.


William Ross Macdonald: Probably I
should not have interrupted the hon. member for Macleod, but I did feel that in fairness to all hon. members he should be reminded of the rule in regard to the question of discussing the principle of the bill at this stage.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I assure you I will stay within the rules. I would point out, however, that the member for Winnipeg North Centre in presenting his amendment made quite a little speech to show why he could not vote for the bill and why he proposed the amendment, and I am now stating why I can vote for the bill on the main motion. I have referred, however, to one or two arguments which the hon. member made. I may state now that my purpose will be fulfilled by referring to those arguments briefly, and I am not going to discuss the matter at great length.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Riggar at the fast session made what I thought was a very good observation in a debate when this house Was proposing to raise our own expenditures. An observation Was also made by the member for Vancouver East, that he was not going to vote for that measure because he felt there were other people in need. I think there are other people in need now. In my opinion, the leader of the C.C.F. at that time gave a logical reason for his action. He said that if we thought old age pensions would have been raised at that time by our refraining from raising our own income as members of parliament, we would not have voted1 for the extra allowance for expenses.
I am confused about this. The hon. member for Rosetowm-Biggar seems to indicate that the principle is all right when we want to raise our own salaries, but it is not all right when we want to raise somebody else's. That to me is not logical. The whole thing boils down to this. There is a false philosophy and a false thinking, that the only reason one section of the community gets more is the fadt that another gets less, or that one section gets less because another gets more. That is not right, and we do not believe it. We believe that there is enough for everyone. If you pare down the top to give to the bottom, no one will have enough, and we believe that you can always raise the others up. Voting for this bill does not prevent the government from raising old age pensions. They can raise those pensions 63260-313
to-morrow if they want to do so. With that explanation I aim ready to vote for the third reading of the bill.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: W'e shall oppose the third reading of the bill, and in spite of What the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat has said regarding my logic on another occasion, I would point out that in our opinion the members of the bench, the judges, are already in receipt of Salaries which, in some instances are twice as great as allowances made to members of parliament who out of their own salaries must meet their expenditures. But that is not the point I wish to make. The point is that we are trying to make an effective protect against the neglect by the government of others Who are sadly in need. We think this is a matter of priority, and the hon. member who moved the six-months hoist did so in order to. make that protest and to emphasize it, although we shall not delay the house in asking for another recorded vote. We shall simply ask that we be recorded "on division", because we think that is sufficient. We are making a protest against this because we consider there is a priority and that those who are really in need, the old age pensioners, and those who have to live on small incomes, should have had first consideration at the bandls of this parliament, and then we might have dealt with other salaries on another occasion. I repeat, it is a question of priority, and I wish, to make that plain as the reason why we shall vote against the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Mr. COLDWlEILL: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read1 the third time and passed.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 193, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have something to say about this. How difficult it is for members of parliament to take notice of the amendments that come from the senate. This bill has been printed since it was passed by the house, but without the senate amendments. We are precisely on the principle of these amendments. Speaking

Combines Investigation

to that, sir, I wish to praise the senate highly for the liberalism which is shown by the members of that house. Of course legislation cannot be perfect; but tolerance and justice exist in the senate, and it should be taught to those in the various departments who draft the legislation. The amendments which come from the senate are fine; they have been drafted in a broad manner. One of them, to section 6, gives more importance to the work that can be performed by judges on the one hand and on the other hand to the fact that a twenty-four hour notice shall be served on the other party, or, if less than twenty-four hours, only with the approval of the judge. That is fair. I will not insist any more about it. It is time that the house acknowledged the progress which is made in the other chamber. For a time they seemed to be indifferent to legislation which was passed by us, but there is a revival of consciousness over there and it is a good sign. There are able men in that chamber who can do a lot for their country by improving the legislation that goes from this house to the other. Since the amendments are not contained in the bill I hope that in due course the Minister of Justice will be kind enough to summarize them and show that they are real progress.
Before resuming my seat I have something else to say. It is not because we say that progress can be made that one should be offended. We are in an age of perpetual recommencement. Laws should be carefully improved by us. I am sure that with the exhaustive work of the committee, and the tremendous amount of correspondence that members of parliament have to deal with, it has been impossible for most members to read and scrutinize all the legislation that has come before us. I hope that there will be less legislation in the future. We have had too much this year; it cannot be easily digested. We have to take it for granted that this is a good bill. Members do not have the time or the opportunity to form their own opinions about it. 'It will be the law of the land; it will be the law that will bind Canadian citizens after it is passed and sanctioned. I hope that in future sessions of parliament we shall have less legislation and that we shall work as members of parliament with regard to statutory legislation in the same manner as the solicitor general has been acting with regard to orders in council and regulations. Our work is not to pass more legislation; it is to prune legislation that we now have and make it understandable and practicable, make it the best possible for all concerned.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I should like to ask the minister whether he
is satisfied with the amendments which have been made by the other house. Unfortunately we have not had time to study them. I wonder whether one of them does not interfere with the effectiveness of the attempt to restrain practices which are against the best interests of people in trade. I refer to page 3, line 40, where the word "unduly" has been inserted. Section 30 reads:
In any case where use has been made of the exclusive rights and privileges conferred by one or more patents for invention or by one or more trade marks so as:
(a)	unduly to limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce; or
(b)	-	'
And this is the place where "unduly" has been inserted. The paragraph will now read:

unduly to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity.
It seems to me that the word "unduly" limits the commissioner to some extent. I am afraid of the word "unduly," because the use of patents in this country is a matter which must receive serious consideration of the combines investigation organization. A few days ago I had a protest from a retailer who wanted to import and sell certain types of radios. He found that he could neither import nor sell, neither could an organization in the United States with safety send into this country their product because they must pay certain dues to an organization in Canada known as Canadian Radio Patents Limited. For years I have known this to be the practice. On one occasion a local teacher bought in the United States a radio for a car and a little radio for his room, brought them into this country and declared them at the port of entry. Shortly afterwards he was notified by this organization that he must not use these radios in his car or in his dwelling without first of all paying an imposition to this organization. I want to be assured that this bill has in no respect been emasculated by the gentlemen of the other place.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I fully shared the hon. gentleman's concern when I went before the committee of the other place to discuss with them the terms of the bill. With respect to the word "unduly" which is inserted here, I do not think it makes any difference in the real meaning of the section. The word "unduly" would be quite unnecessary if we had only "to injure trade," because to injure trade is always undue. But it was argued there, and I could not deny it, that every patent does permit some restriction of trade. So having

Veterans Affairs
the word "restrain" they felt that the word "unduly" should precede it, that it should be only when one went beyond what was intended by parliament to be the proper use of a patent that he should be interfered with.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: That is a satisfactory explanation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I thought that was a good explanation. It was suggested that we might take out "restrain" and leave "injure." They did not ask that the word "unduly" qualify 'injure," because if there is injury, that is always undue; but the word "restrain" in itself without the word "unduly" appeared to them to contradict the very essence of a patent, which does permit the exercise of some restraint which is not undue and is not contrary to the intention of parliament.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to bill No. 332, respecting loans to veterans to assist in establishment of business or professionally.
He said:	The amendments are minor, factual and linguistic. There is no change at all in the principle of the bill.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Yesterday I had a letter from a returned soldier living on Dovercourt road, Toronto, who is engaged with his father in the business of making candies. He bitterly complains about not being able to get the sugar with which to carry on the manufacture of their products. Here is a returned soldier, with a good record, trying to earn a living, without asking the government for pension or support; all he wants is sugar. Has this bill anything to do with those entering business being able to get the commodities they require in order to carry on their business? It may be that the bill has nothing to do with that; I have not read it, but if not with whom should I take up the complaint of this young returned hero who is unable to obtain that which he requires in order to continue his business?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will take it up with me, I will take it up with the wartime prices and trade board.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I really think the minister is asking us to accept something we have not seen. I have nothing before me in regard to these amendments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are in Votes and Proceedings.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: But Votes and Proceedings have just come in.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are in the Votes and Proceedings of last Thursday, at page 706.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Then it is my fault I have not seen them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure my hon. friend that the amendments are very minor and of no consequence in regard to the principle of the bill.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: If that is so, I confess it is my own fault.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is one thing that has surprised me lately; that is, the abandonment of the policy of registration. Now we have a bill for vocational purposes. What is essential is to know the inclination of everyone. I am all in favour of an amnesty for the N.R.M.A. men, but at the same time I wonder why we abandoned the policy of registration, which is necessary if we are to adopt any vocational policy. It would have been very easy to learn from every boy at the time of discharge what was his inclination.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, what has national registration to do with business and professional loans for soldiers?


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly; it is for soldiers.


William Ross Macdonald: This all goes to show that when the rules of the house are departed from there is some confusion. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) was allowed to ask a question with regard to sugar, which had nothing to do with the bill, and an answer was given. Now the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) desires to ask further questions which in my opinion do not refer to the bill any more than the previous question did. In all fairness, however, since the hon. member for Davenport was permitted to make a brief statement, the hon. member for Temiscouata should be given the same privilege. He always abides by the rules, and I think he should be allowed to do this.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, I dk>
not want to protest against your ruling at all, but this bill has to do with the establishment, in business or professionally, of the veterans. This is a vocation, and it goes along with the bill dealing with vocational training. What I say is that there are simple ways to do
Industrial Relations

things, but those wiho organize the legislation never think of the simple ways. They always take the hard way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. The only matter before this house is, does this house concur in the specific amendments made in another place to a bill already adopted by this house, both in principle and in detail.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking about the principle of those amendments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not suppose my hon. friend has even seen them.


Jean-François Pouliot: They must exist, and if so they exist in virtue of a principle; and I am speaking to that principle.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is not a single amendment coming from the other place that affects the principle of this bill in the least.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then why do they come before the house at all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are just improvements in draftsmanship.


William Ross Macdonald: The only question before the house for consideration is concurrence in certain amendments made to this bill in the other place, and discussion can be allowed only with respect to 'those amendments. Probably I was remiss in my doty when I did not call the hon. member for Davenport to order, and hiom. members will see the difficult position in which I am now placed as a result. May I ask the hon. member for Tem'iscouata at this time just to discuss only the amendments made by the senate?
Mr. 'POULIOT: I want you to understand, sir, that I am not trying to put up a blockade. I am here to simplify things, to make suggestions to that effect. Why should fifty or sixty members of the House of Commons be kept here to look after certain clerical changes in the drafting of a bill? That shiould be done by the clerks of the senate and the house at a joint conference on. these matters. These amendments should never come before us if they do not change the meaning of the legislation. Doctor Beauchesne and Mir. Moyer could get together and look after this; why should sixty members of the House of Commons hlave to listen to that and why should you, sir, be placed in the position of having to read that Stuff to the house when it is purely a clerical matter?
Mbtian agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.
fMr. Pouliot.]



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
PRESENTATION OP SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE	.
The house having reverted to the order: Presenting reports by standing and select committees:
Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) presented the second report of the committee on industrial relations, as follows:
Pursuant to the following order of reference dated 16th July, 1946, namely,
That the said committee be directed and empowered to investigate, immediately, all issues connected with and appertaining to the present industrial unrest in Canada, with power to call and examine witnesses under oath, and with power to call for persons, papers and records and take all essential evidence, and to report their findings and conclusions to the house;
And that the said committee be empowered to sit while the house is sitting, and that the said committee be further empowered to employ counsel to assist them in their deliberations,
your committee immediately commenced its sittings, and held forty-eight meetings as the exigencies of the session permitted.
It was apparent to your committee that the present industrial unrest in Canada creates a condition of emergency necessitating the immediate investigation of all issues connected with and appertaining thereto.
An opportunity was thus afforded for the first time for labour and management to present to a committee of parliament such statements as the terms of your order of reference required and such are on record.
In addition your committee heard evidence from responsible officials of the wartime prices and trade board, the national war labour board and the minister and other officials of the Department of Labour, as well as the acting Minister of Finance.
The following witnesses testified before the committee, namely,
C. H. Millard, Canadian national director, United Steelworkers of America,
H.	G. Hilton, president, the Steel Company of Canada Limited, Hamilton, Ontario.
Gordon MacMillan, director, Algoma Steel Corporation, Limited, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Clement Anson, general manager. Sydney steel plant division, Dominion Steel & Coal Corporation, Sydney, Nova Scotia.
The Honourable Mr. Justice W. D. Roach. Donald Gordon, chairman, wartime prices and trade board, Ottawa, Ontario.
C. A. L. Murchison, alternate chairman, national war labour board, Ottawa, Ontario.
Arthur MacNamara, deputy Minister of Labour, Ottawa, Ontario.
A. J. Brown, vice-chairman, wartime labour relations board, Ottawa, Ontario.
M. M. MacLean, director of industrial relations, Department of Labour, Ottawa. Ontario.
Honourable D. C. Abbott, acting Minister of Finance, Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. Pat Conroy, chairman of the wage coordinating committee of the Canadian congress of labour.

Supply-Transport
Honourable Humphrey Mitchell, Minister of Labour, Ottawa, Ontario.
Joseph MacKenzie, United Rubber Workers of America.
George Burt, director, region 7 (UAW-CIO), Windsor, Ontario.
C. S. Jackson, Canadian president, United Electrical Workers of America, Toronto, Ontario.
This is the first time that all these points of view could be placed before a committee of parliament and the Canadian people.
The committee appointed L. W. Brockington, K.C., as mediator to discuss their respective points of view with the companies and the union. Mr. Brockington reported that while he had succeeded in meeting with the parties jointly and while further oilers were made by the parties nevertheless a settlement of the steel strike was not effected.
Your committee, in the light of the evidence heard makes the following recommendations:
1.	(a) That the proposed dominion-provincial labour conference be called at the earliest possible moment to draft a labour code within the limits of the Canadian constitution and with a view to establishing machinery for the prevention of dislocations in industry';
(b)	That in the interval much closer contact
be established between the wartime prices and trade board and the regional and national war labour boards.	.
(c)	That matters coming before the regional and national war labour boards be handled expeditiously.
2.	Your committee is convinced that continued price control is only possible with a reasonable measure of wage control.
3.	Your committee recommends that a measure of union security should follow certification.
4.	Law being the basis of our society, your committee condemns:
(a)	the policy adopted by some unions and some employers of disregarding the legal machinery provided for adjusting wages and settling disputes;
(b)	breaches of the law of Canada by the use of physical force or otherwise either by employer or union.
5.	Your committee recommends that the law of picketing be studied_ with a view to its modernization and clarification and for the purpose of making it more effective for the protection of the rights of all elements in the community.
6.	Your committee recommends that the Minister of Labour may. at the request of either party to an industrial dispute, and if he deems fit, either before or after a strike is in progress, direct that a strike vote be taken under government supervision to determine the wishes of the men affected as to whether a strike will take place or otherwise.
7.	Your committee recommends that the controllers appointed by order in council P.C. 2901 be instructed to implement the terms of such order with such modifications as the government may determine.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before your committee as well as the exhibits filed is appended.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Maurice Lalonde,
Chairman.
Mr. GRAYDON; I should like to ask the hon. member for Labelle, the chairman of the
industrial relations committee, if it is his intention to move concurrence in the report he has just tabled and, if so, when will that be done.
Mr. LALONDE:: I intend to move concurrence in the report on Monday next.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): If I might be permitted to revert to motions I should like to move:
That standing order 6 be suspended this day and that the house continue to sit after six o'clock p.m. until 7 o'clock p.m.
I have consulted with the leaders of the various parties and groups in the house and they are all in agreement with this motion.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Railway service-
J,18. Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-construction and improvement of terminal facilities-capital (estimated cost $4,500,000, amount required for 1946-47), $2,350,000.
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I should like to clear up some questions that were asked yesterday. The hon. member for Charlotte referred to a deduction that had been made from the salary of a lighthouse keeper in his constituency, whose name he gave. A thorough search has been made in connection with the matter brought up by the hon. member concerning deduc->
tions at Navy island bar light station, and no record can be found nor any explanation offered for the assertion that a deduction was made of $15 per month for rent. The present lightkeeper is now on retiring leave. I can give details of his salary, but I would prefer not to put them on Hansard. These details are clearly indicative that no charge or deduction has been made for rent. If the hon. member desires to see them, they are available.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg asked a question about the construction of a radio beacon at Cross island. The reply with reference to the lighthouse establishment at Fort Point, Liverpool harbour, is that the light is functioning as usual but the lighthouse structure is being encroached upon by erosion. The immediate site is owned by the Department of Transport, and the adjacent property,
Supply-Transport

a park, is understood to be municipally owned. Negotiations have taken place with the parks branch, Department of Mines and Resources, to ascertain if they were disposed to spend any money in protecting this site, and a negative reply was received.
The arresting of erosion is always expensive and somewhat doubtful as to final results. A thorough study is being made of the situation and of the possibility of a smaller and more modern establishment being erected, somewhat in from the waterfront, is being considered.
The hon. member for Cumberland asked a question about the light at Pugwash. The answer is that at Pugwash harbour there are two ranges and two lights in operation, one east of the harbour at Steven Point, and one west of the harbour at Bigelow. There is no change at Steven Point. At Bigelow the back light was destroyed by fire on August 11, 1942, and a temporary pole light was installed on August 15, 1942. The permanent establishment became effective in May, 1943. There is no change. The same lights are in effect as were in use in pre-war days.
I would like to clarify a reply that I made to a question asked by the hon. member for St. John-Albert. I told him last evening that the sum of $236,300 had been the cost of operating ice breakers on the St. Lawrence last year. That is true, but the two vessels, the Lapointe and the MacLean, are used for other purposes as well as ice breaking, and the amount that I gave was the total amount for ice-breaking and the other work performed by the Lapointe and the MacLean. I am informed that the actual cost of ice-breaking performed by the Lapointe and the MacLean in the St. Lawrence in the fiscal year 1945-46 ,was $108,000.


Mr. STIRLING:: May I be permitted to ask a question on a railway matter under this item?-I do not know where else to ask it. It is based on a report recently published by the British Columbia government with regard to the inquiry made by the committee on resources. It deals with the probable extension of the Pacific Great Eastern from Quesnel to Hudson Hope. The minister is well' aware of the possibilities of settlement which will result from the continuation of that road. Can the minister say whether the federal government would be ready to cooperate with the government of British Columbia to assist in making available the finances .necessary for the extension of this railway? The minister will remember that it has been the subject of consideration by the two transportation companies, by the provincial government and

by the dominion government in years past, and it would really seem as if there was a prospect of some progress being made. In view of the desire for the settlement of returned men on suitable locations and with the opportunities which will be needed for the settlement of immigrants when they begin to come, it is most desirable that assistance be given to this prospect if it be possible.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman will remember that I went into this matter at length on a resolution moved by the hon. member for Cariboo. I think the only way in which I can answer the question is this. When the legislature of British Columbia asked this government to appoint representatives on a committee to study this question, we consented on certain conditions. The committee came to certain conclusions, presented in the report, one of which was that until the traffic has increased to considerably more than it is at present-I believe 1,000,0000 tons per annum was the requirement^-there would be no reason for extending the Pacific Great Eastern north to Hudson Hope.


Grote Stirling: The traffic on the existing line only?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, together with population. The report deals with that. There are several conclusions in the report, which I dealt with on the resolution of the hon. member for Cariboo. Until the position with respect to that report is clarified I can see no opportunity for cooperating with the British Columbia government. There has been no demand for it, but if there were I can assure my hon. friend that it would be given very serious consideration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I concur in what was suggested by the hon. member for Yale. May I ask, if the railway were run north, where would it run to beyond Hudson Hope? Is it proposed to connect up with the railroad that is projected west of Peace river, past Hudson Hope and on to the west? As to the railway running north along the line mentioned by the hon. member for Yale, there is an excellent position at Hudson Hope for a bridge, one of the very best sites on the whole Peace river. At that point the river is at its narrowest and the banks are very high, about 900 feet, and more or less perpendicular. The Hudson Hope rapids are just at that point.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend will remember that the proposal is to join the projection of the Pacific Great Eastern northerly from Prince George with the Northern Alberta railways. Several routes have been suggested in the reports tabled in this house

Supply-Transport
by previous governments. The report made by the committee on resources set up by British Columbia in conjunction with the two railways and the federal government's reports have suggested alternative routes. At the time of the discussion of the resolution, moved by the hon. member for Cariboo, I commented fully on these. I have not now before me the plan and reports such as I had then. All I can say to my hon. friend is that there were alternative routes. I am not prepared to go into them in detail now, as I was on, the resolution, but I can say that one of the alternative routes was perhaps the best from the point of view of physiography and] of -cost.


Mr. IRVINE:: I am glad to hear that the minister is prepared to give the matter serious consideration if the provincial government approaches the dominion government with respect to extending the railway into Peace River. That is something. But I disagree sharply with the minister's statement that this cannot be done until traffic has increased.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt my hon. friend to say that that was not the minister's statement. I was referring to a conclusion in the report of the committee, which is a different thing.


William Irvine: I do not care who made the report. It is a piece of absurdity to say that the line cannot be built until traffic has increased; because how can traffic increase on something that does not exist? The only route they have now is to climb over the mountains and carry the freight on their backs, which they are doing. This railway starts nowhere and ends nowhere, as I said before. It leaves a gap between it and Vancouver and another gap between Vancouver and Peace river. How in heaven's name can traffic increase on a thing like that?


Mr. JACKMAN:: Item 417, Hudson Bay railway, had not been passed last evening when we adjourned. The first question I should like answered is this. In the 1945-46 comparative estimate an appropriation of S500,000 was made to cover the deficit, and yet the loss experienced in 1944-45, the fiscal year of the railway which as far as I know coincides with the government fiscal year, amounts to $564,940. May I ask where the difference came from?


Lionel Chevrier: For the year 1945-46 the deficit is $500,000, and for this year it is 1525,000.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The actual deficit, according to the statement given to the committee, was $564,940, yet the appropriation last year was $500,000. How are these two items reconciled?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that that is accounted for by a further supplementary estimate.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Was that passed, or are we to have it yet?


Lionel Chevrier: I am further informed that the deficit for 1945-46 is $499,669, and for the year 1944-45 it was $564,940.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The appropriation, according to the comparative estimates, is only $500,000 to cover the deficit, yet actually it was $564,000. Where does the sixty-four thousand come from?


Lionel Chevrier: By a further supplementary estimate.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is that passed, or is it to be passed yet?


Lionel Chevrier: It has passed.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Will the minister give t'he committee an opinion as 'to the fu'tiure of this railway, which is running a deficit of over half a million dollars on operating account, giving no return whatever on the capital invested in it or on the capital invested in the port facilities plus the additional amounts which have to be appropriated from time to time to keep these facilities up to the proper standard of service?


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Would the hon. member suggest abandoning the line?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Perhaps the hon. member would like to give .it to somebody. I do not knew of anybody wiho wants it, but I shall be very glad to hear bis suggestions later on if the minister does mot satisfy the committee. This railway charges no depreciation whatever on a capital investment which runs up in the neighbourhood of $50 million. As came out in the hearings a year ago, the Canadian National which manages this for the government, stated that the amounts appropriated to keep the capital investment in running order would be larger from year to year, because the railway is getting a little older and parts of it are wearing out and have to be replaced, which was not the case when it was a new railway; so we may look forward to increasing deficits unless there is an increase of revenue to offset this exltra expense. W'hat is the government spending in connection with, this railway? Is it true that it has never been given a fair trial, as some hon. members have suggested on previous occasions, or is it now going to get enough wheat traffic or other traffic to establish whether it is an enterprise worth, continuing; or, perhaps are there other reasons besides
Supply-Transport

the commercial reasons why it should be continued1? Many of my constituents who find themselves, if single, in the $750 tax bracket, or if married, in the $1,500 class, regret very mUdh to see $525,000 being appropriated for the maintenance of this railway, which apparently is not providing sufficient service to the people of Canada, pianticuHarly the people of western Canadla, to justify its use. I understand that any grain which goes up to Churchill must be kept 'there, because of the period of the year in which the crops come in, until the next season, which means at least nine months' storage, and I understand the cost of a year's storage is about nine cents a bushel. While that may not be a serious impediment, because a lot of our grain is kept over from year to year, nevertheless the grain cannot be shipped out from Churchill when it it desired on the world, market, except during the very short navigation season. When the government is handling the grain-a large part of our grain is handled by wheat pools, who apparently were desirous of having this railway in the first place-why is it they do not direct more grain shipments over this line in order to prove Whether ,or not it has an economic justification? In other words I want to know whether the railway has ever been given a chance, and if not, whose fault it is; and will it be given a chance, or is it just going to be saddled on the Canadian taxpayer for an indefinite period? I happened to notice in the Globe and Mail this morning an editorial entitled "New Hope for an Old Problem." I quote therefrom "On the other hand, only last winter the federal Department of Transport reported most unfavourably on Churchill"-I presume as a port which could be used for a sufficient length of time during the year when it is free from ice to make it pay its way. If the minister can give the committee some information as to the future of this railway, or what we are going to do about it in the way of giving it a chance, it will be very welcome to the people of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman has said that there is no charge for depreciation on the Hudson Bay railway; neither is there any charge for interest. That has been the custom and the practice with reference to this partic-lar agency of the federal government; it is not a new thing not to charge up interest or iepreciation.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is not important; it is simply a question-


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the hon. gentleman asked the question and I am going to reply to him. The hon. gentleman seeks to create the impression in this house that the deficits in
IMr. Jackman.]
connection with the Hudson Bay railway are so huge that if they were discontinued we would get relief from taxation. My hon. friend might well speak of other operations which result in deficits. There is not only the ' railway to the Hudson >bay or the elevator at the port of Churchill; there are other agencies under federal jurisdiction which show budgetary deficits. It is unfortunate * that they cannot be made to pay. I hope that some time it will be possible for us to devise ways and means whereby surpluses instead of deficits will be forthcoming on the Hudson Bay railway.
My hon. friend has asked a question on the present position and the policy in that connection. He asked the very same question last year. He asked too that this whole matter De submitted to the committee on, railways and shipping, although it had not been the practice to do that in the past. At his request I suggested that the matter be referred to the committee on railways and shipping, and there was an opportunity of discussing it fully. But my recollection is that he asked very few questions on it. I have, however, obtained a report from the research and development branch of the Canadian National Railways concerning the operation of the Hudson Bay railway, and I would refer to it in part. The report was made by Mr. S. W. Fairweather, vice-president of research and development, Canadian National Railways. He says in part that he has taken occasion to go into this matter even to the extent of limiting train service to the summer months, and if that were done it would be possible to reduce the deficit by some $175,000 a year. But to accomplish this result would be to handicap seriously the commercial development which has taken place along the line. In the report he goes on to say that mining development has, since the end of the war, taken on a new impetus in the area. He also refers to the cutting of pulpwood along the Hudson Bay railway as a new venture which he thinks will be profitable, and he concludes his report by stating in part:
I have reached the conclusion that present and prospective developments on the first two subdivisions, namely, from The Pas to Gillam. a distance of 326 miles, are such as to justify the continuance of the present train service and *when developments in the Herb lake area take place, which are planned for this year, train service on the first subdivision from The Pas to Webowden, will likely have to be increased, so that it would not be true economy to reduce the services at the present time, even though they are being operated at a loss. I am not so dear as to the justification for continuing the winter service to Churchill. The economy which might be effected by limiting the service beyond Gillam

Supply-Transport
during the winter months might be of the order of $50,000 per year, but could hardly exceed that figure. Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the Hudson Bay railway is being operated with a minimum of expenditure consistent with the objective of furnishing enough transportation to permit of the development of the natural resources tributary to it. With the development of a mine or mines in the Herb lake area there should be some improvement in operating results.
I may say to my hon. friend, though he knows it, that the Hudson Bay railway is operated by the Canadian National Railways, and they have been doing a pretty fair job. In fact, I do not believe that any other agency could operate it as inexpensively as does the Canadian National Railways. In view of the report made by Mr. Fairweather, I do not think it would be the intention of the government to discontinue that service.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask the minister what was contained in 'the report of his own department which this editorial in the Globe and Mail said reported most unfavourably on Churchill? I presume the reference was to ice conditions in Hudson bay.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of any unfavourable report made by the Department of Transport on the Hudson Bay railway.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Hudson Bay railway would pay if at least ten million bushels of wheat were shipped to that port yearly. All the reports indicate that, and that was the information I got from the folks who operate the railway at The Pas. I found them efficient men, and the road-bed itself is one of the best I have been over. It is well built, it has excellent rails, and apparently any number of sidings to allow for a considerable movement of wheat. I should imagine that one programme the minister might follow would be to promote the shipping of at least ten to twenty million bushels of wheat a year from the west, as they are always asking, to Churchill. The port is not open in the winter, but there is a very large elevator there, one of the finest in America, built by the Minister of Reconstruction, and I believe it is capable of holding two million or more bushels. It could be filled in the fall of the year awaiting transportation opening some time, I presume, in July or August. In the meantime, wheat stored on the prairies could be sent down in trainloads to Churchill so that the moment the elevator was empty it could be filled again. It could be filled many times until in the shipping season there would be from ten to twenty million bushels shipped. I believe, from all I can hear, that the troubles of the country in regard to putting up for a yearly deficit would then be over. The wheat shipped by 63260-314
that route would mean, I am told, a difference of six cents a bushel to somebody-I do not know to whom, but to somebody or some organization. I am convinced it is a worthwhile programme for the minister to follow, to encourage the shipment of as much wheat as possible over the Hudson Bay railway.


Lionel Chevrier: I should state in fairness to the national harbours board that, immediately following the last session of parliament, its officers made the strongest representations to the wheat board along the line suggested by my hon. friend. In fact the representations made by the national harbours board to the wheat board were renewed on many occasions, but for reasons given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce it was not found possible to direct towards Churchill the wheat that we were anxious to have in our elevators.


Mr. MOORE:: I wish to say a few words in connection with item 417, dealing with the Hudson Bay railway, which runs through a corner of my constituency. Naturally I am interested in its development. I was particularly interested in what the minister had to say with respect to the importance of the railway to the development of mining in that part of northern Manitoba. That was so well dealt with that I shall not labour the point. However, the farmers in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan are particularly interested in the development of the Hudson Bay route, since the use of it would facilitate the marketing of Canadian grain and save the farmers of the west a great deal of money. The member for Rosedale said that the storing of grain at Churchill would cost about ten cents a bushel; that is to say, it had to be stored during the winter months to the next shipping season. That is quite true, but under normal conditions in Canada we have to store wheat in the central elevators at the head of the lakes, at Montreal and Halifax, so that that argument, that storing the grain at Churchill would cost ten cents a bushel, is out, because the grain has to be stored in the other elevators as well.
With respect to the operation of the railway, I note the item states that there is a loss of $525,000 per annum. I think we should go back to the war years if we wish to find out whether it is possible for this railway to be operated at a profit. If we review the figures with respect to what was done on that railway during the war, we must come to the conclusion that it can be operated at a profit. During the years 1942-43, the Americans operated a large air base at Churchill and this was supplied by

Supply-Transport

the Hudson Bay railway. During these two years the Hudson Bay railway did make a profit. I checked the figures in connection with the profit and I found that nine thousand carloads of freight were transported over the road. This additional freight enabled the railroad to operate at a surplus.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Ten million bushels of wheat a year would do that.


Ronald Stewart Moore: If nine thousand carloads of freight were to be transported to Churchill in the form of wheat it would amount to some 12,250,000 bushels. If 9,000 carloads of ordinary freight would pay for the operation of the railroad for one year, I take it for granted that the same quantity of wheat would1 also pay for its operation.
According to the Minister of Reconstruction, who spoke on this subject last year, the facilities at Churchill were built to handle a large quantity of wheat in a short space of time. He also told us that it would be possible to handle approximately twenty million bushels of wheat during the shipping season, which at the present time is estimated to be about ten weeks. It would require something like 15,000 cars to transport twenty million bushels of wheat. Therefore I take it if we operated this road to its fullest extent during the season which the government has indicated it could be operated, it could be operated at a profit.
I should also like to say a word or two about the Churchill route. I notice it is commonly referred to as a route which is not proven. It is not certain how long it can operate. This year six vessels of the Dalgliesh Steamship Company, which is located at Newcastle-on-Tyne, England, are coming to Churchill. I wrote to the Dalgliesh Steamship Company and asked them for information with regard to use of the Churchill route. I asked them a specific question with respect to the use of radar on their ships, and this is their reply:
The radar sets used by the services are not perfect for the use of the merchant navy-as you can imagine, they were required largely for dealing with enemy action and not primarily for navigating a ship. There have been very few radar sets fitted on tramp vessels so far. We ourselves are now fitting one to one of our vessels which we hope will prove satisfactory and give us some idea of the scope of the help which will be afforded to our crews.
It may be possible to get one of the vessels proceeding to Churchill this year fitted with radar, which would give us some idea of the scope of the help provided.
I would ask hon. members to listen to this:
I am quite certain that with these devices fitted we can make the passage to the Hudson Bay as easy navigationally as the passage up the St. Lawrence.
[Mr. Moored
This letter came to me under date of June 17 this year.
I should now like to refer to the future of the country through which this railroad runs. It runs through a large mineralized area stretching from just north of the Pas to Ilford. Its possibilities cannot be overestimated; in fact it is generally conceded by geologists, who are in a position to know of the minerals which exist in this area, that so far few of them have been developed. Pulypwood and lumbering operations are also carried on, and these can be extended.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And millions and millions of pit props.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I should like to refer to the ' shortage of coal in Canada. At the present time vessels which come to Churchill are apt to be ballasted with sea water. Is it not possible to have vessels which will be coming there in the near future loaded with coal, if it is possible to get it in England, and transport it to Canada to help relieve the serious coal shortage which now exists?


Lionel Chevrier: May I say one word in connection with a statement made a moment ago that the storage at the Churchill elevators costs from eight to nine cents a bushel. I have not at hand the report of the national harbours board-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not say anything like that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The hon. member for Rosedale did.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I said about three-quarters of a cent a month, or a little less than nine cents a year.


Lionel Chevrier: The matter is clearly set out in the report of the national harbours board, which is not before me at the moment. The report would indicate that the storage on about 1,800,000 bushels of wheat for the year is more in the neighbourhood of about 2-6 cents a bushel than eight or nine cents, which makes a considerable difference.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Item 447 has been carried. The hon. member for Rosedale asked permission to refer to it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No; according to my recollection, and the report in Hansard, item 417 was not carried last night.'


William Henry Golding: Item 417 was carried.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was on my feet last night; it certainly was not carried last night.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It was not carried.

Supply-Transport


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I do not wish to delay the committee much longer. I think the serious comments made by the hon. member for Rosedale do not help to create better feeling in this country. I am glad that his colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, took part in the discussion. I am sorry that he was not present to hear the comments of the hon. member for Rosedale, or he would have spoken a little more emphatically. I am sorry the leader of the official opposition was not here, or he too would wish to say something about the disparaging remarks of the hon. member for Rosedale.


Gordon Graydon: Your leader is not here.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: On a point of privilege, I said nothing disparaging about the Hudson Bay railway. What I asked for was information. I asked about the government's attitude toward the statement made last session by the hon. member for Regina City, who asked if this railway had been given a fair trial. That was what I was asking the minister.


William Henry Golding: I should like to call the attention to the fact that item 417 is carried and was recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, which is the official record of our proceedings. Hansard may not record it, but it is recorded here, and as hon. members will see it is also recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order, these things often crop up in our discussions. I realize that it is difficult for the chairman and the members of the committee always to agree on what has been carried in the great rush and pressure of business towards the end of the session. My recollection is that item 417 was not carried last night. I know quite well that the chairman and the assistant clerk have records to the contrary. I do not wish to put my word against the word of other hon. members. Either one of us may be right. In view of the obvious confusion in connection with it I suggest that it would not be right to shut ofi discussion on the item at this time. Perhaps with the consent of the committee the chairman will allow us to discuss the item.


William Henry Golding: I should like to say to the committee that it is the duty of the chairman to call the attention of the committee to the fact that an item is carried when a further lengthy discussion takes place. However, I believe the committee is anxious to continue discussing this particular item and that I should permit whatever discussion is desired.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At page 4962 of Hansard I find the following: "Item stands." 63260-314*


William Henry Golding: That is not the official record.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I submit that when the Hansard reporters and members of the committee heard "Item stands" at eleven o'clock last night, certainly it was not clear that it was carried. Hansard also records that the hon. member for Rosedale asked that the item stand.


William Henry Golding: Order. If hon. members wish to continue to discuss the item I shall permit it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am very glad the hon. member for Rosedale has made his position clear, and that he did not wish his remarks this afternoon to be interpreted as I had understood them. The people I represent in parliament still feel that this route has not received the consideration it deserves. For some years I have lived at Hudson Bay Junction, which is 594 miles from Churchill. By rail we are 832 miles from Port Arthur, at the head of the lakes, and we have always found it difficult to understand why more of our grain is not moved over this more direct route. The distance from Churchill to Liverpool is approximately the same as the distance from Montreal to Liverpool; but now, at the beginning of the shipping season at Churchill, it is hard for us to understand why the elevator was not filled.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was filled to overflowing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My understanding is that it was not filled when the boats went in there. Perhaps the minister can put us straight on that; my information is that it was not full. Certainly there has not been much grain moving to Churchill in the past few weeks; and considering the very serious shortage of food in Europe and the shortage of box cars for use at harvest time I cannot understand why arrangements were not made to use these terminal facilities to capacity and have the railway trains moving the grain that is available on the prairies up to that point. On several occasions it has been demonstrated that grain could be moved in there very quickly and loaded on ships in the minimum of time. In view of the fact that the route did not have a fair chance during the war I think people were quite justified in expecting that it would be used to capacity this year. Would the minister indicate whether the elevator was full at the beginning of the season?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is cer-'tainly persistent in asking that question. However, I shall try to answer it satisfactorily. I told the hon. member for Davenport that the national harbours board had made very
Supply-Transport

strong representations to the wheat board in connection with the movement of grain through Churchill. The wheat board have taken the position that they will move new crop wheat ito Churchill if sufficient tonnage is available to take it to its overseas destination prior to the close of navigation this year; and as I shall indicate in a moment there is sufficient shipping in sight to move the grain at present in storage at Churchill. But because of the very short supply situation it would be impossible to move further wheat to Churchill from the 1945 crop, and it is really doubtful if supplies from the 1946 crop could be moved in time to be available for shipment, that is if tonnage were available. I think hon. gentlemen will agree that if a substantial stock of wheat from the new crop were moved to Churchill and had to be housed there until August of next year, when the navigation season opens, there might be considerable criticism in view of the world demand for all possible grain to be shipped at the earliest possible moment.
The elevator capacity at Churchill is 2,200,000 bushels, and the present stores are indicated as 1,800,000 bushels. Some six ships have been made available to take out this wheat. I have before me the schedule of vessels for grain loadings at Churchill. One of these ships, the Mount Revelstoke Park, arrived on August 10 and departed on August 15, carrying 335,000 bushels of wheat. The Hillcrest Park arrived on the 12th, the Essex Trader on the 13th, the Rocky Mountain Park on the 15th, and two others, the Whiteshell Park and the Bellwood Park, have not yet arrived but are expected on the 19th and 21st respectively. These ships have a carrying capacity of 8,500 tons, and it is expected that this shipping will take care of the grain now in the elevator.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to add a further word, because this is a very important subject. The Minister of Reconstruction is in the chamber, and he will bear out what I have to say. The Minister of Transport told us the elevator at Churchill had only about 1,800,000 bushels, and perhaps that is correct at the present time. When I was there it was full to overflowing. I was told by the man in charge that it had something over 2,000,000 bushels at that time, but that was five years ago. No wheat has moved there in five years, however, because it could not get out, owing to war.


Lionel Chevrier: That is quite correct.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Some was shipped to the United States.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: By boat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, I suppose they could do that. The Minister of Reconstruction built one of the finest elevators in the world there, and he knows the unloading capacity.
I have just forgotten it; I believe it is 60 carloads an hour, though it may be more and perhaps I should not quote a figure at all when I am not sure. In any case I believe we have at Churchill the very fastest loading and unloading equipment in the world to-day. I wonder if the Minister of Reconstruction himself believes that conditions would warrant the construction of one or two more elevators of this kind at Churchill, so that when wheat could be transported from the prairies to Churchill in the oil season the elevators couid be filled and made ready for shipment in July or August, when the boats returned. In that way I believe the port would be able to handle something between ten and twenty million bushels of wheat a year. I spent three or four days there and made very exhaustive inquiries and from what I heard I believe that could be done. If w'e oould ship ten to twenty million bushels of wheat a season from the prairies through the port of Churchill, with the proper elevator facilities there, the whole problem of deficits on the railway would be solved.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I am deeply interested in this question. The people surrounding the city I represent in this house are vitally concerned with the success of the Hudson Bay railway and the Churchill route. Furthermore, in spite of repeated attacks upon it made by certain interests and the representatives of those interests in this country, we believe ultimately this route will be successful. I understand there is a chance that some time in the future the western governments will see to it that the route becomes a success, if no one else will undertake to do so. However, that is by the way.
When the minister was on his feet he said he thought the six ships at present at Churchill or en route there would take care of the wheat now in that elevator. I quite agree with that statement, and I am just afraid of something else m that connection. Three days ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it was true that there was a shortage of 100,000 bushels of wheat at this port which was required to fill to capacity the six ships in question. The minister said he thought that information was incorrect, but that he would look into it. Since that , time I have heard nothing from the minister, but I have been talking to the officials of his department and I cannot get any very clear statement on that point. Has the Minister of Transport any information in that regard? Before he answers that question may I say

Supply-Transport
that the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce say they have been in communication with the shipping authorities, I believe with headquarters at Montreal, and with the wheat board, having its headquarters at Winnipeg, but as yet they have not been able to answer my question, whether it is a fact that one of these six ships brought to Churchill at such cost will have to go out again with a partial cargo. The members of the Hudson bay route association are vitally concerned that that should not happen. T.he Hudson Bay route has received many black eyes and they are anxious that it should not receive any more. We are anxious that the wheat should be there. If it is not there, it should be found immediately so that this ship may go out with a full cargo. Can the minister give any further information?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I said in answer to the hon. member for Mackenzie, namely, that the six ships whose names I gave had a sufficient tonnage to take out the 1,800,000 bushels of wheat. I am sure the hon. member will realize that the national harbours board is interested because of the revenue received from storage, but the movement of grain and wheat and the like is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. McLURE:: There are many hon. members in this house who have made trips to Prince Edward Island and who know under what conditions they have to travel across to that island even when they are at their best. I should like the minister to give a report with regard to the construction and improvement of the terminals for which provision is being made in item 418. I am sure if these terminals are improved it will be an encouragement to the people who travel there and who we hope will come again.


Lionel Chevrier: The construction of a new oar ferry will of necessity mean the providing of additional facilities at the terminals, and the estimate of the cost at Borden and Tormentine will be in the neighbourhood of $2,350,000 for the fiscal year 1946-47. The estimated cost of the construction of both terminals is $5,458,000. As far as the present position at Tormentine is concerned I can tell my bon. friend that tenders have been called by the Canadian National Railways. While *e contract has not been awarded, the Canadian National Railways are negotiating with the Canadian Dredge and Dock Company Limited, the lowest bidder, and I presume they will enter into a contract with them in due course. So far as Borden is concerned, tenders were called for but there were no
bidders. It is proposed to readvertise the work on a different basis in the hope that a bidder for the work can be obtained.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Would that amount include the dredging?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, all the dredging.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
J)19. To provide for the construction of an icebreaker-railway car-highway vehicle-passenger ferry vessel for the Prince Edward Island car ferry service, estimated to cost $5,000,000. Amount required for 1946-47 (revote $598,180) -capital, $2,000,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This vote is to provide for the construction of an icebreaker and so on at an estimated cost of $5,000,000. The estimates for 1943 contained an item of $3,000,000 but very little work was done in that year. The money was revoted in 1944, when there was an item of $2,400,000 of which $2,300,000 was a revote. In 1945-46 there was a vote of $2,342,500, and now in 1946-47 we have item 419 for $2,000,000, which includes a revote of $598,180.
The expenditures to date have been $700,000 in 1944, $1,525,000 in 1945, and now we have a vote of $2,000,000 in 1946-47. Even if this money is all spent before the end of the year, according to the estimated cost of this ship it will be only three-quarters constructed at that time. The people diown there are anxious to know when they can expect this ship to be completed) and in operation. It wtas definitely promised to us in 1945. Then we had another promise for September 1946. The latest promise was for December, but no year is specified.. While four months remain in 1946 during which considerable work could be done on this ship, I think it is safe to say that there is not one chance in a thousand of its being in service in 1946.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend, speaking in that vein, will certainly not hasten delivery.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not think I am any detriment to the progress of the work, because I have urged with all my power that it be continued. I will repeat that. From the information I have I do not believe there is one dhanice in a thousand that she will be in service in 1946, unless the days of miracles are not over. I would go further and say that I have doubts whether she will be in service in 1947. Perhaps I am a little pessimistic, but judging from the Way the work has been going on and from the reports received down there, I cannot see any hlope.
Supply'-Transport

I am mentioning this in the hope that the minister will endeavour to have those who have the contract put on miore men. I do not think they are held up for materials at the present time, or at least W'e have no information on that. The boat could have been built five years ago in the United States. When the SS. Charlottetown was lost in June, 1941, the United States had not yet declared war and there was plenty of opportunity to have this ship built in their shipyards. However, that has been lost to us and Prince Edward Island has been a greater sufferer thereby.
In dealing with this matter, I do not want to say anything that is unfair in any way. I simply wish to place before the minister the terrible conditions with regard to shipping in Prince Edward Island. Our farmers have already become very uneasy with regard to the shipments they expect to make this coming season. I hold in my hand a copy of a letter dated July 12, 1946, which was sent to the Prime Minister by the potato growers' association, drawing to his attention what they are looking for by way of having this ship completed for 1946, and among other things, they say, in conclusion:
We respectfully urge you, honourable sir, that you as head of all departments will see that every possible effort is made to have the new ferry reach us in time for the traffic of this coming winter.
There have been all kinds of representations made to the department, all urging the early completion of this ship.
Another thing that has tied up our transportation facilities and given our tourist business a black eye has been what I might call the neglect with regard to the repairs to the Prince Edward, a ship which has been in service all winter. We know that she had to be repaired, and after she had gone in for repairs we were furnished with an auxiliary ship at the beginning of the tourist season. Just when the tourists were starting to come in many of them could not get across the strait on time and had to sleep in their cars all night on the Tormentine side. The government of Prince Edward Island spends some $25,000 a year in advertising for tourist business, but any friends they make in that way are simply wiped off the map by the delays of the dominion government. The whole thing seems to be more or less of a muddle and we can get no satisfaction as to when we can depend on the new ship being in service.
May I draw to the attention of the committee the opinion of the premier of Prince 
Edward Island regarding this matter. In a speech in the local legislature in March last he said:
It seems to me that under the terms of confederation, when something has happened to interrupt our communication for which the dominion failed to make adequate provision, we have a claim against Canada for the loss sustained. The delay of even a day or two might bring up claims of thousands of dollars. I believe that we should claim from the dominion government, on account of delinquencies on their part for transportation across the straits, hundreds of thousands of dollars-it may be millions.	[DOT]
That is from the Liberal premier of our province. Our people in Prince Edward Island are most anxious to-day because the situation is so serious. Here we are with the expectation of shipping at least 9,000 to 10,000 cars of potatoes this fall. That is quite a lot to be carried over by the one steamer. Should we have to hold over some of that crop until the winter season and should the old ship happen to break down, look what a loss that would be to our farmers!
I might state further that, because of the hold-up this summer, the coal shortage has become almost desperate there; and with coal to come in, and the shortage of refrigerator cars for potatoes, we are going to have a real bottleneck in transportation in Prince Edward Island. The minister may think I am simply making complaints, but I am not making these representations by way of complaint at all. I simply wish to place before the committee and the minister how serious the transportation situation is there, in the hope of arousing his very best interest. I am sure that if he will look into the matter we shall have his support and that our shippers and our whole transportation system will benefit.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I just want to say that, even if this shortage of materials did exist, since 1943 many vessels have been launched by the same construction company, and possibly they have taken some of the material which we should have had for our ship.
With regard to the very kind invitation the minister extended to me to go to Sorel, I should have liked to go with the hon. members from his side of the house when they visited that city, but I did not know of it until they came back. They gave an optimistic report of the construction work; no doubt they had to keep whistling pretty well to keep up the spirits of the people down home, but I believe that if they would express
their conscientious beliefs on this matter they would have their doubts, as I have, that this cannot be completed in 1946, and if construction work is not pushed I doubt if she can be constructed in 1947. However, we have gone over this. I thank the minister for his very kind words with reference to our condition, and I should like to go oue step farther. He promised to come to our province last season; at least, he was so reported in the press.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I hope to go.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I know he has been busy. As one of the members for Prince Edward Island I invite him to come this season. He will need a holiday when this session is over; why cannot he spend a week or ten days with us, and we will try to make it so pleasurable for him that everything he has experienced here which may have been discourteous or disagreeable will be forgotten? I do not know whether I understood the minister to make the statement that the ship "won't be constructed if you talk that way." I do not know what kind of talk he meant, but I should like him to explain that.


Mr. GRANT:: Some hon. members think I should say something on this item. The hon. member for Fraser Valley was urging me to do so, but it was not my intention to say anything at all, for I wish to get home as speedily as possible.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: On the ferry?


Thomas Vincent Grant: I am very proud to see that the estimates contain two items of over $5,000,000 for a new car ferry and $4,500,000 for an extension of and repairs to the pier. Since the minister has said what I intended to say, I can be very brief. I would point out to the Tory member for Prince Edward Island that it comes with very bad grace from him to talk about transportation at the present time in this house, because he was here between 1930 and 1935, and I would say that during that period anything the farmers could sell for export could easily have been taken over to the mainland on a rowboat.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
420.	Strait of Canso-Surveys and investigations, $60,000.
Gordon Graydon: When I was over to Cape Breton island some time ago I was impressed, as I think everyone is who takes that trip across the strait of Canso, with the great lack of convenient accommodation and transportation from the mainland to Cape Breton. If my humble views, as one who comes from central Canada, may help
Supply-Transport

the minister in expediting the provision of better transportation across the strait, I should like to add my voice to those who from time to time have brought up this subject in the house. The strait is not very wide.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A mile.


Gordon Graydon: As the hon. member for Davenport, who is an expert on matters of this kind, has pointed out, the width is probably not more than a mile, and it would seem to me that something more than a ferry is required. I see that the item provides 860,000 for surveys and investigations. I am hopeful that the minister will be able to tell the committee that it is the policy of the government to provide a bridge or causeway of the proper type with adequate carrying capacity, and that it will be carried out within the near future in the interests of the people of Cape Breton.


Lionel Chevrier: I have been asked that question so often and have made a reply so often that I am sure my hon. friend will not want me to elaborate greatly on it. It cannot be decided what type of construction or what works will be effected at the strait of Canso until such time as the survey has been completed. This vote of $60,000 provides for a survey to ascertain what the bed of the gut consists of, whether it is rock or mud or clay, and until the survey and the engineer's report are completed I shall not be able to tell the hon. gentleman what type of construction may be adopted.


Gordon Graydon: When was the survey started, and what progress has been made up to date?


Lionel Chevrier: I gave a full report to the hon. member for Cape Breton South on two occasions, and again last night. Perhaps the hon. member was not in the house at the time-


Gordon Graydon: I was not,


Lionel Chevrier: -but if my hon. friend looks at Hansard of yesterday he will find a fairly complete report on the matter.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to congratulate the minister and the government upon providing for this expenditure to improve conditions in Prince Edward Island. I am happy to realize that the government is approaching the future with courage and even with aggressiveness; this is as it should be. Too often governments, after a war is over, think, of nothing but retrenchment, belt-tightening, and all that sort of thing. That is not the kind of policy which will

make Canada great and strong. I commend the government for reaching out and spending some money to improve conditions in the maritimes; and as a western member I think perhaps a word of commendation may be of some value.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service
[Stage Direction]
421.	Canadian government railways - Construction and improvements of drainage works at Fairview subway, at Halifax, N.S.-capital, $40,000.
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: This vote will, I hope, help to end a menace and a nuisance that has existed in Halifax since 1916 when the Fairview subway was built as part of the Halifax ocean terminals project. It is the main exit out of the city of Halifax, and it presents two problems, one having to do with flooding and the other with the passage of traffic. The vote here is for the construction of improvements to drainage works at Fairview. It is quite true that flood conditions there, following torrential rains, render this subway impassable at times, but there is also great danger to traffic moving to and from the subway, in and out of the city. What I wish to inquire about is whether this vote will cover not only drainage and improvements but also improvements to the subway, so that it will help to make the passageway safer for traffic. It is a problem which concerns not only the Canadian government railways but the department of highways of the Nova Scotia government and, as well, the city of Halifax. All three parties should be interested in the work to be done, and I would ask the minister whether he has the approval and concurrence of the provincial highways department and the city of Halifax for the proposed work.


Lionel Chevrier: This item of $40,000 has to do with drainage only and not the reconstruction of the subway. I am informed that the city of Halifax will contribute $5,000 toward the drainage work and that this scheme in connection with drainage has the approval of both the provincial and municipal authorities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
422.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-To hereby authorize and provide for the payment from time to .time during the fiscal year 1946-47 to the Canadian Rational Railway Company of the difference (estimated by the Canadian National Railway Company and certified by the auditors of the said company to the Minister of Transport as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (upon

Supply-Transport
the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1946 under the tariffs approved on the Eastern lines (as referred to in section 2 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways, $3,042,000.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: As I understand this, for some reason which I wish the minister would explain it is thought desirable to charge the transport department with 83,000,000 in this item and virtually a million dollars in the next by way of giving indirect relief to the Canadian National Railways. Is this correct?


Lionel Chevrier: The first vote has reference to the reduction in tariff tolls on traffic over the Canadian National, and the following vote is in respect of reduction in tolls on traffic over railways other than the Canadian National, east of a point in the province of Quebec. I believe it is Diamond Junction.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This item is necessitated by reason of the fact that certain relief in tolls is given because, as a matter of policy, it is felt not desirable to ask the Canadian National Railways to carry that load?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should say that it is done by act of parliament under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, passed by this house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no one who is more anxious to see the Canadian National Railways do well than I am, nor is there anyone who believes in it more than I do. Second, I feel that in the past parliament has done wisely to relieve the Canadian National Railways, as it has done, from some of the excess capitalization due to the fact that several railways were combined in it. But that is a different matter from this. I simply wish to raise the question whether it is wise to have this charge, Which I think is one that dhould be borne by the Canadian National Railways. It is an indirect way of increasing the revenue of the Canadian National by $3,000,000, if I understand it. I suggest that it is the interests of clarity and in the interests of the Canadian National itself to have its full picture clearly given as one, and not to find S3,000,000 here, which I suggest should be in their account.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Is that the right interpretation? I understood that this was not to relieve the Canadian National Railways but rather to relieve the people who live east of Diamond Junction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And there is $900,000 for the Canadian Pacific.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Yes, on the same score.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us be clear. I said that it was to relieve the people. It is necessitated by reason of the fact that it is considered desirable to give toll relief to those people and I am not questioning that, but I submit that it is unsound to have that $3,000,000 tucked in here, because it distorts the true picture of the Canadian National to that extent. If it is desirable to give these people relief, that meanls that the Canadian National earns $3,000,000 less. I am not questioning that, but I should like to know what the Minister of Reconstruction thinks about this, because he has spoken about peculiar methods of financing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is done in consequence of an act of the Canadian parliament. The statute was passed to implement the Duncan report, which stated that the people of the mlaritimes were unduly handicapped by geography in maintaining a competitive position with the rest of Canada.. It was not a matter for the Canadian National Railways. It had no obligation, to correct the geography of Canada; that was for parliament. The Canadian National applies the same standard hates to the mari'times as to other parts of the country. The nates are the same, and because parliament decided that the position of the maritime provinces in respect of transportation should be recognized, reductions in rates were made a charge against all the people of Canada.
Mr. MaoNIiCOL: It would not be there unless the freight rates were reduced, and the government Votes the money to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific so that the people in the maritimes can do business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a statutory obligation. [DOT]


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That fact is neither here nor there. The authority that made the statute can change it. I simply suggest that we should understand what it is.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am wondering what alternative policy the hon. gentleman would suggest.


Lionel Chevrier: You would have to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-*
Railway employees' provident fund-To supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund
Supply-7'ransport
[Stage Direction]
Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1946, to March 31, 1947, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $19,200.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to know from the minister exactly how the railway employees are pensioned, if they are pensioned. I have noticed, especially in the last two years, that there are a great number of old men working on the railways. I would say that many of these men look as if they were close to seventy years old, particularly the engineers and conductors. Is there any way of pensioning them before they are absolutely worn out? Last winter I was informed by a group of railway workers that, after an engineer is pensioned off, his average span of life is two years.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Not in Ontario.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Is there anything in the Pension Act to permit their being pensioned before they are worn out, or do the railways take everything out of them before they pension them?


Lionel Chevrier: The item now under discussion has to do with the railway employees' provident fund, and it is sought to add to that to the extent of $19,200. The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway employees' provident fund provides for the payment to retiring employees a monthly allowance of one and one-half per cent for each year of service of the average monthly salary received by each employee for the eight years immediately preceding his retirement, such monthly allowance to be not less than $20. Because of the increased cost of living, that was augmented by $10 to raise the amount from $20 to $30, and for the purpose of looking after this increase a vote of $19,200 is included in this item.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Is there any retirement age?


Lionel Chevrier: I believe it is sixty-five.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The retiring age is sixty-five, but if a man has perfect eyesight and so on he may carry on for another two or three years. They are doing that on the railways.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The railways did that during the war, but it is not usual railway practice.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Because of lack of experienced men they have been doing it. These are things that one expects in the ordinary course of carrying on a business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It should be clear that the matter covered by this item relates only to a limited number of railway employees.


Lionel Chevrier: I made that clear in answering my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the minister did, but I was not sure that it was understood because of the discussion that has since taken place. Has any consideration been given to the enactment of legislation in Canada similar to the railroad retirement legislation in the United States? As the minister knows, I am keenly interested in a pension dispute which I am now discussing with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour. Without going into it in these estimates, may I say it is my conviction, as a result of the study I have made of railroad pension systems, that it would be definitely advantageous if a plan similar to that in the United States were in force in this country. I realize that there is a stock answer to the effect that it is a matter of government policy to be made known in due course. Is consideration being given to this matter?


Lionel Chevrier: All I can tell the hon. gentleman is that the Canadian National Railways has its own pension scheme. This matter did come up in the committee on railways and shipping, and while I can speak only from memory, I think the president of the Canadian National Railways did say in effect that consideration had been given to the United States method of retirement but that its own scheme was working fairly satisfactorily.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is true with regard to the Canadian National scheme, but the Canadian National is not the only railway in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: That is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do have some trouble with the other railroad on pension matters.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the hon. member will admit that the jurisdiction which the Department of Transport will have over other railways is certainly limited.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While I have no desire to get into the old argument to-day, my view is that a service as nationwide in scope as transportation, in effect, a natural monopoly -at least it should be-which is woven so completely into the economic life of the country is such that it should be in a little different category from one we sometimes regard as an ordinary private business. It does seem to me that the employees in the transportation field should receive more complete coverage than is provided at present.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I be permitted to say a word? This item dates from the time that the Intercolonial was a government railway,

Supply-Transport
a time when the cost of living was much lower than it is now. Naturally the pensions are not so high as they are under other schemes. Some representations have been made to my colleague the hon. member for Levis and to myself to try to adjust the figure by having an increase paid to these people who have been superannuated under the old Intercolonial railway scheme. It takes some time. I spoke to the minister about the matter and he seemed to look at it favourably. I hope that in the near future the claims will be adjusted fairly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government-owned enterprises-Deficits-Transport-
J,69. Amount required to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1940-47 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1946, $707,000.
iMr. McLURE: I asked a question before as to why this item is called a deficit when the other expenditures on canals are not so defined. I did not get the full meaning of what the minister said. When the money for both these matters comes out of the same fund why should our system be called a deficit and the canals not? I should like to have some explanation.
iMr. CHEVRIER: I thought I dealt with that last night in answer to a question by the hon. gentleman, but I can add this remark: the reason for it is that the revenue from the car ferry is applied against the expenditures and the net result is the deficit.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Has the minister a breakdown of the item? I am not asking for it to-day.


Lionel Chevrier: I can give it to the hon. gentleman. The total operating revenues estimated for 1946 are $142,000. The total operating expenses are $836,500; net operating deficit, $694,500; interest on unfunded debt $12,500, making a total net income deficit of $707,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That would include repairs to the ships as well?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-Transport-
620. To provide for facilities and operations under the administration of the director of merchant seamen, $5,877,000.
Mr. MacINNIS:: The minister was good enough to agree that I might say something on this item which I was unable to say last evening on item 402. I have noted in Hansard the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo and other hon. members in regard to lighthouses, and were it not for the fact that I promised certain lighthouse keepers I would raise this matter I would have let it go at that. I have also noted a letter from the minister to the secretary of the amalgamated civil servants which appeared in the Civil Service Digest for May, 1946, from which I understand the minister has given some consideration to improving conditions in connection with lighthouses in various parts of Canada. The particular lighthouses I have in mind at the moment are one-man lighthouses; there is one at Cape Mudge on the west coast, and another at Scarlet Point. These are one-man lighthouses and I believe both are what they call watch lights.


Lionel Chevrier: Are they both isolated?


Angus MacInnis: They are both isolated; at least I gather that from the fact thait in one case I am told there is mail service only once a month, which would indicate that this lighthouse is quite isolated. The Cape Mudge light, as I said, is a watch light, on twenty-four hour service, situated in the entrance to Seymour Narrows, and is a beacon light for the notorious Ripple Rock, about which we heard so much last week. This lighthouse keeper informs me that sometimes during foggy weather he has been on duty continuously for as long as seventy-two hours. Obviously he cannot carry on efficiently for that length of time, and as a result the service given to ships must suffer. I am also informed that the light is operated by hand, and that the machinery must be wound every two hours, which means that this lightkeeper must have his rest interrupted in order to perform that service. Has the minister or his department given any consideration to the installation of some automatic machinery to operate this light?	*
Another complaint in connection with these lighthouses is in regard to the payment of assistants. I notice that during the past year a certain amount of money has been allowed for this purpose, and that is all to the good. Perhaps I need not labour this point, except to urge the minister to deal generously with these lighthouse keepers because of the position they are in, removed from the social life of any community. They must live day in and day out, year in and year out, separated from almost everything that makes life worth while to the rest Of us, and wdthout association with other human beings.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure my hon. friend takes a great interest in the lighthouse keepers, not only because of what he has now said but because of his representations last year on these estimates. Perhaps I might put on record just what we have done in the Department of Transport for lighthouse keepers; and I think I can be brief. There is a definite trend in the department to improve the condition of lightkeepers, who, it is recognized, are faithful servants of the crown. As my hon. friend knows, an order in council was passed and some $40,000 voted yesterday, covering an additional allowance for lighthouse keepers to assist toward paying the wages of assistants at the rate of $25 a month. . In addition to the cost of living bonus, the principle of annual leave for lightkeepers has been recognized, and it is being extended and generally made available with pay where stations are in operation the year round. Housing is being improved, with sanitary conditions being incorporated in new structures and added to others, and we are trying to get separate accommodation for assistants. Radiotelephones are being installed on both coasts, which it is hoped will be in operation this fall. Where reasonably available, electricity is being installed, and also telephone service. Every possible assistance is given by the marine service steamers, and their visits augmented by mail service contracts where that is possible. Consideration is being given to the department assuming other assistance and other benefits for the lightkeepers.
My hon. friend spoke of the light at Cape Mudge. Until recently this was a single man station, but the classification has been raised to provide for an assistant. I am instructed that winding is rarely required more frequently than every four hours. At most single-man stations the winding is arranged for every fourteen hours, according to my information from the director of marine services.


Mr. CASE:: This is one of the largest items in the estimates and is to provide for facilities and operations under the administration of the director of merchant seamen. Referring to the details at page 282 of the estimates, I should like to ask three, questions. Included in this item is an amount of $1,727,600 for the operation of manning pools and training schools. My question in regard to that is, should that not properly be charged to national defence? The next item is $50,400 to cover the expenses of the London, England, office. The third item is special bonus at end of war, $2,062.50. I probably should eliminate the second item, operation of manning pools and training schools, $1,727,600. Then there is an
(Mr. Maclnnis.]
item, technical training for seamen, $100,000. These items total $5,877,000, which is a considerable increase over the previous period. Would the minister care to explain this increase and also state whether the items I have referred to are related to national defence or if they are purely departmental expenditures?


Lionel Chevrier: They are not related to national defence; they are departmental matters, because the director of merchant seamen has been placed under the Department of Transport. He had to do with the operation of manning pools during the war and with the administration of training schools. There were two such schools, one at Prescott and one at Hubbards, Nova Scotia, and these are covered by this item.
With reference to the expenses in London, England, the same reason is applicable. The United Kingdom authorities requested us to. take care of British seamen and the logical: man to do it was the director of merchant seamen.
The amount provided for the special bonus is really to cover two bonuses. The first was a war bonus granted to seamen who signed an agreement for two years or the duration of the war, whichever was the lesser. This was a bonus of ten per cent of the annual earnings. Then there was a special war rehabilitation payment of ten per cent of the total earnings. Technical training is also under the jurisdiction of the director of merchant seamen..


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Would any proportion of the expenses of the operation of manning pools and training schools be taken out of the ten. per cent?
Mr. CHEVRIER; That has nothing to do-with the bonus. That is to cover the expenses of operating the five manning pools and two training schools.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: It makes no difference to the personnel?


Lionel Chevrier: Not at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it only merchant seamen on vessels of Canadian registry who enjoy the benefits mentioned here, or do they apply to all seamen?


Lionel Chevrier: They apply chiefly to merchant seamen on ships registered in Canada, but there have been some exceptions made, for example in the case of certain cable ships.


Jean-François Pouliot: We should look after the people on our ships. I do not see why we should take care of seamen on ships that are not registered in Canada.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: The exceptions cover Canadians who have been assigned to certain ships registered outside Canada, such a3 the three cable ships I referred to a moment ago. and would apply to Canadians working on those ships which are of British registry.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to express my regret at the fact that certain large companies like the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services register their ships outside of Canada. This service is supposed to be a Canadian service. There are very few large ships registered in Canada, and I think the way this company is acting is prejudicial to the interests of Canada.


William Chisholm Macdonald: I think the time has come when we should have a Canadian maritime commission. I believe that such a commission would be in the interests of both the ship owners and the seamen. It could assist in securing regular and permanent employment for the ships of our merchant fleet and also for our seamen. I have in my hand a copy of the merchant marine act, 1936, passed by the United States congress which provides for a United States maritime commission. The declaration of policy is set out in the first section, which provides:
It is necessary for the national defence and development of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine (a) sufficient to carry its domestic water-borne commerce and a substantial portion of the water-borne export and import foreign commerce .of the United States and to provide shipping service on all routes essential for maintaining the flow of such domestic and foreign water-borne commerce at all times; (b) capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency; (c) owned and operated under the United States flag by citizens of the United States in so far as may be practicable and (d) composed of the best equipped, safest, and most suitable types of vessels, constructed in the United States and manned with a trained and efficient citizen personnel.
Section 210 of the act provides that it shall be the duty of the commission set up under the act to make a survey of the United States merchant marine with a view to securing, among other things, a merchant fleet owned by citizens of the United States and to plan vessels designed to afford the best and most complete protection for passengers and crew against fire and all marine perils.
Another section provides that the commission is authorized and directed to study all maritime problems arising in the carrying out of the policy set forth in the act and to study and cooperate with vessel owners in devising means by which the importers and exporters of the United States can be induced to give preference to vessels under United States registry.
To-day Canada is a great trading nation. At the outbreak of war we had thirty-seven ocean-going ships, with a total personnel of about 1,400. To-day we have over 200 oceangoing vessels, with a personnel of 12,000 trained seamen. Prior to the war, it seemed to be taken for granted that it was impossible for Canada to have a strong merchant marine. Most of our exports and imports were carried in bottoms of [DOT] United Kingdom or foreign registry. In those days we were not in position to look after our merchant ships as we are to-day.
At the present time there is a wide demand all over the world for Canadian products. Before the war-and I suppose this custom still exists-the purchaser of goods would dictate the ship in which those goods were to be carried. To-day we are making loans and advancing credits to many countries, and it seems to me that the time has come when we should see that the goods and commodities purchased as a consequence of these credits and advances should be shipped in Canadian ships sailing from Canadian ports.
It is no use to say that the adoption of such a policy would mean that orders would be placed in the United States instead of in Canada. That answer was given me a year ago when I brought up this question. Ten years ago the United States congress passed a law which requires that all exports financed by government money shall be carried in ships registered in the United States if there are sufficient ships of sufficient tonnage available. There is no good reason why we should not adopt the same policy.
There is another matter that might very well be considered by a maritime commission. It is one that has arisen at different times. That is the question of restricting our coastal trade to Canadian ships. That is the policy followed in the United States. Much of our coastal trade is being carried by foreign ships owned in countries where the same privileges are not given to our ship owners.
Another matter that might very well be considered by this commission is safety provisions for the crew and passengers of ships, crew accommodation and better services in the kitchens or galleys in order to make life at sea safer and more pleasant. This commission could absorb some of the activities of the Canadian shipping board, which was set up in 1939 under the War Measures Act and whose existence I presume will soon come to an end. That board did excellent work during the war. I have heard criticism of its work in no part of the country.
We find ourselves in this position. We have in Canada a large merchant fleet of over
Supply-Transport

200 vessels, employing over 14,000 seamen. We are well equipped with ships; we have the material, the means and the personnel in Canada to build ships. Many thousands of our men are skilled iu the art of shipbuilding. We should not lose those skills and that important trade. Our national economy W'ould suggest that steps be taken now to ensure the continued employment of all these classes of men. We have many different departments to-day concerned with the problems of seamen, shipbuilding and shipping, and I think the time has come when all these activities should be coordinated. I know of no better way of doing that than by setting up a maritime commission and having it study all these problems and be in a position to advise the government. I do not say that such a commission should be given all the powers given to the commission in the United States, but many of those powers might well be adapted to this country. I would ask the minister to give his favourable consideration to this suggestion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the minister replies, I wish to congratulate my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax upon his excellent speech. But I wonder if this work should be done by a commission. I am a strong believer in having a large number of Canadian ships to carry Canadian produce. The mail contracts should also be given to ships of Canadian registry. That would be a great inducement to shipping companies to register their ships in Canada. Then they would be under the control of the Minister of Transport. That is most important, because many a time ships of foreign registry do some wrong to Canadian shipping and get away from the jurisdiction of the minister.
I support wholeheartedly my hon. friend's suggestion that we should build a large fleet of merchant ships of our own, and I would suggest that the government see that we get the largest possible number of ships to take care of our foreign trade so that there will be no delay in making shipments. That is a thing that cannot be done all at once; it may take some time, but it should be done. In this matter we should leave aside the old school tie of past ages. Our business in foreign countries is now in charge of commercial attaches who are responsible to British authorities and sometimes are not free and independent. The only thing they do is to make some reports and answer letters that are sent to them. They must be more active than that, and they must be under Canadian jurisdiction, because trade is the life-blood of the nation. If the views expressed by the junior

member for Halifax are carried out, I believe it will be to the great benefit of this country.
There is something in the air, Mr. Chairman. What was said not long ago in another debate shows that there is a change of mind for the better in some quarters of the house and that some are now prepared to consider Canadian interests first. That is of the utmost importance because, if we cannot develop our own trade, this country is finished.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Transport has asked me to reply since I have been charged by the government with the duty of exploring the possibilities of a maritime commission and of reporting to the government on the requirements. There seems to be little doubt that Canadian shipping at the moment is in the position where a maritime commission is required.
The functions mentioned by my hon. friend are being taken care of to-day by three different departments. For example, the Canadian shipping board and shipping subsidies are administered by the Department of Trade and Commerce; the regulation of shipping is in the Department of Transport; and the operation of Park Steamships Company and certain control of shipyards is centred in the Department of Reconstruction.
Some progress is being made in drafting a maritime act to be administered by a maritime commission. The sale of Park Steamships Company has been carried out with a view to building a substantial Canadian merchant marine, and an endeavour has been made to place our shipyards in a position to service a substantial Canadian maritime fleet. There has not been great urgency about the formation of a maritime commission to date, because our ships and shipyards have been busy on foreign orders. However, the situation may change shortly, and for that reason we hope that some time next year we shall have a maritime commission in operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-
429. Air transport board-salaries and office expenses, $193,090.
Mr. MERRITT:: Last year, at page 2495 of Hansard, the Minister of Reconstruction highly praised the proposed air service between Vancouver and Lethbridge, stopping at intermediate points in the interior of British Columbia. In part, he said this:
This is considered an excellent aeroplane route. The rail transportation, as I think my hon. friend will agree, is not the best, and weather conditions are such that from time to time the highways are blocked. Another fortunate feature is that the area is well supplied

Supply-Air Service
with airports, so that a well-equipped and well-financed company should be able to give an excellent service and should find it a profitable operation.
At the same time he referred to the application by three companies to the air transport board which was heard in Vancouver in January, to operate over this line. Recently the application of each of the three companies has been turned down, and apparently the air transport board will not permit any company to operate this route at the present time and under present conditions.
The air transport board turned down the application on five grounds. They said first that the traffic potential of the area was not enough. My only comment on that is that, if that rule is to be applied by the board, we shall not have any scheduled intermediate service lines in British Columbia for many a long day, because this route passes through the most populated part of British Columbia. In the interior will be found a population of over 150,000; the Vancouver area contains some 400,000 and upwards; and the Lethbridge area, some 25.000. If that kind of thing is going to stop the approval of the service we shall have to wait for a long time in British Columbia before we have such a service. Next, the air transport board found that the rail and the bus services were quite adequate. I just read what the minister's view of that is, and my view is exactly the same as that of the minister. The third ground of the air transport board's decision was that the weather was so bad that the route could not be operated on schedule. There again, if we are to change the weather before we have any kind of scheduled service to these points we shall have to wait much longer than the people of Canada and particularly the people of the area concerned will want. Fourthly, it was said that the operation of this route would not be undertaken at a loss. Of course that is certainly so; nobody will want to operate such a route at a loss. The fifth reason given was that the aeroplane DC-3 was obsolescent, was not operationally satisfactory for the route, and was too large. Well, I understand the DC-3 to be the wartime Dakota, and I would think it most surprising to most people who know anything about air service to say that the DC-3 was Obsolescent enough to make that a factor in washing out the service, particularly since I understand that the T.C.A. is now equipping certain of its services with that self-same aircraft.
But the real reason this application was turned down was not mentioned by the air transport board. It was that the company
had applied for fifty cents per mile airmail subsidy and the department had offered only fifteen cents per mile of such subsidy. They later brought that offer up to 22i cents per mile, but it was considered by the companies concerned that it was impossible to inaugurate this service without fifty cents per mile, the calculations being worked out on carrying a minimum of five passengers per mile and the rest of the cost being made up in the initial stages by the airmail subsidy. The rate of fifteen cents is, as I understand, the present established rate for T.C.A. It has been reduced to this figure very recently: the minister will know the exact date; I am not sure, but I believe it is since the end of the war. Before that time, T.C.A. was getting an airmail subsidy of forty-two cents per mile, and when T.C.A. was first inaugurated it got sixty cents per mile. It is again my understanding, subject to correction by the minister, that private airline companies which have received airmail subsidies in the past have received them to the amount of sixty cents, or fifty cents, or something comparable with the T.C.A. rate.
My first complaint to the committee and to the minister is that a mail subsidy to a transportation company has historically been a wiay of getting a necessary service into operation, and I do not believe that there has been a transportation system in the world for a hundred years^-and probably one could go back much further than that-which has not had some assistance in the way of mail subsidies from the government to get it "over the hump."
Here we have a situation where we have thousands of men coming back from overseas qualified to serve in this particular walk of life, which is important for Canadians in the future, and we find a complete change of policy by the government in this respect. Apparently, from now on. the airmail subsidies which will be offered will be only in the amount which a well established and well cared for air line like the T.CA., with all the advantages it has, is allowed. If we are to have an expansion of flying in this country to the extent that we should have it, a change of policy of that kind is a serious thing to face. I do not think the committee will doubt that if the T.C.A. determine to expand1 or to institute any service they will get all the money they need to do it and they will get any subsidy they need to do it. The minister said, talking about this very business last year, that if a service were necessary he would be in favour of giving it a subsidy. So that to come along, after blowing up the route in this
Supply-Air Service

house, after saying that one of these companies would be chosen for this route, after letting them incorporate, letting them make all their arrangements, encouraging them to come forward, and then bring in this new and this bad policy, is particularly hard on the companies concerned and very hard on air transport generally in Canada.
I do not intend to go into the details of this particular operation because, while my remarks are, of course, directed to this case, they will be equally applicable to every other company which is interested in developing private routes. There is great need for a clear indication by the minister of the scope that will be given private schedule services in this country. We had this matter up last session, and all hon. members will recall the long debate on bush and feeder lines and the evasive answers-I use that word advisedly- of the minister with respect to what he would permit. There is need for definition of the airmail subsidies policy. There is need for the institution of a policy at a more or less higher rate at the inception of an air line and then a scaled-down rate as it gets going. That is the practice followed in the past in all modes of transportation and the practice followed in Canada in particular by this government in relation to the development of air lines. There is great need for the drawing of a line between T.C.A. and other companies, because the minister can hardly expect many people in the country not to believe that, if the kind of thing that I have raised here goes on, there is a desire on the part of the government to keep competition with T.C.A. off these intermediate lines and to reserve them for eventual development by T.C.A., thus in effect holding from the people who require it a necessary service until T.C.A. comes along to do the work.
There is another and perhaps the most important definition of policy which the minister must give, and that is whether the transport board is to decide these questions on their merits or on instructions from the government. Here we have a perfectly clear case where the air transport board turns down an application on five technical grounds related to the safety and the possibilities of development of the route, none of which holds water in the minds of the people interested. Then we find that behind that decision of the board was the real reason, that the government was not going to provide airmail subsidies which these people had every right to expect when they started on their venture. It seems to me to be more than clear that this decision of the air transport board has been dictated by the minister and the board has had to produce reasons to get round the difficulty.

The same thing, many hon. members believe, is going on in connection with radio, and no doubt other examples can be given.
The last thing I want to say about this case is that one can see in it the heavy hand of regulation by the government. These counsels of perfection which the government seems to require should be applied only to a reasonable extent necessary for safety of life. A little initiative should be left to the discretion of those who are to put their money into the project. We would then have a very much faster development of air transport in the country, to the great good of all those who wish to travel and also to the great good of those people who are keen to get into this game and to make use of the skill they have acquired in recent years.
I urge the minister to reconsider the question of airmail subsidies and to recognize that they are subsidies for development, and have always been such, and to give private companies that wish to fly such services the same opportunity as he will undoubtedly give T.C.A.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has made some serious charges. He suggested that I person-nally intervened to direct the air transport board to refuse a licence. Why would he make that charge? These men associated with Capilano Airways are my personal friends.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If I might interrupt-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sit down and let me reply to your speech.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I did not make a personal charge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You did indeed.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I said that the government must have directed the board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That means that the minister directed the board. Let me explore that a little. You made the charge. Let it stand on the record and you can hear the answer and the country can read it. The men behind this application happened to be a group of personal friends of mine. One of them is one of the closest friends I have in the dominion. Why should I intervene to wreck them? Can my hon. friend tell me that? As a matter of fact, I was not aware that the application had been turned down until I received a letter from Mr. Leigh Stevenson, who is president of Capilano Airways Limited, and I immediately wrote advising him that if he cared to appeal I would be glad to review the situation, as is my duty and right, on appeal.
My hon. friend is quite right that the real reason the application was refused is that the

Supply-Air Service
company stated it could not operate the line without a subsidy. My hon. friend is quite wrong when he says that mail subsidies are given. The post office does not subsidize air lines. It pays for the service and pays a rate which it believes the service is worth to the post office. I hear another voice over there. Would the hon, gentleman mind withholding his remarks until I get through? They are not very important, I know, and they can wait.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the minister wishes to take that attitude, since he has directed that statement at me, [DOT] I may say that the hon. gentleman used the word "subsidy" as referring, to my mind at any rate, to the contract with the Post Office Department. It is not granted in the form of a subsidy, but the contract is arranged, I believe, so that the new service may'get on its feet.


William Ross Macdonald: May I ask all hon. gentlemen when they are speaking to address the Chair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have I the floor, Mr. Chairman?


William Ross Macdonald: The minister has the floor.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank you. The route was advertised by the air transport board. It believed it to be a good route and it received three applications. The board would have been glad to grant a licence to any one of the three had it been able to assure the board that it could operate the route on the traffic in view and the rates offered. The three applicants filed their rates for various services, with which there was no quarrel. Passenger rates were higher than charged by Trans-Canada Air Lines, but no exception was taken to that. It was believed that the rates were in line with the requirements of the traffic. The difficulty was that, when all other means of revenue were added up, a certain amount was required for carriage of mail to make the operation balance out and show a profit. I have nothing to do with the arrangements with the post office. The responsible officers went to the Post Office Deparment and applied for a certain rate. The Post Office Department replied that all it could grant was the Trans-Canada rate, which is a pound rate for the carriage of mail. I think the rate is 1-5 mills per pound per mile. That rate was offered to the applicants. The air transport board conducted a survey of the probable mail on the route, and that figure was given to the airways company. It was found that the revenue from mail was not nearly sufficient, and on a renewed application I think the
Post Office Department guaranteed a minimum rate of-I am not sure what the minimum rate is, I would say 150 pounds.


Grote Stirling: It is 100 pounds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One hundred pounds, which is unusual; at least there is no guarantee to any other air line that I know of; each air line simply depends on the actual mail that it obtains, but this other company got a guarantee. I personally intervened to the extent of writing my colleague to say that I hoped the Post Office Department could take another view and perhaps increase the guarantee. After a survey of its position, the Post Office Department believed that it was not justified in doing so. If Capilano Airways Limited had said that, knowing all the facts, it wished to operate the line, without subsidy, a licence would have been granted, and will be granted to-day if it cares to appeal the ruling of the board. There is no question about that. Licences are granted freely in all parts of Canada to those who can make a living out of the business there is in sight; but it is questionable policy that the provision of the Aeronautics Act concerning the subsidization of new air lines should be used for subsidizing a line which, in view of the air transport board, is not likely to be self-supporting for a considerable time.
It is all very well to subsidize the necessary services into undeveloped country if the service cannot be provided in any other way. This is being done in one instance for a service which was formerly a profitable one. On account of the closing of mining operations, it was having a difficult time, but for the services to be discontinued would have left a number of settlers without any communication whatever.


John George Diefenbaker: The M. and C. Aviation Company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is the only service in the country that is being subsidized at the moment. We have a case in Nova Scotia which is at a critical stage. The Maritime Central Airways applied for a route from Saint John to Yarmouth to Halifax. It simply applied for the route. The application was granted because the indications were that the Maritime Central Airways believed that it could carry on the operation without a subsidy. No subsidy was asked for. It is found that it cannot carry on without a subsidy. It finds that it is losing money and it wants to discontinue the route. There was a hearing before the air transport board. It is asking for permission to discontinue its scheduled services. The government can hardly be expected to be in the position that anyone
Supply-Air Service

who wishes to start a route will automatically get a subsidy if the route does not show a profit.
The route proposed is over a territory which I should like to see developed. The board advertised for applications for the route, and three were submitted. Every effort has been made to explore the situation and to assist the air lines to determine whether it will be a profitable operation. I think the board is performing a service for applicants and for all concerned in seeing that the facts are fully developed. Personally I am sorry that my colleague, the Postmaster General, is not more optimistic about the mail prospects there; but he has made his investigation and has formed his opinion of the airmail potentialities. There remain the express and freight but that, of course, is a matter for development by the air line. That is a matter, I presume, on which the Capilano Airways have made their own estimate and have decided the possible revenue which can be obtained from that source.
Reference was made to the report of the air transport board. I can hardly believe that it reads, as my hon. friend says, that the DC-3 aeroplane is obsolescent; but there is a characteristic of the DC-3 aeroplane which the board believed makes it unsuitable for operation over high mountains, namely, that it has not a good single-engine performance at high altitude. Trans^Canada Air Lines has some twenty-five DC-3's and operates them everywhere in Canada except across the Rockies, for Trans-Canada Air Lines does not believe it is safe to operate them over mountainous country at altitudes above 11,000 feet. That is a technical opinion, and for that reason Trans-Canada Air Lines uses Lockheeds, which have a satisfactory single-engine performance at high altitude. I suppose the board gave its opinion as information for potential operators of the route. I just put in that word of explanation to show why that plane is not considered satisfactory.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I wish to say to the minister that I have no personal charge to maintain at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why would the hon. member say that the minister dictated?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am going to explain that. When I see five reasons given by the board for turning down an application and that none of these reasons apparently would hold water if the question of the mail payments is overcome, it is hard for anyone not to believe that there must have been some knowledge on the part of the air transport board that airmail payments would not be

increased, and therefore that the application would not be granted. Had the board turned it down on the ground that, since no airmail contract of the amount required could be obtained, they would not have approved it on the financial ground, then I would not have said what I said. But when they bring in technical grounds to support a position from which they would withdraw if the financial reasons were removed, I think my comment, and certainly my request that the minister say whether it is an independent board, are quite justified.
The other thing I wish to say is that in using the word "subsidies" with respect to the airmail contract 1 was using a word which has been in common use for a long time with regard to steamships, for instance. One often hears of airmail subsidies. Let us call them airmail contracts. I wish to point out to the committee that the amount asked by this particular airline for its airmail contract was fifty cents per mile, whereas the Trans-Canada Air Lines received at the beginning sixty cents, and forty-two cents for most of its life until now, and has only recently been dropped to fifteen cents. If that contract was good for the Trans-Canada Air Lines, why is it not good for a private company pioneering a new route?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to explain the airmail rates. The basis of the Trans-Canada Air Lines contract was first a rate per mile, sixty cents per mile. By a profit-sharing arrangement set out in the act that rate was reduced to forty-one cents per mile. Then the contract was changed to another basis which the Post Office Department thought was fairer, and which the Trans-Canada Air Lines was willing to accept. At present, when T.C.A. carries a pound of mail a mile it gets paid 1-5 mills for the service. T.C.A. is not subsidized; the mail it carries returns payment to it at that rate. The present rate is not a drop from forty-two cents a mile; as a matter of fact it is about the same thing. The earnings from mail this year under that contract are about the same as they were under the rate of forty-two cents a mile. The difficulty in the Okanagan is that the potential volume of mail is not heavy enough to promise a satisfactory return.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Can the minister say how the 1-5 mill rate compares with the rate of forty-two cents a mile, or sixty cents a mile, the old method of computation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The earnings of T.C.A. from mail under the 1-5 mill rate are about the same as under the 42-cent rate which obtained last year.


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to add very much to what has already been said by the other members from British Columbia; but, as it appears to me, the situation is this. We already have air service by T.C.A. between Vancouver and Lethbridge, but we have no air service into the interior of British Columbia, to such important towns as Penticton, Trail and Kimberley. These days everyone seems to want fast service. I do not know why we want to travel so fast, but the people feel that when the Joneses do it they have to keep up with the Joneses. These interior towns of British Columbia are entitled to some consideration in the matter of air service. If T.C.A. cannot give that service at this time-and it could not do so without going to some expense-perhaps something could be done so that a private company could provide the service. I have read the brief of Capilano Airways, which I imagine was sent to other hon. members; I have read the decision of the transport board turning down that application for a licence on this route, but I think the board should give the matter further consideration. Railway service on the Kettle Valley line is not very good. I imagine it is the slowest service in Canada, because of the nature of the country through which the railway runs. I have here the rail time in hours from Vancouver to Penticton, from Vancouver to Trail and from Vancouver to Kimberley. By rail from Vancouver to Penticton it. is eleven hours; the air time is one hour and fifteen minutes. The rail time from Vancouver to Trail is twenty-five hours; the air time is two hours. From Vancouver to Kimberley by train takes thirty hours; the air time is two hours and forty-five minutes. As I said, the people of the country are air-minded and want to travel fast, so that I think the interior towns of British Columbia are entitled to some consideration in this matter and I would urge that the board reconsider this application.


Grote Stirling: I am.also most interested in the turning down of the three applications by the air transport board, because those whom I represent are potential passengers and certainly potential letter writers for this route. I would draw the attention of the committee to the reasonableness of the resentment which these people feel. We remember the various statements made in the past with regard to the starting of air routes which should be feeders for T.C.A. I could quote the remarks of the Prime Minister and the remarks of the minister himself with regard to the desirability of affording openings for our returning airmen. I
Supply-Air Service
would also remind hon. members that when I raised this matter in the house last year the Minister of Reconstruction expressed the opinion that this was an excellent potential route. He agreed that the train service available was indifferent. He agreed that, on occasions, weather conditions made the highways unusable. He agreed that this area was studded with emergency airfields, and for all these reasons the hopes of those supporting these applications were certainly raised.
Then we move on to what actually happened at the hearing by the air transport board. Two officials of the Capilano company were asked to come to Ottawa, and when they got here they were asked if they were ready to accept the rate offered by the Post Office Department for the carriage of mail. It was most unfortunate that this occurred just at the time the Post Office Department was declining to continue to pay the T.C.A. the old rate for mail. When T.C.A. put on other planes, multiplying the service by three, it was found that sixty cents a mile resulted in an amount much larger than the poundage of mail warranted, so that the Post Office Department came to a new arrangement with T.C.A., which has been described and into which I need not go. But that change took place, unfortunately, just at the time this application was being considered. Obviously the figures used by the applicants in making up their estimates were based on what they know T.C.A. had been receiving.
Of course the minister is perfectly right in saying he is not concerned with the rate paid by the Post Office Department. When I took up this matter with the Post Office Department I ascertained that they had gone as far as they considered they could go in meeting the applicants. They did raise the minimum poundage on which they would pay the rate; they did raise the mill rate, but they did not raise it high enough to enable an agreement to be reached with the applicants.
There was no doubt in the minds of those who knew what was going on that the real sticker in the case was the amount that would be received for air mail. So that the resentment of the people concerned was heightened when the air transport board came out with these five stupid reasons for turning down the application. One reason given is that the existing rail and bus services now serving these areas are adequate. The minister himself agreed that they were utterly inadequate, and everyone who lives in the south country knows that to be the case. As to another reason, in regard to the population to be served, I do not know where the air transport-people got their figures, but certainly they were not those of December, 1945; in fact they
Supply-Air Service

were about one-third those figures. They made slight reference to the volume of business in the territory concerned, but they surely passed over the considerable industrial development consequent upon the Consolidated at Trail, and they seem to have forgotten altogether that there is big business in fruit and vegetables in the Okanagan and subsidiary valleys. There is a tremendous traffic potentiality there, both in passengers and mail.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard pointed out, there have been many instances in the past, particularly with regard to T.C.A. itself, where assistance has been given for a certain time by way of airmail payments. The minister may quite well reply to me that this has nothing to do with him because the decision turned on the mail, but I suggest to him that, as the minister responsible for the development of civil aviation and since he has expressed a desire to find openings for our returned men, he should take this matter up with the Postmaster General to see whether the matter cannot be reopened and the rate increased somewhat by the Post Office Department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would remind my hon. friend that when he was discussing the Air Transport Act he was one of the most insistent that the board should not be dominated by the minister. He does not like this report by the air transport board and he thinks I should take the responsibility of overriding it.


Grote Stirling: The minister has tremendous power.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is an appeal to the minister.


Grote Stirling: I warmly support the minister's suggestion, and I hope that when the appeal is made he will give it his good graces.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This route was advertised and it was stated that applications would be received. I think my hon. friend is giving me too much credit if he thinks I have influence over the Postmaster General. I five in an area where there are about 100,000 people, and we have no airmail service at all because I have been unable to persuade the Postmaster General to give that region a mail rate higher than he was offering in the Okanagan. The result is that no one will take the route. I think that, once the post office takes a stand, there is no power outside the post office that can make it change its opinion as to what should be paid for the carriage of mail. However, if Capilano Airways Limited will indicate that it believes it can operate this route' with the revenues there are in sight, and if it cares

to appeal the decision of the board, I can assure my hon. friend its application will be granted.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I should like to support what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has said, and also what has been said by the hon. member for Yale. The hon. member for Yale has taken a great interest in this matter. The people in my constituency were very much disappointed when they heard that this application had been turned down, and I was glad to hear the minister say that there is a possibility of its being considered on appeal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Carried.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Regardless of the wishes of the hon. member for Vancouver East, I should like to deal with two or three reasons which have been given by the board and which I think the minister must agree are quite illogical for turning down this application. If the airmail contract were satisfactory these reason would not exist in view of his previous statement. I shall deal first with the traffic potentialities. The board considered only those places at which planes would land, and they estimated the population of the district to be served as being only 107,000. The latest figures show that there are over 167,000 people in that area who would be served.
The next reason given was that the rail and bus services were quite adequate. If that reason were applied generally there would be no scheduled air routes in operation to-day. The third ground was as to irregularity of service. I think for three months of the year possibly that would apply, but I understand that the reports of the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport indicate that service could be provided with between seventy-five and ninety-five per cent regularity. Then there is the question of willingness to operate without profit, and in this connection the minister has explained something which I did not understand before when he referred to the operation of DC-3 aircraft over high mountains.
Again I want to express to the minister the feeling of the people in my constituency. They were extremely disappointed when this application was turned down and they are looking forward to something being done in order that this service may be established in the near future. There are plenty of overseas men who have flown and there are plenty of ground crew who are willing and anxious to fly and service these planes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to discuss briefly with the minister a matter pertaining to civil aviation policy in connection with

Supply-Air Service
which he and I do not see eye to eye. However, before doing this I should like to offer a word of well-deserved congratulation to the government, and more particularly to the minister, for his administration in this field. We know how proud the minister is of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and he has every reason to be proud of the efficiency and1 safety with which that line operates. He has also reason to be proud of the speed with which it has been extending its services, not only in Canada but to other co'untries and across the seas to other parts of the world.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the general attitude of the government toward civil aviation, in that they seem to realize that this is a service to be developed. The government has seemed anxious to avoid some of the mistakes of the past, particularly in the early days of the railroads, and to provide service without the disadvantages of cut-throat competition. The minister knows that we in this group welcomed and gave strong support to the general statement of policy which he made on March 17, 1944, and to certain other statements which he made and measures which he has brought down from time to time. However, in his statement of March 17, 1944, the minister made one pronouncement which does not seem to have been carried out. He said, as recorded in Hansard:
Accordingly, after full consideration, the government has decided that the railways shall not exercise any monopoly of air services. Steps will be taken to require our railways to divest themselves of ownership of air lines, to the end that, within a period of one year from the ending of the European war, transport by air will be entirely separate from surface transportation.
The minister indicated that he was not altogether happy about having to make a break between the Canadian National and Trans-Canada Air Lines; but because of the way in which Canadian Pacific Air Lines had -and I am using his own words-"lost no time in challenging the non-competitive position of Trans-Canada Air Lines", it was necessary to put forward this new policy. In leading up to that, he made a statement which is part of my reason for having offered a few complimentary remarks, and I quote again;
Service to the public must be the paramount consideration, and it seemed obvious that the cost of a non-competitive, non-profit service was the lowest that could be offered the public.
There are many other quotations which I could make from that excellent speech of the minister, but I shall not take the time to do so. I only wish he had lived up to it in full. Later on in that session, there was
further discussion of this proposal to compel the railways to divest themselves of ownership of air lines. I felt at the time that the minister had retreated from the forceful and aggressive position which he had taken on March 17. When I suggested to him on April 21, 1944, that he had made such a retreat he did not altogether like it. I quote his words:
I said we had better wait until we had seen the bill.
That was his reply to my charge that the minister had retreated.
So far as the complete implementing of the policy is concerned, we are still waiting, and this is now August, 1946, more than two years later. In the meantime a bill was introduced and passed, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill No. 133, of the session of 1944, which contained clauses designed to give legislative effect to this policy laid down on March 17, 1944. Section 14 of that act reads in part-I will give just the significant clause:
. . . but every such licence, if not cancelled or suspended by the board under section thirteen of this act, shall cease to be valid one year after the termination, as fixed by order in council, of the war in Europe which commenced on the tenth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine.
Another section of the same act, section 12, subsection 2, related to this matter, and reads as follows:
No such licence shall be issued in respect of a commercial air service, owned, leased, controlled or operated by any person who is en-aged in the transport of goods or passengers or hire or reward by means other than aircraft unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
That bill was passed in the session of 1944. So far as I can learn, the many subsidiary companies which were bought up by the Canadian Pacific are still being operated by that company. This raises, of course, the whole question, the merits of which some might want to debate, but I remember very well that when the former member for York-Sunbury, Mr. Hanson, charged that the government's policy amounted to confiscation the minister's reply, which I heartily endorsed, was that these smaller companies which had been pioneered in the earlier days by independent operators had in effect been confiscated by the Canadian Pacific, "which entered the field of transportation by air and bought the stock of all the independent operators, thus obtaining by the end of 1941 a monopoly in the field of transport by air except for trans-continental air lines". I have been paraphrasing, except at the end when I was quoting the minister.
Supply-Air Service

My concern about all this is that it seems to me that we are laying the basis of another huge monopoly in the northern part of this country. The thing I am most concerned about is the monopoly of transportation in the northland which the Canadian Pacific has and of the way in which that transportation monopoly can tie in with a monopoly in mineral production in northern Canada. My whole point is that I welcomed, as all of us did in this group, the statement of policy made by the minister. We welcomed the extent to which that statement was given legislative effect in the bill from which I have just quoted. But I should now like to hear from the minister when it is to be carried out.
I suppose there may be some argument as to when the war in Europe ended, but I think it ended in May, 1945, and more than a year has since elapsed. When we were discussing that particular section, section 14, on July 17, 1944, the minister said, and I quote his words, "My hon. friend will see that section 14 is mandatory." That is the section which calls upon the board to cancel licences previously in effect which, as I say, made it possible to give effect to this general policy.
There are other things with regard to civil aviation about which I should like to speak if it were not for taking up the time of the committee at this stage. But I should like to hear from the minister with respect to this whole question of policy relating to the ownership of air lines by railway companies, with particular reference to Canadian Pacific Air Lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has given a correct statement of the policy announced by the government in 1944. At the time I made the announcement I was very sure I was right. A good section of the house was very sure I was wrong, but that gave me no pause whatsoever. At that time the public was not getting the service to which I believed it was entitled, and I think the public in that area believed it too. Certainly the relations between the government and Canadian Pacific Air Lines were far from satisfactory, and there was no doubt at the time that the non-competitive position of Trans-Canada Air Lines was being challenged. Legislation was passed, and the present technical position is that the mandatory date, which would be May, 1946, has been advanced one year under the Emergency Powers Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister mean it has been advanced solely for the purpose of this legislation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The effective date of this legislation has been advanced by order in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose that order in council was tabled.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; all orders in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act are tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I never heard of that one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You were engaged in higher statesmanship for a considerable period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was flying in your planes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position is that we explored the possibilities of carrying out announced government policy. It seemed easy when it was announced. We thought it would be easy to divide up the system and return it to small operations, but when we undertook to do so we were faced with a great expansion of air activity in the north which required additional services. Obviously Canadian Pacific Air Lines was not in a position to buy extra equipment until it had some security of service. We then explored as to how we could break the system down into individual routes, each serving a particular territory, as was proposed at the time the discussion took place. But we could find no group strong enough to take over any of these services. The value of the equipment owned by Canadian Pacific Air Lines was in the vicinity of seven or eight million dollars. The additional equipment required ran into several more millions. I might remind my hon. friend that to-day an ordinary 20-passenger plane costs some
8200,000,	and there are planes flying to-day, a good many of them, that cost 81,000,000. It is not a business which can be entered without substantial capital.
The air transport board was established when that policy was announced and the board started a study of the northern situation. There was also a change of management in Canadian Pacific Air Lines and a change in the directorate, from the president down. The closest cooperation was obtained between management and the air transport board in working out policy matters. Those hon. members who are familiar with the territory served by Canadian Pacific Air Lines will agree'that the service has improved tremendously. Services which were inadequate at the time that that discussion took place 'have been made adequate. All sources of friction have been removed as between the government authority and Canadian Pacific Air Lines and between

Supply-Air Service
Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Trans-Canada Air Lines. To-day the two operations are working as an integrated system. At the time, Canadian Pacific Air Lines was ambitious to extend its territory into other parts of Canada. To-day it finds it has a sufficient task to develop the parts of Canada for which it was then and is now responsible for giving service, with the result that any new air lines that care to enter the business and are able to finance their operation can find a scope for their activities in parts of Canada not at present served. To-day I have come to the conclusion that, while the policy when it was announced may then have been the correct policy, the public interest, which I say again must be the paramount consideration of all air line activities, is better served by the present combination of services than it could be served by any plan which can now be devised as an alternative to the present arrangement.
No man likes to change his mind; nevertheless I have always believed that it is better to change my mind than to continue on a wrong course I think in the light of the evolution which has occurred since I made the statement I can say that the system which is operating to-day is the one best suited for giving service to the public in the territory in question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know I am right now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One thing which one must admire is the minister's frankness, even when one does not agree with him.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He is right, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has now stated that the policy announced on the 17th of March, 1944, with respect to the government owning these air lines has been abrogated by the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I should like to correct that impression.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right; I want to get it clear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that the date of applying the policy had been advanced one year by the government; and I was giving my own opinions, as minister responsible for the services, that the policy announced on that date was not the policy which would give best service to the public in the area. That is my own opinion. The government policy has not been changed, and wTill not be changed, naturally, until the act is changed. The House of Commons must approve any change of policy, because this house passed the act which established the earlier government policy.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We shall be glad to change it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There can be no doubt that the personal view of the minister with respect to these matters will carry a great deal of weight when it comes to formulating government policy; and I say again that the minister himself has stated clearly that his view is quite different from that which he expressed on March 17. 1944. It is quite . interesting to notice from what sections of the house the minister has been getting his applause to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: 


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; mainly from the Tories. Apparently he found it embarrassing that we were in such strong agreement with with him when this policy was first laid down.
I want to say this to my now Tory friend, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. One does not often make predictions, because these things go on the record and they can be thrown back at you, as I have been throwing back the minister's statements to him to-day. But I declare that the day will come when we shall have -to undo the harm done to the Canadian economy by the monopoly which we are building up in transportation and mineral production in Canada's northland, which surely belongs to the people of the country as a whole.
Canadian Pacific Air Lines insists-and one has no reason to doubt their figures-that it is losing money on its air line operations, particularly those in the north. Well, I am not one who imagines that a company of that size is losing money unless it feels that there is an advantage somewhere else, or an advantage in the future which makes that loss worth while; and I am very sony to hear that the minister has changed his mind. My hon. friends to the right put a good deal of pressure on him for about two years with respect to this point. Whether it was that pressure, or whatever it was, which caused him to change his mind I do not know. But they will be jointly responsible for the monopoly which is being built up as a result of this, and for this further exploitation of the natural resources that belong to the Canadian people, and for the harm which will yet have to be undone.


Mr. ADAMSON:: If I had been a Latin scholar, no doubt I would quote some apt phrase to submit to the minister on his change of policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I change whenever I find myself in error.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in Mis.
Supply-Air Service


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mene, mene, tekel,
Upharsin.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I was going to say, mens sana in corpore sano. However, I am pleased that the minister has, shall we say for the 'first time, seen the light. I want to make just one reply to our socialist friends with regard to serving the public. I have in mind one mining camp which is to-day and has been served entirely by air. I speak of the Red Lake mining camp, with a population of between four and five thousand people. To put that camp in the hands of a small operator would be nothing short of criminal. At times when you have bad weather you may have as many as fifteen or twenty aircraft a day flying into that camp with vital supplies; and you must have, for camps of this kind, a thoroughly reliable, large and perfectly competent organization to do the job. Unless you are dealing with an organization that has, first of all, the know-how, and second, the capital and resources to do the job, you are jeopardizing the very people whom the C.C.F. party are so anxious to look after; that is, the residents of these remote areas who are building up the country. I want to say that I am pleased with the change in the policy of the government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not suppose that I shall often be in the position of asking the*hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to make an extra speech, although I am always interested in what he says; but I want to ask him a pointed question. If I remember aright, he said that he had seen a statement on Canadian Pacific Air Lines, which he took at its face value, that it had lost money in its operations in the north. Then he went on, and I could not understand him at all, because he seemed to suggest, if I understood him aright, that that could not be the whole story, that there must be something sinister, something else, that it could not be possible that the Canadian Pacific was taking a broad view and was prepared to take a loss to-day because of the hope that it would build up a situation which it could hope would profit it to-morrow. If I got the hon. member's point correctly, I wish he would explain that, because to me it goes very deep. It is most unfortunate if in our relations with each other we have to assume that there is always something sinister. Personally I believe that the Canadian Pacific has been a broad-gauge organization. It has committed faults, it is true, but I believe it is prepared to take broad and long-range views, and the whole country is evidence of that. I should like to know what the hon. member meant by that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I remember correctly what I said-and I think I do-I suggested that I could not imagine that the Canadian Pacific was losing money on the operation unless one or other of two things was the case. The first alternative I suggested was that there might be some other immediate advantage; the second alternative was one to which my hon. friend the member for Mus-koka-Gntario just referred, namely, that there would be an advantage in the future.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I take it back; I am sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But my hon. friend is right in asking me what I meant about the first one. I thought I made it clear that the mineral resources of the northland are great, and there is great wealth to be made there. I can prove nothing. I do not know the relationships of these various companies, but I should like to know. I have a strong suspicion that there probably is some kind of connection that makes it an advantage right now. Certainly my hon. friend will agree with me that there must be some advantage either now or in the future, or else the Canadian Pacific would not throw money away.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: May I inquire of the minister whether any action has been taken in respect of the representations made by the maritime transportation commission concerning the service between Moncton, Greenwood, Yarmouth and Halifax? If I remember rightly, it was in the latter part of July that they telegraphed the minister in reference to the continuation of this service and pointed out the importance of it to the people in that district. Does he recall that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The service is continuing and will continue until another hearing is held, when the question of public convenience and necessity will again be studied. The fundamental fact is that, if people will not use an air line, they can hardly expect it to be continued. There is the further fact that, before many weeks go by, a service will be in operation between Boston, Yarmouth and Halifax, which will serve the Yarmouth-Halifax leg of that route as far as public convenience and necessity are concerned. However, the air transport board will hear all interested parties and study public convenience and necessity and bring in its finding as the facts warrant.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Can the minister give the date for the Halifax-Yarmouth-Boston service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot give the exact date, but I understand that it will be some time this autumn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Air Service
Air service-civil aviation divisioni32. Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the aeronautics act and regulations issued thereunder, $388,200.
Mr. SKEY:: I wish to ask the minister, first, how long he anticipates the control of civil aviation will remain under another department rather than that of the Department of Transport.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say. The Prime Minister assigned it to me and, if he wishes to take it away, he will exercise his prerogative in that regard.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I ask the question because I notice that under item 432 we have the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations. The point I wish to call to the attention of the minister is that there is at the present time a great potential in this country which may be stopped from developing our aerial companies and their abilities if the regulations are too closely followed. I refer to the instructors, engineers, pilots, radio operators. navigators and other specialists, including flying control specialists who have come back from overseas. I understand that the regulations under which they must now obtain licences are in some cases antiquated, while in other cases these returned men are required to pass examinations, for which they have already qualified in the service, but examinations such as perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, or the minister might have passed in your youth, he in engineering and you possibly in agriculture or some other line, examinations in connection with which you have forgotten a great deal though your knowledge goes well beyond that. These men are also required to go through some practical tests on machines which at times are not of modern design.
My point is this. In the United Kingdom the regulations regarding the licensing of various specialist air personnel are handled through the air ministry, and a uniform standard is set throughout the whole country. The results of the examinations, whether set by civil authorities or by air authorities, are fed into the air ministry, and the whole thing is controlled from a central point under an authority which is up to date and knows what the requirements and regulations are for the future.
I feel that at this time some men are being forced to go back and study for possibly six months before they can get a licence to be an engineer. I can quote one case which may startle the committee and the minister. There is a Pathfinder pilot who was able to pinpoint his way into Germany and - drop his bombs within 100 yards of the mark, the target for 63260-315
his aircraft following him, and yet when he came back from overseas he was not licensed to fly at night. He had a great struggle with the air transport department to get a licence to fly at night-a Pathfinder pilot from overseas!
I need say no more. The minister will readily see that there should be some tie-up between the air force and the civil aviation division, so that there may be a standardization of licensing and those men qualified in the air may immediately receive civil qualification.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might point out that if, on discharge from the air force, a man is given a certificate of competency in any field, that certificate is honoured by the civil aviation branch, but he .must take his examination in air regulations. After all, he may know a great deal about many things, but he must know his air regulations in Canada, and he must take the physical examinations which are required every year. I cannot believe that the United Kingdom is any more up to date in civil flying than Canada. It does less of it. I would challenge that statement.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am speaking of administration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot imagine a closer coordination than there is between the two branches, because each honours the certificate of the other in the field in which it is issued.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The minister has made a statement, but I am not talking through my hat. I happen to know that these men are forced to go back and try examinations although they may be qualified engineers, graduates of Canadian universities, who have served with squadrons or groups and commands overseas. They are forced to go back and write examinations in the very subjects in which they are qualified. Perhaps in the last few months there has been some change; but, as regards a few months ago, what I have said this afternoon is perfectly true. Of course, as the minister says, the man must have his medical examination and he must understand his air regulations and international regulations as well. There is no pilot or technical man who will dispute that. I am talking about a purely technical matter. I know that my information was accurate up to a few months ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend speaks of an engineer who had pinpointed his way over Germany.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: A pilot who failed to qualify as a pilot to fly at night in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a transport pilot?

Supply-Air Service


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Yes. Second, I was speaking to an engineer who is not a pilot. He was in the technical branch. This man serviced the whole station overseas and had forty or fifty squadrons of men under his control. He was forced to go back.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The finest pilots in the world come out of the air force and join Trans-Canada, but they are not allowed to sit on the lefthand side of a Trans-Canada plane until they have taken, at least six or eight months of training. That is simply because the routine of warfare is not the routine of transport work. It is quite conceivable that a man could pinpoint his way all around Germany and yet could not conform with the established technique of landing at night a transport plane filled with passengers. That must be demonstrated. It is quite a different art. Surely my hon. friend is sufficiently familiar with both transport and military work to know that a man cannot come off one job, and do the other job well, whichever way he moves. Each calls for a separate training and a separate technique. That separate technique must be learned. I do not think there is any lack of coordination just because one cannot step into the other field immediately.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I shall give the minister in private the name of the man to whom I am referring. I know he does not want publicity. He was a civilian pilot before he went with the air force, and he came out. He had this trouble, although he was not flying passengers; he was flying cargo. I am sure the minister will know of his case when I tell him the name in private. I am sure of my facts. I say that there must be coordination to have fairness. That must be demonstrated jointly if you are to be fair to the men who have been overseas and to the men who have civil licences as well. .1 know I am right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me ask the hon. member this. Is he advocating that the Minister of National Defence for Air shall be in charge of civilian air services?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am merely advocating that the licensing of pilots, technical personnel or radio personnel and so on should be coordinated, so that if a man in the air force qualifies, then he is given a civilian standing as well. If a civilian qualifies he will have a standing in the air force should he be called up at any time. It is a perfectly simple thing to do; it is merely a question of administration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Without prolonging this discussion any further, I might say that the examinations are the same for the same kind

of service. If a man gets a certificate from one branch it is honoured by the other branch; that applies both ways.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I definitely challenge the minister's statement on that, because I know. I have had these men speak to me. When they enter civilian work they do not receive credit for their training and technical abilities which they received in the air force.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I draw the minister's attention to the fact that on pages 58 and 59 of the estimates we have expenditures for civilian aviation totalling $9,600,000. On pages 76 and 77 there are other expenditures for civil aviation totalling
S12,000,000. I observe certain differences. The second item is under the heading of demobilization and reconversion. Will the minister explain the reason for the second appropriation in connection with civil aviation? It is not clear to me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The air service estimates are the estimates covering the services which were carried on pre-war. We had a certain line of airports which were built as civil airports. This item covers the operation and maintenance of these airports. The second group of services were built definitely as military services. For instance, there are a number of airports up the Mackenzie river which were built for service purposes which have been turned back to the Department of Transport with all their appurtenances such as radio beams and weather services. The second vote provides funds to take care of these airports, which formerly were not part of the civilian group. At the present time we are trying to consolidate the two. We are trying to work out a pattern which will be the civilian pattern for the future. That takes time. I am hopeful that this wall be the peak of the estimates for future years. I hope that we shall get them down, as we can coordinate the services and reduce expenses. To-day we have a vastly larger air network than we had before the war, and until we can consolidate all into one civilian estimate, discard certain airports, turn them back to other uses, and until we can consolidate our weather and radio services, we require these funds to make a transition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it that the necessity for the division is that there is a different history back of each. Now that you have your civilian services, I hope that they will be consolidated in the near future; that we shall not need to have this separation very much longer.

Supply-Air Service


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the next estimates which come down will have only the one group.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I realize the minister's difficulty with the DC-3 over the mountains from Lethbridge on. Has he in mind another aircraft to take the place of the small Lockheed Lodestar for the Rocky mountain trip, or does he care to make a statement on that now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trans-Canada has on order a number of aeroplanes that will do a ceiling of 35,000 feet on two engines, and they are the plane for the future over the mountains. That is the series which has been named the North Star.


Agar Rodney Adamson: A Lockheed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, a Canadian-built plane.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister tell the committee of the progress which has been made with the airport at Yellowknife, the size of it, whether it is of concrete and whether it has all the necessary incidentals for flying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The airport is nearing completion. It has two 5,000-feet runways.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Of concrete?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, grass.


William Chisholm Macdonald: Would the minister be good enough to tell the committee what the government is prepared to do to assist municipal airports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has not announced a post-war policy. Before the war, there was a policy of assistance to municipal airports. At the moment the government has so much in hand, to bring its present airways up to standard and to take care of the military airports that have been turned over, that at this time it is not particularly anxious to become involved with municipal airports. So I think all I can say is that a more definite policy will be announced in future.


William Henry Golding: Carried. Item 433.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I was just going to speak on item 432, and I let my hon friend get in ahead of me.


William Henry Golding: We are on item 433 now.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: With the minister's permission, I should like to revert to item 432. I had another point in connection with dual control that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister, in the field of flying control and duplicate facilities. For instance, at most air-63260- 315i
ports which are shared by the R.C.A.F. and the ministry of transport I believe it is necessary for the military machines to have permission from the civil aerial controller before they can take off, and they are sometimes unnecessarily delayed in their operations by having to get permission from the civil authorities to fly from the airport. This usually occurs because of weather conditions, since the air force does fly in worse weather than civilian machines will fly in. Sometimes they do it on purpose; it is necessary in their operations. That is one field where, within the next few months, the air force and civil authorities will have to meet and iron out their difficulties. There is another matter in connection with such facilities as radar and blind landing equipment. They will have to agree on that as well. It seems to me that the government will have to make up its mind within a short time whether it will share airports with the R.C.A.F. or whether it will develop civilian airports for its own operations. I should like to ask the minister if he would comment on that at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Civilian and military flying have shared airports throughout the war. At certain airports there is military control; at certain other airports there is civil control. Some one authority must clear a plane from an airport, as I think my hon. friendi will agree. I have heard1 complaints from civilian aircraft that the military control delayed them; and I have heard complaints such as; my hon. friend made this afternoon. I daresay the ntan in the control tower does the-best he can for both. I must say there has; been an extraordinary lack of friction between civilian and military aviation where both use the same airports; andi both have used a great number of airports throughout Canada. I think it has -been amply demonstrated that it is desirable that they continue to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-civil aviation division-
J/33. Airways and .airports-construction and improvements, including radio facilities-(re-vote $562,200)-Capital, $3,837,425.
Mr. PROBE:: I wanted to speak on a topic similar to that mentioned by the hon. member who preceded me, under item 432, but perhaps I can bring it up under this item. I want to draw to the attention of the minister the conflict that exists at the Regina airport. This is a municipal airport whose facilities are used by T.C.A., C.P.A., and the Saskatchewan government, which has an aircraft there for emergency flights to outlying districts, to bring people into hospital when
Supply-Air Service

there is such need. I happened to be out at the airport last January when there was a sudden call for this emergency hospital ship to go to a remote corner of the province. The C.P.A. plane was due in one hour from the time this call was received; the Saskatchewan government plane was ready to take off: but in spite of the emergent nature of the flight the control tower refused' this ship permission to leave the landing field. I understood from the pilot, to whom I spoke at the time, that this was not an unusual occurrence, and I feel that there is something wrong with control arrangements when such a thing comes to pass. May I ask the minister to explain to the committee just what are the arrangements for the control of the landing and taking off of aircraft at a field such as that in Regina, so that I may get the picture a little more clearly? I understood that C.P.A. have exclusive rights, and decide who shall come in, and when, and how.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The man in the control tower is in full charge of all flights entering and leaving the field. In deciding whether or not he can clear a plane he takes into account the ceiling, which must be 800 feet to allow a plane to come in, and he takes into consideration other planes in the vicinity. As soon as he considers it safe for the plane to take off under the regulations, the plane takes off. I think he treats all planes alike. I do not think he worries very much about who is in the plane, or whether it is a civilian or military plane or a plane belonging to the Saskatchewan government. If it is the turn of the plane to take off, it takes off as soon as it can safely do so.


John Oliver Probe: I am aware of the facts in the case I have mentioned, through firsthand knowledge. It seemed to me that a C.P.A. passenger plane one hour away from Regina would still be somewhere near Saskatoon, and certainly there would not have been any conflict in that case. This would appear to be an unnecessary stricture, if it is possible for military planes to take off within thirty second intervals or so. It seems to me that with competent flying personnel it should be possible for civilian planes to take off under similar conditions. This delay had, of course, nothing to do with the weather; it was a straight matter of priority in the use of the landing strip.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say that I am not accepting my hon. friend's word that the reason the plane was delayed was that a C.P.A. plane was an hour away. At LaGuardia field planes are dispatched every minute. At Dorval airport they are dispatched every few minutes.

There are always planes coming and going, but they still dispatch planes promptly, and I am sure the dispatcher at Regina is just as competent as the dispatcher at Montreal. I think my hon. friend had better check his information before he asks me to give further information. There must have been another reason.


John Oliver Probe: Then may I ask who is in charge of the control tower?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Transport.


John Oliver Probe: The federal department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. HAZEN:: The details of this item appear at page 240 of the estimates. I should like to ask the minister to give us a breakdown of the item of $1,483,200 for field services -construction and improvements, and $2,173,280 for radio services-construction and improvements.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Seven o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of my colleague and the committee, and in accordance with the promise I gave to the leaders when I made the motion, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at seven o'clock p.m.
Monday, August 19, 1946