1947-07-08

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
Third report of standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Clark.
Second and third reports of the standing committee on industrial relations.-Mr. Croll.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) presented the third and final report of standing committee on radio broadcasting.
Mr. FLEMING:: On a question of privilege, I should like to say that this is a majority report. No Progressive Conservative member of the committee voted for it.


Mr. REID:: I did not vote for it.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order for first reading of senate bills:
Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Croll, for Mr. Mav-banlc, moves, seconded by Mr. Winkler, that bills Nos. 432 to 442 inclusive, divorce bills, be now read the first time.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: I wish to take exception to these bills being read the first time until we have a copy of the evidence. I have not a copy of the evidence of Bill No. 432.


James Horace King: Order. I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the first reading of senate bills is not debatable.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Pierre-Ben-Danais Warren.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 433, for the relief of Ethel Florence Rhodes Pompetti, otherwise known as Ethel Florence Crowdy Pompetti-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 434, for the relief of Elisa Jamoul Hull.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 435, for the relief of Ernest Stanley Rundell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 436, for the relief of Thelma Lillian Dalton Hilger, otherwise known as Thelma Lillian Dalton Goernert.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 437, for the relief of Mary Alice Berrigan Hamelin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 438, for the relief of Dorothy Mary Boyce Jackson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 439, for the relief of Edith Oberfeld Mintz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 440, for the relief of Roger Lebeau. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 441, for the relief of Sheila Marcus Issenman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 442, for the relief of Zenobia Perrow Broadbent Emond.-Mr. Maybank.
James Horace King: Mr. Croll. for Mr. May-bank, moves, seconded by Mr. Winkler, that the said bills be now read the second time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker. I do not think any member of the House of Commons should be asked to pass any bills about which he knows nothing at all. As I see it, we should have the evidence before we pass the bills. I object to Bill No. 432 being passed until we have a copy of the evidence.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No. On a point of order, I am entitled to that information. A bill cannot be passed when the evidence is not submitted.


James Horace King: I understand that the bills will be distributed today. We have had first reading this afternoon. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Mr. GRA1 DON: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point- of order, a bill cannot be submitted to the house for second reading unless the evidence has been made available.


James Horace King: If there is any objection, next sitting of the house.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the third reading of Bill No. 365, respecting certain national parks and to amend the National Parks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Act

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS RESPECTING VETERANS* PREFERENCE, INCREASED SALARIES FOR COMMISSIONERS, ETC.
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of Bill No. 413, to amend the Civil Service Act.
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Last night on second reading and in the committee stage there was considerable debate on this bill because of the failure to include in the definition of veterans for civil service preference members discharged from the merchant navy of Canada. Quite a few hon. members have different interpretations of the understanding that members of the veterans affairs committee of last year and the year before had with regard to merchant seamen rehabilitation. In the main I agree that most of us on that committee believed that we were to have something better than we have had. As I pointed out last night, it does not cost the government any more to hire merchant seamen than it does to hire veterans of any other service. Hon. members on all sides have supported the view that merchant seamen should be given the preference. Because the veterans committee was composed of hon. members of all political parties, and because I should like to see veterans affairs kept as free from partisan politics as possible, I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who has given yeoman service to the cause of the seamen, that the bill be not now read a third time. I do not want to detract from the very valuable work that is being done by other hon. members, but because the hon. member for Vancouver South was in the forefront of the battle last night he is going to second my motion. I move:
That Bill No. 418 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend the said bill so as to extend to merchant seamen the provisions accorded to veterans in the said bill.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I am very glad to have the privilege of seconding this amendment, and I trust that the Prime Minister will allow the government supporters to treat it as non-controversial and let us have a test of the feeling of the house on the question. I am quite sure that the members of the veterans affairs committee which sat last year were unanimous in the view that the merchant seamen should be treated as the fourth arm of the forces, and I do not think any of them would object to
[Mr. Howe.l
these merchant seamen being given the veterans preference under the Civil Service Act.
After all, Mr. Speaker, this veterans preference is based on the principle of service to the nation. That is the reason the preference was given after the first war to men who had served in the Canadian forces, and is also the reason it has been extended to men who served in the forces in the second' war. I submit that the merchant seamen should be considered, as indeed they are considered, as having constituted the fourth arm of the Canadian service.
I would refer the Prime Minister to the speech from the throne in the session of 1945, dated September 6, which, as members will see, was only about three short weeks after the fighting had stopped. In that speech from the throne we find this expression:
Our country will ever remember with pride the heroic exploits of Canada's fighting men and merchant seamen.
Just a week ago today, on the first of July, the right hon. the Prime Minister made a statement which was really very much to the same effect. Speaking on Dominion day, he said, as reported "at page 4888 of Hansard:
We look back with tremendous pride on the part which our defence forces were able to take, along with those of allied and associated forces; the contributions made by our army, our navy! our air force and the merchant marine; . . .
There you have the picture. The Prime Minister himself treated these men as having been one of the arms of the service, and I repeat that they should be given the veterans preference under the Civil Service Act. I would appeal for support for this amendment from the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and also from the private members of the government party.


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: This subject of the veterans preference is one that received very careful consideration last year by the veterans affairs committee. I do not take second place to anyone in my admiration of the merchant marine and the members thereof, but I do feel that there is a difference in service as between t'he merchant marine and those who served in the armed forces overseas and are now entitled to the veterans preference in the civil service.
Various other benefits have been provided for members of the merchant marine, and I would refer to a letter that was received by all members of parliament from the merchant marine rehabilitation society, head office, Vancouver, British Columbia, dated April 22,

Civil Service Act
1947. The letter was sent out by A. J. Heide, secretary treasurer, addressed to the Department of Transport, in which he states:
In answer to your request, in the course of our conversation last Saturday, for specific benefits this society believes the men who served in Canada's merchant marine during the war years are entitled to, we submit the following three as the most urgent.
Then he sets out the three as follows: first, medical and dental care; second, educational and vocational training; third, disability grants.
I submit, sir, that the merchant marine do not consider that the veterans preference is one of the benefits in which they are particularly interested or to which they are particularly entitled. I would also refer to" the resolution passed by the army, navy and air force veterans of Canada, in which they state:
Therefore be it resolved that the dominipn government be requested to maintain this preference as it now stands in the statute of this dominion.
I want to point out that consideration has been given to extending or modifying the veterans preference, but it has been considered that if the veterans preference is to mean anything it should not be extended to such a wfide field that those who served overseas rvould not secure any particular advantage. For that reason the veterans preference has not been extended to those who served in the armed forces in Canada, and I can see that if we started extending it there are other groups that could come in, particularly for example those members of the Royal Canadian Air Force who were in Canada in the air acting as instructors in very dangerous work. They would have a claim and could say that they had also risked their lives.
The preference could be extended widely if we opened the door. I feel we have adopted the right policy in restricting it to a limited number and I do not think that we should open the door any wider. I -would also point out that in the recommendations of the veterans affairs committee last year the committee recommended in its final report:
Various proposals have been examined for extension or curtailment of the veterans preference for employment in the civil service. Your committee does not recommend any change in the existing legislation at the present time.
In view of that recommendation the present bill has been submitted, and until a further recommendation is received from a similar committee I think that the veterans preference, as included in the act, should stand.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): As one who was closely identified with the activities of the 83166-332J
veterans affairs committee a year ago I want to endorse entirely the remarks of my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson). If anyone should be inclined kindly to the cause of merchant seamen it should be I, because my father was one in the service of the merchant navy in Scotland. But I wish the committee would know the facts as the facts were adduced before us last year.
Last night my hon. friend the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) made a statement in this house which I resented and still resent. He said that these men were left out in the cold. Let me tell the house what was done for these merchant seamen by the people of Canada. The monthly remuneration was increased to a basic rate of $89.93, to which was added a war risk bonus of $44.50, making a total of $134.43 per month. Was that leaving them out in the cold?
Income tax was paid on the basic rate only, war bonus and subsistence being exempted. A special bonus was paid on gross earnings, for a minimum period of six months' service in dangerous waters prior to April 1, 1944, provided a seaman signed an agreement to serve for two years or the duration of the war, or alternatively, signed an agreement to join a reserve of seamen if called upon. Merchant seamen who have received a special bonus for war service prior to April 1, 1944, are eligible to participate in the Veterans Insurance Act. Was that leaving them out in the cold?
A war service bonus of ten per cent on gross earnings was paid for service subsequent to April 1, 1944, until the end of the war, for seamen who served on agreement or were listed as permanent employees of a Canadian company. Was that leaving them out in the cold?
Leave on pay at the end of each year on agreement was allowed, together with round trip rail transportation from a manning pool to the seaman's home, at the low cost of one-third of the one way fare. Was that leaving him out in the cold?
Merchant seamen on completion of service were entitled to receive railway transportation from the port of discharge to t/heir place of permanent domicile. During service on a manning pool two year agreement a merchant seaman, if incapacitated for sickness or injury, received basic pay for a maximum period of twelve weeks. Was that leaving him out in the cold?
Merchant seamen who qualified for the special bonus are entitled to vocational training to assist them to advance in their profession at sea. Is that leaving them out in the cold?
Civil Service Act


Howard Charles Green: Rut not general vocational
training.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Within their own profession. Merchant seamen who left civil employment to serve at sea during the war are entitled to the benefits of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. Is that leaving them out in the cold?
An hon. MEMBER. That did not give them much.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Merchant seamen
entering insurable employment are entitled, after fifteen weeks in such employment, to have their service at sea during the war counted under the Unemployment Insurance Act as if that time had been spent in the insured employment subsequently entered upon. Is that leaving them out in the cold?
Thus the extent of unemployment insurance benefit is calculated on the fifteen weeks plus the time spent at sea for which a merchant seaman has received a war service bonus. Is that leaving him out in the cold? Any unemployment occurring prior to the end of the fifteen weeks is covered by a special out-of-work allowance, provided the merchant seaman had received a war service bonus and was in good standing with the manning -pool on August 1, 1946. Is that leaving him out in the cold?
Pension for disability incurred from enemy action or counter-action is payable to merchant seamen serving on any Canadian ship, and to Canadian merchant seamen serving on ships of allied nations employed in service essential to the prosecution of the war. Is that leaving them out in the cold?
A disability pensioner is entitled to free medical care, with allowances during hospitalization for his pension disability, and is eligible to participate in the benefits of the Veterans Land Act and the Veterans Insurance Act.


Howard Charles Green: Only if a pensioner.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I said so.


Howard Charles Green: There are very few of those.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I said "a disability
pensioner". My hon. friend did not hear me aright.


Howard Charles Green: There are only about thirty pensioners.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If debarred by their
disability from following their former profession of seamen, they may be given vocational training under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act for any other occupation.
In case of death from similar causes, widows and dependent children are pensionable. A 
Canadian merchant seaman in receipt of a pension from an allied nation is entitled, during residence in Canada, to have his pension raised to the Canadian scale.
Merchant seamen detained by the enemy received a detention allowance equivalent to their basic pay and war risk bonus, and also the special bonus. Dependents of merchant seamen who were detained by the enemy received appropriate portions of this detention allowance for their maintenance, the balance being paid to the seaman on his return to . Canada.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: And workmen's compensation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And there was a compensation measure introduced by my colleague in addition to that.


Howard Charles Green: That was post-war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the hon. member like to compare what Canada is doing with what is being done in England?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McKAY:: This is Canada.
Mr. 'MACKENZIE: Yes, this is Canada; and we are far ahead of any other country in the world in what we have done for our merchant seamen. I do not take second place to anyone in this house in my sympathetic friendliness to the merchant seamen of Canada. I think they are a glorious band of men.


Howard Charles Green: Then why not give them the preference?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because there is an essential and fundamental difference between the terms of service of the merchant seamen and those of the members of the armed forces. Listen to this question which was asked in the English parliament. This was on February 27, 1945. Sir W. Wayland asked the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of War Transport whether His Majesty's government propose to accord to the personnel of the merchant navy any recognition of its splendid services on the same lines as the services gratuities. Mr. Noel-Baker, who is a thorough democrat if there is one in the empire, made this reply:
His Majesty's government have frequently expressed their deep appreciation of the magnificent services rendered to the nation by the officers and men of the merchant navy. But they must take into consideration the fact that these officers and men have been employed throughout the war at industrial rates of wages, negotiated and settled by the national maritime board. In view of this fact, the government consider that they would not be justified in granting to the men of the merchant navy the gratuities wdiich the services will receive.

Civil Service Act
In conclusion, sir, may I say this. This government is most kindly disposed to the case of the merchant seamen. I am sure that I have the support of my Prime Minister in saying this, that the government will be glad to give further consideration to this entire problem. But in the light of what has been done in these fourteen benefits already extended to them, when I hear anybody in this house say, as happened last night, that they were left out in the cold, I get a little bit sore, as I did. I can assure the house that the government is not indifferent. The government will not be forgetful. The government will be generously disposed towards every possible further consideration of this problem. At the present time, however, I think the bill as it is should be passed by this. house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. MacNICOL:: Get in out of the cold.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Apparently the hon. member for Fraser Valley has been left out in the cold. I am sorry I have not the poetry of expression enjoyed by my colleague, the minister from British Columbia.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The hon. member is better off without it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But I can still appreciate, as I am sure he can, that patriotism and service to one's country cannot be judged in dollars and cents. When I hear my good friend, with all his eloquence, describing the men as not being left out in the cold, I wonder how the minister would feel if he were in the stokehole, with no chance of escape, and the boat was sunk in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. Would he be left out in the cold?


An hon. MEMBER:: He' would be all wet.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am proud of what Canada has done for her merchant seamen, and of what Canada has done for everyone who served his country. But no minister or any one else can tell me that service to country, or the patriotic feeling which impels it, can be measured in dollars and cents. I do not know anything about the merchant marine. I never had any experience in serving in the navy. But I know something about soldiering; and I want to tell my friends that my experience in soldiering was in the front line. I do know something of the feeling of a man who is staking his all, not for $1.10 a day as in the first great war or $1.50 a day as in the last war, but because he believes in something; because he believes
in Canada, because he believes in democracy, because he believes in all the things that are right and just. When these men went out there to serve in the cold Atlantic they took all the chances in the world. I want to point out that in our own literature we boast of the fact that the largest convoy to cross the Atlantic in the last war consisted of 167 ships from Canada. Under the leadership of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) we produced the sinews of war. The people at home did their part, but they did it at good wages. I saw pictures of that convoy published by a board; I think it was called the information board, or the national film board, or something. Anyway I know it cost a lot of money. Those people stayed at home; certainly they did not get cold. This picture showed all those boats deploying for the trip across the ocean, guarded by destroyers; and on that trip they were at all times, subject to attack by submarines. Neither the minister nor anyone else can tell me you can judge what these men did for their country in dollars and cents, even at $134 a month, with income tax paid only at the basic rate. I don't care what the income tax was paid on. We in this House of Commons paid income tax, but we sat here in security because the merchant seamen were able to get the sinews of war over to Britain to enable the Canadian army to carry on. The minister mentions people being left out in the cold. I want to tell you that those who should feel left out in the cold, those who should feel cold in their hearts, are the people who sat in security in this house while the merchant seamen were crossing the Atlantic.
I admit that Canada has done much. I grant all the points mentioned by the minister. But I do not take into consideration what any other country has done. I am a Canadian and proud of it. I was not born in Canada but in the United States, and came to Canada when I was eight months old. My father was born in Canada and all my people were Canadians. I am proud of Canada, proud of her record in 'the war, proud of what she has done for her veterans and for her merchant seamen. But I tell the minister that I think these people are being left out in the cold as long as there is anything more Canada can do to improve the lot of the merchant seamen.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, this question of the merchant marine has been discussed on many occasions since the opening of parliament and, as has been pointed out, it was the subject of some discussion in the veterans affairs committee last year. T m
Civil Service Act


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are of the opinion that the men of the merchant marine are entitled to the same benefits as the men of the armed services. To my mind it has always been incredible that men who served on oil tankers and faced such tremendous hazards should be denied benefits given to men who served in the armed forces in bomb-proof jobs. I recall that when this matter was brought up from time to time in the veterans committee the majority of the members were of the opinion that greater benefits should be given these men.
When we were discussing the Veterans' Land Act we requested that merchant seamen be included in its provisions, and at that time the minister said that he did not think it would be wise to include them because their services would be required on ships after the war. We know now that many men for one reason or another have had to leave the merchant marine, and surely those men should be entitled to full benefits under the Veterans' Land Act rather than having those benefits confined to those who receive pensions. For these reasons we in this group will support the motion before the house to refer the bill back to committee with instructions to amend it so as to extend to merchant seamen the benefits extended by the bill to veterans.


Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) does not involve any expenditure of money by the government; it merely gives to the members of the merchant marine the same right to apply for positions in the civil service as is now accorded to veterans of the three armed services.
It can be stated with a great degree of truth that the men who served in the merchant navy went through experiences equally as difficult and dangerous as those faced by any of the other services. It is true that the only men
who faced experiences more difficult were those who served in the air crews of the allied forces.
It must be remembered that the men who served on merchant ships had little protection during the early days of the war, particularly in 1941 and 1942, when escort vessels were few in number. At this period merchant ships went down by the dozen in the north Atlantic, and the casualties were extremely high. As I say, the protection provided by the allied powers was meagre indeed. In answering some questions which had been asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) the minister stated, as recorded on page 1651 of Hansard:
The monthly remuneration of able seamen was increased to a basic rate of $89.93, to which was added a war risk bonus of $44.50, making a total of $134.43 per month.
But no mention is made of the fact that the war risk bonus was paid only while the ship was at sea. It is impossible for a ship to operate any length of time without going into port for repairs or to load or unload a cargo. Thus a ship would be actually at sea for probably not more than nine months in the year, so there would be three months during which the war risk bonus would not be paid. That would bring down considerably the monthly remuneration when averaged over the year. It should also be remembered that the merchant seaman had to buy his own wearing apparel, which meant a considerable reduction in his monthly pay.
A little further on the minister said:
Pension for disability incurred from enemy action or counter-action is payable to merchant seamen-


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am not sure whether he is referring to a previous debate in this session. If he is, he is out of order.


Mr. IRVINE:: He is following the argument of the minister.


Ronald Stewart Moore: Those were answers to questions which had been on the order paper.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I understand the hon. member is referring, not to a debate but to answers to questions on the order paper.


Ronald Stewart Moore: On April 16 I asked how many men who had served in Canada with the merchant marine during the war were in receipt of disability pensions. The answer I got was that there were 22 receiving such payments, together with ten Canadians who had served on ships not under Canadian registry. That makes a total of 33 men who served in the Canadian merchant marine or on ships of

Civil Service Act
the allied nations who are receiving disability pension. That is not a very large number when we remember that more than 3,000 Canadians serving on our merchant ships were lost during the war. I have not the total number of those who served during the war years, but the number must be great. When these things are taken into consideration it will be recognized by all members of the house that something more should be done for these men who served so well during the war years.
I do not think it need be mentioned again that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) have given many indications of their understanding of the status of merchant seamen as compared with other war veterans. It was a mistake right from the start that these men were not considered to be on the same basis as others who served in the three armed services. I urge upon the minister that immediate steps be taken to give veterans of the merchant marine the same rights when applying for civil service positions as are accorded to members of the other armed forces.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as the minister charged with the responsibility of administering the branch of the director of1 merchant seamen I think it is fitting that I should say a word in this debate. I am pleased to note the difference of attitude in the debate on this subject today from that last evening and in previous debates. The attitude today is to the effect that the men of the merchant navy are not entitled to the same benefits as the members of the armed forces.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know where the minister got that idea.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would like to correct the minister. I stated definitely that I thought *jhey were entitled to the same benefits.


Lionel Chevrier: I am quoting the words of certain hon. members in this debate. I have them down before me now. One said: The men of the merchant navy are entitled to the same benefits as those of the armed forces. That is the whole problem we are faced with, whether or not they are so entitled. That is an entirely different attitude from the one that was taken last night which was, first of all, that the men of the merchant navy were left entirely out in the cold, and secondly, on a previous occasion the attitude of one hon. member on the other side of the house who said that Canada had treated her merchant [Mr. Moore.)
navy shamefully. My colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) dealt with that point, as I did myself on another occasion, and placed on the record enough evidence to establish I think to the satisfaction of the house that those charges are not well founded and are far removed from the truth.
The point . is this, that the men of the merchant navy, rightly or wrongly, were not treated as being entitled to the same benefits as the members of the armed forces. I am not going to debate whether or not that should have been done at the time. I am simply making the statement that faced with the position that they were not considered as veterans in the same light as were members of the armed forces, the government had to deal with the problem accordingly. And so what happened was this. The government gave consideration to a number of recommendations that were made by the veterans affa.irs committee, by the director of merchant seamen and by others, granted some of those recommendations and refused others.
The members who have spoken thus far feel that we have not done enough. That may be so. But I am still of the opinion, and I do not think there can be any successful contradiction of this, that Canada has done for her merchant seamen far more than any other country has. It has certainly done more for them than the United Kingdom because in that country neither of the two bonuses that Canada gave were given to their merchant seamen-the special bonus of ten per cent granted by Canada on certain earnings of merchant seamen who served for six months in dangerous waters, and the war service bonus on gross earnings for the year. Neither of these was granted by the United Kingdom. My colleague has given the reason why that was done in the United Kingdom. It was 'because there the merchant seamen were considered as civilians and were not placed in the same category as members of the armed forces and were dealt with accordingly. We followed the same practice in this country. But notwithstanding that we granted benefits to men of the merchant navy which they did not receive either in the United Kingdom or in the United States.
One hon. gentleman went on to say something about the number of those who had received pensions. I placed figures on the record the other day showing that 6,752 merchant seamen had received the ten per cent war service bonus at a cost of $1,500,000, and 4.700 merchant seamen had received the special war service bonus at a cost of $1,300,000
. JULY 8, 1947
Civil Service Act
[DOT]which together with other benefits ran the total to something close to 85,000,000. The total expenditure made by Canada on behalf of merchant seamen during the war and since ran over $14,000,000. In the face of that I do not think it can be said that nothing was done by Canada for her merchant navy.
I want to conclude with this, and I think it is significant. In 1945 the estimates of the director of merchant seamen were brought down in the house and very little, if anything, was said about the treatment given to the men of the merchant navy. In 1946 again the same thing happened. Very little was said about the ill treatment that parliament or the government was giving to the men of the merchant navy.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In 1945 the veterans affairs committee was sitting and it was felt that these men would be considered.


Lionel Chevrier: Answering my hon.
friend I will quote the conclusion of the report of the veterans affairs committee at page vii. Let my hon. friend listen to this:
Various proposals have been examined for extension or curtailment of the veterans preference for employment in the civil service. Your committee does not recommend any change in the existing legislation at the present time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: That was in 1946, and at that time that was the conclusion of the committee.


Howard Charles Green: They did not deal with the nerchant seamen in that at all.


Lionel Chevrier: In 1946 the Minister of Transport brought before the house an act establishing compensation for merchant seamen. Was there any discussion on that bill concerning additional benefits for merchant seamen? There was a discussion as to extending workmen's compensation to the merchant seamen, I grant you, but there was no discussion such as we heard in the house last night and again today concerning extensions. What has brought this on? There is an organized campaign by a certain group in favour of additional benefits. I have no quarrel with that. They are entitled to make all the representations they want provided they present the facts accurately. Unfortunately the facts have not been presented accurately, and until recently the story had not been told of the benefits Canada had given to her merchant seamen. I say that now in the dying days of the session there is an organized attempt to extend benefits and to allege that absolutely nothing or very little has been done for the men of the merchant navy.


Howard Charles Green: You had us ruled out of order months ago.


Lionel Chevrier: Since 1946 over and above what was mentioned by the Minister o>
Veterans Affairs these additional benefits were granted:	unemployment insurance, out-ofwork benefits, vocational training in their calling, and the act granting workmen's compensation. I think this country has done pretty well in assisting these men. And now a motion is made, that this bill be sent back to the committee, with certain instructions. In the face of the benefits granted to the merchant seamen I do not think it can be said that Canada has treated her men of the merchant navy shamefully or has left them out in the cold. I only wish that other countries had done as much for men of the merchant navy as the Dominion of Canada has done. In view of that I submit the house should reject the amendment and adopt the motion.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have hesitated to say anything about this amendment up to this moment, believing it would be to the advantage of the house to hear the arguments which might be presented from both sides as to giving additional consideration to the position of merchant seamen at this time. I have, in listening, been impressed by remarks made by two hon. members which would indicate that, in their minds at least, there may be some doubt whether this amendment is in order. I refer, first, to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore), who at the time he was speaking said there was nothing in the amendment which would involve any additional imposition of taxes. In that, I disagree with him entirely. It is not to be expected that we are going to be able to assist in a substantial way the merchant seamen without an additional outlay of public money. I would point out to hon. members that the bill it is now sought to amend was introduced by a resolution because it involved an expenditure of public money. It has passed the second reading and committee of the whole. The principle of reference to the armed forces has been adopted. If we are to deal with merchant seamen at this time, I submit that will require, in the first instance, a resolution, and a recommendation from the crown, and, later, a bill based on the resolution. That is the point which I would raise at once. The amendment is not in order because it does involve a contingent additional impost on the public which was not contemplated when the crown

Civil Service Act

recommended that only certain expenditures be made under the bill to amend the Civil Service Act.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) was the other hon. member whom I had in mind. I sympathize very strongly with many of the arguments he put forward, but he made one statement which, at the time he made it, I thought was incorrect. He said, we can do so and so in this bill. He will remember saying that we could amend this bill so as to assist the merchant seamen.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not intend that, if I said it. What I meant was that we could assist them by extending the civil service preference, which, to my mind, would not increase the expenditures in any way. It would have to be done in other ways.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My point is that we have a certain bill before us at the present time. My hon. friend admits the truth of what I am saying, that we have a bill before us which is before the house for third reading. That bill has gone through the committee stage. The committee had power to do certain things under the general powers of the committee of the whole. It did not exercise those powers to the extent that some hon. members at this moment would like to have them exercised. I submit that the bill cannot be dealt with as suggested. The amendment is to the effect that the bill be referred back to the committee with certain instructions. I contend that that is out of order, and I shall give my hon. friend the reasons for so contending. I would quote first of all Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, 1943, citation 407:
An instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do. It directs the order and course of the committee's proceedings and extends or restricts the order of reference according to the discretion of the house. If the subject-matter of an instruction is within the scope of the question referred to the committee then such instruction is useless and irregular. Committees, in case of doubt, may ask instructions from the house as bo the course they should take with reference to the matters under their consideration.
Surely that is as clear as language can make it that when the bill was in committee of the whole the committee had full powers to do what the instruction purports to ask. The committee would be instructed at this stage to do something which it has already considered, and had power to do at the time. May I-


Thomas John Bentley: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment, please; I should like to complete the citation. I now turn to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure at page 513:
Considerable misapprehension appears to exist as to the meaning of an instruction. An instruction is given to a committee to confer on it that power which, without such instruction, it would not have. If the subject-matter of an instruction is relevant to the subject-matter and within the scope and title of a bill, then such instruction is irregular since the committee had the power to make the required amendment.
I need not cite the cases that are set forth in Bourinot. It is perfectly obvious that the facts are as I have stated them. But let me say this, listening to the hon. members presenting the arguments which they have, and knowing the point of view from which this matter was considered by the government, I would say that it would be a misfortune if we were in any way to divide on this question at this time, and that the proper way to proceed would be to have the position of the merchant seamen further considered at another session of parliament. I will undertake to say that I would advocate that that course should be taken before a special committee in the light of what has been said here this afternoon. But I do say that we would only be prejudicing the case of the merchant seamen were we to seek to amend a measure in a manner which is contrary to the rules- of the house. There is more that I might add, but I think what I have said is sufficient to cover the point at issue.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising now to deal with the merits of this amendment. If I were I would argue in support of it. I am rising only to deal briefly with the point raised by the Prime Minister, namely, that this amendment is out of order. I will deal with only one feature of it. I think every hon. member recognizes that if a private member brings forward a proposal which would increase the tax burden on the people or lessen the tax revenue of the government it would be out of order. As I understand this amendment, it proposes not a greater expenditure by the government on the -merchant seamen but only that they be given preference in appointments to the civil service. If that is correct, it means no additional expenditure by the government of Canada, and from that point of view I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is in order.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Would it not be possible for the government to make a survey of this question? If it is too late to

Civil Service Act
do it now, it could be done next year, and make it retroactive. I do not want to see the country charged with acting the part of the deadbeat, but these men who helped to save us in the battle of the Atlantic and on the great lakes should be given a preference. In the marine city from which I come we have large numbers of these men, some of whom are almost in destitute circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the point of order raised by the Prime Minister-


Lionel Chevrier: A great authority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I would-


Angus MacInnis: Give us a better one.


Lionel Chevrier: There are many on this side of the house but they are not as loquacious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that any hon. member has the right to fall back on the rules of the house without- being subjected to sniping from the other side. I ask, Mr. Speaker, your consideration first of all of citations 112 and 113 of Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition. Citation 112 reads as follows:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
I submit that for the Prime Minister to let the debate go on for over an hour, during which time three cabinet ministers took part, and then to raise a point of order, is contrary to citation 112. I would ask Your Honour to consider citation 113, which reads:
The Speaker decides questions of order only when they actually arise and not in anticipation. He is bound to call attention immediately to an irregularity in debate or procedure and not to wait for the interposition of a member.
I submit that if in Your Honour's opinion there was anything irregular about this motion it should have been pointed out immediately, and that you would be violating citation 113 if you acted now after the interposition of the Prime Minister.
With regard to motions for instructions, I would point out that citation 708 gives the authority for a motion of this kind. It reads:
When a bill comes up for a third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
That is what the motion now before the house does.
The Prime Minister read from citation 407 to suggest objection to this measure, but he 83166-333J
should have gone on and read citation 408 which gives the general principles regarding instructions. There are three laid down and I shall read all of them. They are as follows:
First, an instruction must empower the committee to do something which the committee is not otherwise empowered to do. Secondly, the purpose of the instruction must be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose of the bill, and must fall within the general scope and framework of the bill.
That is what this instruction does. It proposes something supplementary and ancillary and at the same time within the general framework and scope of the bill.


Mr. HARTT:: Not supplementary and ancillary, I respectfully submit. It is contrary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By no means. The general provisions of the bill call for extending the civil service preference to veterans. The proposal of the amendment is that the term "veterans" be extended to include those who served in the merchant marine. I submit that this is supplementary and ancillary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One is civil and the other military.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right. .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is where you are all wet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that language is on the record.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hope it is. It will be on the platform too.


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members not to interrupt- the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the interruptions that have been made I feel that I should call the attention of the 'house to the fact that in Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and' Forms, third edition, it is stated:
The principles that lie at the base of English' parliamentary law, as Bourinot so aptly saysr are to protect the minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of the majority.
I submit that the minority in this house has a right as well. On the point of order that the Prime Minister raised with regard to the fact that a resolution preceded this bill, a resolution which had the royal recommendation, on the basis of which he contended that this was a money bill, may I point out that the reason there had to be a resolution with the royal recommendation preceding this bill was that one of the provisions in the bill was for increasing the salaries of the civil service commission.
Civil Service Act

But so far as the veterans preference is concerned, no expenditure is involved. Even if that were the case, I submit that citation 486 is quite clear:
The committee is not bound by the terms of provisions which ministers have inserted in the bill, and when no amount has been mentioned in the resolution-
That is the case here.
-any member may propose to increase the grants specified in the bill or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred .by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
I submit that on every count this amendment is clearly in order, and that some day in this House of Commons the rules should be used to protect the rights of the minority; in other words, that the rules that are permissive in character should be respected as well as the rules that- are prohibitive.


James Horace King: The question before the house is the third reading of Bill No. 413, an act to amend the Civil Service Act. We have before the house now an amendment moved by Mr. Bentley, seconded by Mr. Green, which reads:
That Bill No. 413 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions-
It is not written, "for the purpose", but "with instructions".
-to amend the said bill so as to extend to merchant seamen the provisions accorded to veterans in the said bill.
The point of order has been raised that this amendment is out of order because it imposes upon the crown an expenditure. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), both today and a few days ago, has left with the house the impression that, in certain cases it is the .privilege of any member, by means of an amendment, to impose expenditures upon the government. I would like to draw the attention of the house to a book entitled The Law and Custom of The Constitution, by Anson, from which I quote, at page 268:
Money only granted on recommendation of the crown.
I believe it is important to read this to the house in view of what was said the other day in moving an amendment to the old age pension bill, and what has been said again today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
The responsible advisers of the crown, the ministers of state, are alone capable of proposing that public money should be raised, or if already raised should be spent; and the house would not
IMr. Knowles.]
entertain a motion by a private member for a specific outlay on any object which he might consider deserving of public support. The relations of crown, lords and commons in respect of money grants cannot be better stated than in the words of Sir Erskine May.
The crown demands money, the commons grant it, and the lords assent to the grant; but the commons do not vote money unless it be required by the crown; nor impose or augment taxes, unless they be necessary for the public service as declared by the crown through its constitutional advisers. No private member may propose specific grant.
It is possible for any member of the House of Commons to move a resolution to the effect that public money might profitably be expended upon purposes specified in the resolution; and if the house agree to the motion it thereby commits itself to a general approval of such an outlay. But it would not be in accordance with the rules of the house for a private member to move that a specific sum be granted for a specific purpose; such a motion could only proceed from a minister of the crown. For it cannot be too strongly impressed upon the student of constitutional law, that all the money spent for the public service is spent by the crown; that all the money granted for the public service is granted by the commons, and that the commons have imposed upon themselves a rule that they will not grant a penny unless it is asked for by a minister representing the crown for a purpose specified in the terms of his request.
Such a rule is the great safeguard of the taxpayer against the casual benevolence of a house wrought upon by the eloquence of a private member; against a scramble for public money among unscrupulous politicians bidding against one another for the favour of a democracy.
The amendment proposes that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend the said bill so as to extend to merchant seamen the provisions accorded to veterans. The Prime Minister called the attention of the house to 407 of Beauchesne, third edition, which I believe is quite clear. Previously, basing my ruling on the same citation, I have declared out of order an amendment drafted on the same lines, and an appeal was made from my decision. That appeal was sustained by the house.
An instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might not otherwise do. It directs the order and course of the committee's proceedings and- extends or restricts the order of reference from the house. In other words, an instruction gives power to the committee in that it enables the committee of the whole to do something which the committee had not the powder to do. The committee of the whole had the power, and moreover had the opportunity, to amend the bill in such a way as to read as the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. gentleman reads. So according to Bourinot

Civil Service Act
and Beauchesne I have no reason to do other than say that this amendment is out of order.


Thomas John Bentley: In spite of my great respect for you, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to appeal from your decision.
Mr. SPEAKER put the question as follows:	Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West) moved,
seconded by Mr. Howe, that Bill No. 413 be now read a third time. Mr. Bentley moved, seconded by Mr. Green:
That Bill No. 413 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend the said bill so as to extend to merchant seamen the provisions accorded to veterans in the said bill.
Mr. Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it was in the form of an instruction and that an instruction could not be given to a committee to do that which it already had the power to do. From this decision Mr. Bentley appealed.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling being sustained.


Mr. CLAXTON:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling being sustained.


Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Speaker, it has always been against my principles to pair, but this afternoon I find myself paired with the right
Civil Service Act

hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling being sustained. I would have voted for justice.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling being sustained.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling being sustained.


Mr. WYLIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling being sustained.


Mr. J. I. HAMEL (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is carried I want to put on record my strong opposition to it. To my mind, to raise the salaries of the members of the civil service commission at this time is to give a premium for incompetence and systematic discrimination against almost one-third of Canada's citizens, those of French origin. I charge publicly and formally the civil service commission with being responsible for the disunity existing so openly in this country at the present time. I charge formally the civil service commission with having violated the fundamental principles of our democracy, namely, representation by population. I charge the civil service commission with being responsible for the loss of millions and millions of dollars of income yearly by my compatriots of French origin.
Before I resume my seat I want to express my deep regret at not having heard the leaders of the various political groups in this house take their stand on this all-important matter. That being so, those same leaders should stop wondering why they cannot obtain and secure substantial support in the province of Quebec.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express briefly my disappointment that this bill does not include merchant seamen in the veterans preference. I support the argument put forward by various members in that connection. I want to read a resolution which was passed at the provincial convention of the Canadian Legion held in Vernon, British Columbia, in May, and at which there were in attendance some three hundred members. I want to draw this resolution to the attention of the right hon. ministers. It reads:
Resolved that this convention request the dominion government to extend vocational training, university grants, and all other rehabilitation benefits to all veterans of Canada's wartime merchant navy who had service in any theatre which authorized the payment of the war risk bonus.
Veterans preference is a rehabilitation benefit. I hope that before another session rolls around the government will listen to the views of the troops, not only those in British Columbia but I am sure those throughout Canada, the men who served overseas and who recognize the great work these merchant seamen did.
Mr. GEORGES H. HEON (Argenteuil) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say a few words on this matter before the motion for third reading of the bill io carried?
The debate on this measure has made clearer the deplorable treatment meted out to our French-speaking fellow-citizens in the dominion civil service.


Mr. LANGLOIS:: The Conservatives speak along the same lines.


Mr. HEON:: So do intelligent liberals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Georges-Henri Héon: Right-thinking people, who
are free from narrow-mindedness or language or religious prejudice, recognize the merits of the representations submitted in that connection by the chambre de commerce of Montreal, the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges-Henri Héon: It ill becomes you to laugh
it off! The Quebec legislature and other representative bodies and they admit how urgent it is that according to principles of justice and equity and in the common interest, something should be done to remedy such a situation which reflects no credit on those who created and encouraged it-


Mr. RINFRET:: Who created it?


Georges-Henri Héon: The hon. member had better ask who encouraged it. It is an insult to the racial group so victimized.
Mr. Speaker, need I repeat that it is dishonest to appeal for unity and point out that the two great races should cooperate in making this country greater, and more united, if in the dominion executive and administrative field, the representatives of the French-speaking group are excluded? It might also be worth while to emphasize that never, in the last twenty-five years, has French-Canadian public opinion within all provinces been so much roused than on this matter. It is obvious that such concern will only cease when the wrongs are remedied and redressed.

Flood Damage, in Manitoba
I, for one, believe that the government should have the courage to deal at once with this problem; in so doing they will have the support Of Canadians from all groups which are not blinded by fanaticism and hatred.
We are also informed that a committee of French-speaking members has been established for inquiring into the manner in which our fellow-citizens are treated, to the end that it may make whatever recommendations are called for under the circumstances and that our people may obtain full justice.
I am second to none in wishing the greatest success to my horn, friends in the tremendous task which they have so resolutely . tackled.
(Text):
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.

Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved1 that the house go into committee of supply.



FLOOD DAMAGE IN MANITOBA-STATEMENT OF MR. ZAPLITNY

Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair there is a matter of urgency I wish to bring to the attention of the house.


James Horace King: May I take this occasion to suggest to the hon. member that when a motion is put from the chair, and before the Speaker says "adopte-carried", if an hon. member wishes to speak he should rise and address the Speaker. If he does not do so the Speaker does not know whether the hon. member wants to speak or to leave the chamber. Moreover, I would suggest that if there is a noise in the house an hon. member who rises should speak in such a voice that he can be understood. I am sure all hon. members will appreciate that, because they are very jealous of the prerogatives of the house and will be pleased to have the Speaker recognize and hear an hon. member who rises to address the house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. The matter I wish to bring to the attention of the house will not take long but must be brought up at this time in order that effective action may be taken. I refer to the serious flood damage which has been caused in Manitoba by the recent torrential rains. I realize that the house is in a hurry to get on with its business, but this is a matter of urgency and importance to the farming economy of Manitoba, and I am sure that other members from Manitoba will appreciate some of the things I am going to say.
I shall not take much time to describe the damage which has been done, because it has been published in the press and over the radio. The rains in the area of Dauphin and north and south of Dauphin have been unprecedented. We have had in some parts of Manitoba what amounts to disaster. The area immediately around Dauphin was most seriously affected, but the area around Brandon, and I understand south of Brandon, also suffered severe damage. I could quote figures as to what the damage amounts to, but as hon. members realize, it is difficult to get exact figures of damage of that kind. Estimates vary. In order to avoid argument I will give a round figure which is a composite of the information given to me, and that is that the damage to crops, buildings, bridges, roads, live stock and so on will amount to around two million dollars. This is in a part of Manitoba which has been one of the best farming areas of the province for many years. It is a serious blow' to the farmers in the areas affected. It is also a serious blow to food production in this country.
I want to place certain representations before the government in order to impress upon them the urgency of coming to the assistance of the people in the area of Dauphin and also in the area of Brandon. But first I wish to thank publicly the officials of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, who have cooperated cheerfully and kindly with me up to this point in providing priorities in lumber, steel and nails in order that- repair work may begin immediately on the bridges which have been washed out in that area.
I might quote from a telegram which I received from the reeve of the municipality of Dauphin in order to impress on the house the extent of the damage in that area. Thi3 telegram, which is addressed to myself, reads:
Damage to municipality three hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
That is to the municipality alone, which includes bridges, culverts and so on. The telegram goes on:
Crop damage over million dollars. Farmers on Lake Shore total loss of hay and crop over area of fifteen miles long and three miles wide. Lake Shore extended one and a half to five miles. Immediate action required to lower level of lake Dauphin.
William Cruise, Reeve of Dauphin.


Mr. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation of the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny). He has explained what is really a serious situation. I have been in touch with it to a greater or lesser degree for the last two weeks and have had representations from various municipalities,
Price of Used Cars

boards of trade and other civic bodies. Manitoba is being blessed with a banner crop practically all over the province, but that does not assist very much the unfortunate farmer or market gardener whose crops are completely destroyed by this flood.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is ini the west, I understand, and I have no doubt that before his return he will have acquired first-hand knowledge of the losses which have been sustained. I believe I speak for practically every hon. member of this house when I say that I hope something may be done to alleviate the losses which these men have met after the hard work of putting in their crop. I am sure we are all one in hoping that they may be amply recompensed.



PRICE OP USED CARS-STATEMENT OF MR. ARGUE

Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: I wish to refer to a matter which is of considerable importance to hon. members and to the people of Canada generally. It has to do with the situation which prevails in the used and slightly used car market. On May 26 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) a question as to the situation which was developing in that regard. His reply was that he believed the situation was spotty and did not warrant any action by the government at that time. What I referred to are the very high prices that are being charged for used cars, prices which, according to newspaper reports, are from $500 to $1,000 higher than the retail selling price of a new car, and often obtained after the car has been sold and driven only a few miles.
The basis of my first question in the house was a report in the Toronto Daily Star of May 28, which set out the situation which had arisen in the city of Quebec. The report in that paper reads as follows:
There are plenty of new ears of most makes available in Quebec city, and anyone, regardless of priority or waiting lists, can get one-provided he is willing to "tip" the salesman a cool $500 in addition to the top price of the car. This practice is more or less general at present, although the average buyer is loudly protesting and refusing to come across.
It goes on to say that the tip ranges from $300 to $500. The used-car dealers are cleaning up on the car shortage too. Everything from battered jalopies to well-used 1938 taxis are selling for fantastic prices in the $1,000-plus class, and most of the ears are little better than heaps of junk.
In the Montreal Standard of May 10 there was an article referring to a similar situation which had been developing in the city of Montreal. I have here an article that appeared

in Le Devoir of June 11, some twelve days after I asked my question, and at a time when one might have thought that, in the words of the minister, the situation might have cleared itself. I have had this article translated, and I will quote from extracts from it:
We have stressed several times in this column recently the hard-to-believe state of affairs of the automobile market, used and new cars. Our last article, of last week, I believe, dealt with a statement which had just been made in Toronto by one of the principal officers of the automobile salesmen's association and which confirmed what we had previously exposed and denounced, that is, that a real black market existed and that transactions at exorbitant prices are currently taking place. Old cars, which were used during ten and twelve years, are being sold at unbelievable prices, while recent models may be obtained only at prices $500 to $il,000 -over those of new cars of the same make. Very few new automobiles, or none at all, are available on the normal market. On the other hand, automobiles in new condition which have travelled but a few thousand miles, and even a few hundred miles, are frequently offered for sale at prices far beyond list prices established by manufacturers' agents and by regular automobile salesmen.
This article goes on to quote from a letter written to the paper by the vice-president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Mr. R. M. Sale, who stated:
The articles you forwarded to me deal with a matter of great concern to the people in the automobile industry. Even if the manufacturers, no more than their salesmen, are unable to check the exorbitant prices asked for used cars owned by individuals or dealers, we note that the public reaction is very unfavourable.
What I want to point out is that the vicepresident of the Ford Motor Company in this letter to the newspaper admitted that cars are being sold at exorbitant prices.
I have here an article which appeared in the Financial Post of June 14. Most members, I believe, will agree that when it comes to financial matters the Financial Post is accurate. I may say that this article is headed "I try to buy a car!" Then there is a subhead which reads:
Slightly used machines bring double list price, in crazy market-public cashing in on fantastic prices.
The article states:
There's gold in used car lots these days. And to strike it rich, the second-hand car dealer doesn't have to do any prospecting. All he needs are some shiny new used cars, and car-hungry Canadians will beat a path to his door.
In a two-hour survey of half a dozen used car lots in Toronto this week eighty-five '46 and '47 cars were counted. And this represents only about one-tenth of the lots in the city.
So far, the trade hasn't been able to stop this traffic in a scarce commodity. Makers have men out cheeking the serial numbers of cars

Price of Used Cars
found on lots to trace the original owner and put him on a black list, but at best, this can only have a slight effect on the back-alley trading.
One lot was jammed tight with 41 new cars. Not one was priced lower than $1,995. Highest was $4,500 for a four-door Cadillac sedan, listed at $3,775.
On another lot was the newest car seen in the survey-a sleek Oldsmobile which still had some of the factory-wrapped brown paper around the bumpers. In the new car showroom, it sells for around $2,775; in the used-car lot, $3,595. The speedometer registered .165 miles.
The article goes on to state that a man brought in a 1941 Ford and wanted to trade it in for a 1947 model Tudor Ford. He was asked to pay for the new Ford $2,295, in spite of the fact that that particular car is listed with the retail dealers at $1,437, and he was allowed $895 for the '41 model. There is a good deal more to that article, but I think I have quoted enough to show the situation which has been developing and which exists in Canada today.
I have received a number of letters from business men in Montreal confirming what has been stated in these articles and saying that anyone can get a new car there if he is willing to pay from $500 to $1,000 above the list price.
Recently in Regina I saw a 1941 four-door Dodge for sale with a price ticket of $1,350. I w-as told by the owner of a 1942 Chevrolet, four-door, that he had numerous offers of $1,550 for that car and was about to sell it and expected to close the deal the following day. In Ottawa I was asked by the owner of a 1936 Nash coupe whether I cared to buy it for $1,200. Imagine $1,200 for a car that is more than ten years old! I see some members chuckling. They see where they can cash in on some money too.
I think it should be pointed out that the situation which has developed is perfectly legal. I do not think anyone is breaking the law in doing this. Used cars and new cars have been removed from price control. The companies selling cars in Canada do not condone the situation that has developed. They are asking	for	their cars	only	the regularretail price, but some people are willing to take a car and then sell it and make a good deal of money. I believe the people of Canada are law-abiding, and if the government would reinforce price	ceilings on	cars	the people
would be willing to live up to the law and a situation of this kind would be curbed.
I notice the Minister of Finance is not in his seat, but I would ask that this matter be brought	to	his attention and that thegovernment take proper action. He stated on April 14, as reported in Hansard, that he would be willing	to	do so if	such	a situation
developed, with respect to a commodity which had been removed from price control and with respect to which the people of the country were being exploited. Farmers who have not been able to buy a car for five or six years, and who need a car to carry on their farming operations, and the many people who have to travel, carry on business and make their livelihood, and need a car for that purpose, should be protected; but at the present time these people are being exploited. If the government means what it said on April 14, it should reimpose fair and proper price ceilings on cars. Certainly no car should be sold by anyone in this country at a price even one dollar higher than the ordinary retail selling price.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to endorse the request made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) for assistance for these unfortunate people who have suffered from floods. Many of them will lose the fruits of their entire year's work as a result of this extreme flood condition which has taken place in the past few weeks. It was my experience to be in Dauphin when that flooding took place and later to go through Brandon. It is an extreme situation and is something which I have never seen happen at this time of year in the province of Manitoba; and I was born and raised there.
The hon. member for Dauphin also spoke about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Under this one per cent deduction, up to date the farmers of Manitoba have contributed approximately double what they have ever received out of the fund. Since new regulations are now being put into effect, based on amendments recently passed in this house, I sincerely trust that they will be interpreted so that the people in that area-and there is a large area in that great and productive area of Dauphin, where the people have lost their all in the matter of this year's work-will get some help. I hope these regulations will be interpreted so that something can be done under them for these people. There are many people along the Assiniboine and in Dauphin and also in other isolated areas in southwest Manitoba, who will lose their entire year's work so far as their crop is concerned. I just want to add my word to that of other hon. members in their plea for assistance from the proper authorities in the not too distant future.


Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying just a word regarding the flood conditions in Manitoba. We in the east can all, I am sure,
Assistance in Export of Apples

appreciate fully how the farmers of Manitoba feel regarding the situation. I just wish to point out again that we in the east this year encountered the worst flood conditions which have existed in years, and that includes practically the whole of eastern Canada. I am sure that in many districts the crop will be less than thirty per cent. In many districts it will be practically nil. Some others may be fortunate enough to get around fifty to sixty per cent. I just want to point out to the government that if they see fit to give aid, eastern Canada should certainly receive something as well as Manitoba.



ASSISTANCE IN EXPORT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND NOVA SCOTIA APPLES-MR. HERRIDGE

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just briefly I wish to bring to the attention of the house a matter of great importance to the apple growers of British Columbia and Nova Scotia, with regard to the possibility of exporting certain export varieties of apples to Great Britain this year. Some few days ago, after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had made his statement with regard to Canada giving $20,000,000 aid to relieve distressed conditions in Europe I asked him this question: In view of the fact that the British government have announced that, owing to the shortage of dollars, they will not be able to purchase apples from Canada this year, will the Canadian government give consideration to making similar arrangements for the export of certain varieties of Canadian apples to Great Britain, say in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000 worth. This proposal originated with the fruit organizations in my own constituency in British Columbia, has been widely publicized and has received support from the fruit organizations both in British Columbia and in the maritimes. It is of particular concern to growers of certain varieties of apples, particularly in British Columbia. There is the Jonathan, a small red variety which, has little sale on the Canadian domestic market, but which is purchased to a great extent in Great Britain by poor families. They like to buy a box of apples, which contains a great many of them, and give the children an apple a day before going to school. A box lasts a long time. There is a certain variety known as Cox's Orange, which is exported largely to Great Britain. There is very little sale for Cox's Orange in Canada or in the United States because the Canadian palate does not seem to be attracted bjr that variety. I understand1 that the same condition exists in Nova Scotia with regard to Graven-steins. Again I urge that consideration be given to this question.

I might say that the fruit growers of British Columbia have received hundreds of letters this year from housewives in Great Britain, expressing appreciation of the apples which have been shipped to Great Britain, since the end of the war, and how much they would like to see them again. I hope that some arrangement will be made so that the British people, particularly the poor people, may have an opportunity to purchase the varieties I have mentioned. I urge the government to give consideration to assisting the fruit growers of British Columbia and Nova Scotia in this respect. At the same time they will be assisting a great people whom we should be concerned about assisting.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I wish to say to hon. members who have spoken in this debate that the attention of the appropriate ministers will be called to the subject matter of their remarks. The government has been deeply impressed1 with the serious situation at Dauphin, as mentioned by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews). I understand that the Brandon area is also being damaged by flood conditions. The hon. member for Dauphin was kind enough to say that the Department of Reconstruction and Supply had given highest priority to the requirements of that area for reconstruction.
I can assure him that if anything further is needed in that direction it will be forthcoming.
The attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will be called to the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) in the matter of the interpretation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I think I know the Minister of Agriculture well enough to be able to say that if the situation comes within the orbit of the act, the act will be interpreted in as favourable manner as is possible. The hon. member mentioned work in progress by the Department of Mines and Resources. It is unfortunate that this acute flooding occurred before the results of that work could alleviate the situation, but I can assure the hon. member that the surveys which have been made will be followed up and that remedial steps will be taken so that, we hope, thd same condition cannot occur in other years.
I shall be glad to call the matter of both used and new car prices, to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), under whose jurisdiction the matter came before the removal of controls. Whether at this late stage it is possible to consider the restoration of controls in a market which was

Supply-Transport
always difficult to control, even under war conditions, I am doubtful; but in any event the minister will be informed of the remarks which have been made.
The matter of apples is receiving the urgent attention of the government, and I feel sure that a solution will be found to the conditions which have arisen as a result of a shortage of dollars in the United Kingdom.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Air servicekkO. Air transport board, salaries and office expenses, $150,000.
Thomas John Bentley: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and of the committee a situation which is greatly disturbing the good people of my little city.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just the good people?


Thomas John Bentley: There are no bad people; they are all very good, and the great bulk of them are very much concerned over a situation that has arisen there. I do not want to take any more of the time of the committee on this matter than is necessary, but it has to do with Donald M. Walz, a veteran with a wonderful record in the air force. He gave good service as an instructor in Canada. Then he went overseas and was shot down behind the enemy lines shortly after D-day. He was taken prisoner but escaped through his association with the underground. He came back, reported for duty and flew again until he was later shot down over Germany, where he remained a prisoner until the end of the war. He returned to Canada, where he obtained a licence as a civilian pilot, and is an excellent one by every standard on which he has been tested. Then he formed a partnership with another man by the name of Schrader, who operates a farm south of Swift Current and also a business, in both of which he is very successful. I might add that Mr. Shrader is not a veteran, not by design but because he was not accepted for service. This partnership was formed with the intention of operating an air training school and a charter air service for that part of southwestern Saskatchewan, which requires a service of that kind.
Prior to Mr. Walz being released from the air force, another gentleman, who is not a veteran but who otherwise is an excellent citizen, made application for a similar licence. Please do not misunderstand me when I compare these two men. One is a veteran with a fine service record; the other is a good citizen and a successful business man. He arrived in
Swift Current some time before Walz and Schrader came there, and both asked the air transport board for a licence to operate the same kind of service. The civilian gentleman is Mr. Karels. He operates several cold storage plants in Saskatchewan and Alberta and has other business interests which make him independent and not in need of rehabilitation measures, while Mr. Walz needs to be rehabilitated. That is the difference between the two. They both applied to the air transport board, and I have in my hand decision serial numer 211, which sets out the application of Russell E. Karels as follows:
. . . for a licence to operate the following commercial air services from a base at Swift Current, Saskatchewan: non-scheduled charter to transport passengers and goods, flying training and recreational flying (sightseeing and barnstorming) .
In his case the application was approved. The other application is described as follows:
Application by Donald II. Walz and Charles W. Schrader, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Swift Current Air Services, for a licence to operate the following commercial air services from a base at Swift Current, Saskatchewan: non-scheduled charter to transport passengers and goods, flying training and recreational flying (sightseeing and barnstorming).
Decision: application denied.
I take exception to the denial of this licence, particularly on the grounds set out by the examiner for the air transport board, who stated that Karels had a substantial investment in local business and a permanent residence in Swift Current. He also had his application in slightly before the other application, and his financial statement shows assets in the air service of over $28,000, including a capital investment of $25,000, with $40,000 in cold storage plants at Swift Current and elsewhere and substantial interests in Calgary, Lethbridge and Humboldt. Apparently it was considered that because of his financial position he was more likely to be a successful operator of an air service. I should like to point out to>
the minister that Swift Current Air Services, comprising Walz and Schrader, have assets of $12,000, of which $10,000 have already been subscribed, and that the partners have additional assets of $30,900, consisting of bonds, grain, farm machinery, land and sundry assets which could be easily liquidated, and which would furnish sufficient capital for their purposes.
The air transport board sent a gentleman to hold hearings and decide the issue. The hearings were held, and I have in my hand a complete verbatim transcript of the proceedings. I am not going to take time to put it on the record, but it indicates that the reasons I
Supply-Transport

have cited as those given by the examining officer are correct; that is, it was felt that Karels had a prior claim because his application had -been made first and also because he was in a slightly better financial position. I believe the decision should have been the other way, because the veteran and his partner had sufficient assets and certainly needed rehabilitation more than the well-off gentleman.
I am not alone in this view. I have had frequent representations from the Canadian Legion there, and there have been items in the local weekly newspaper, which is one of the best in Canada, having frequently won the prize in that field. Even the board of trade, while it did not make any particular recommendation, threw the balance of its support in favour of Walz and Schrader on the ground that Walz is a veteran with an excellent record, and that the partners have sufficient capital and knowledge to go ahead with the project. I have also letters from other branches of the Canadian Legion and others supporting the case of the veteran, but I do not think it is necessary to take time to put them on the record. They are available to anyone who wishes to look at them, and I am trying to make a fair presentation of the case. I am not saying anything that cannot be supported by documentary evidence, and the file on this matter is quite lengthy. If I may, however, I should 'ike to read a resolution on this matter by the board of trade, which appeared in the Sun, :he newspaper I mentioned a moment ago:
At a general meeting of the board of trade in the Healy hotel on Tuesday evening, a resolution was unanimously adopted in connection with the recent announcement that in the granting of a commercial air service licence, a veteran, Don Walz, had been denied a licence, one of the reasons being given that one service is all that is economically feasible for Swift -Current.
The meeting went on record as disapproving this action of the examining officer who later made his recommendations to the air transport board at Ottawa. In addition the meeting felt that a returned veteran should have been given equal consideration when he was trying to reestablish himself and apparently had been led to believe that his application would get favourable consideration. The resolution will be directed to the proper authorities at Ottawa. President Slater Alexander presided at the meeting.
Mr. Slater Alexander is a fine gentleman. I should like to draw attention to another factor that entered into this examination. When any person makes an application to the air transport board for a licence to operate a service anyone who feels that that person is not the proper type can make representations to the board and oppose the application. Mr. Karels made representations which are to be found in the transcript of evidence.

He opposed the granting of a licence to Walz and Schrader, the veterans concerned. His opposition was on the ground that there was not room for two services in the area.
On the other hand, the evidence showed that Mr. Walz and Mr. Schrader were prepared to compete for the field. They were willing to spend what money they had in- the belief that they could give the kind of service which would either make them paramount in the field of competition or establish the fact that there was room for two services. They made no representations opposing the application of Mr. Karels. This should be distinctly in favour of Walz and Schrader when the matter is being considered by anyone who believes in the right of free competition, as many in this committee do. Walz and Schrader were not asking any favours; they were willing to let Karels operate, provided that they could operate. They contended that if there were room for two they would both be able to exist; if there were not, the best man would win. I understand that to be competition. They were willing to adopt that attitude, -but Mr. Karels was not. He opposed the veteran and his partner getting a licence.
I have another clipping from the Sun dealing with the same matter, and if the minister and the committee want it placed on the record I shall do so, although it is fairly long. It simply supports the statement I have already made. I do not wish to delay the deliberations of the committee, but I did want to place this matter squarely before the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply who administers the air transport board and to plead with him to see that the government do what they have said they are going to do, give the veteran every opportunity to rehabilitate himself.
As I said before, anyone reading the evidence will arrive at the same conclusion, that the veteran and his partner are qualified by every test that could be made. These men have the ability and the means and the knowledge of business administration to operate this service. They are willing to compete and they ask for a charter. On the other hand, the other man wants to exclude them from that field in order to have it for himself. While I do not think he is a wealthy man, he is well enough established in other lines of business not to require rehabilitation. He can get along quite comfortably without his air operations.
I should like the minister to give the committee and myself, and particularly the people back home who are so concerned with this, some assurance that he will take a personal interest in this case. I believe if he does he

Supply-Transport
will have no hesitation in saying that this veteran flyer has at least as good a right if not a greater right to this charter. I say all this without any criticism or charge against the examining officer. I expect that he had certain terms of reference and probably he did what he thought was best. However I disagree with his finding, and I want to impress the minister with my reasons for disagreement. If the minister cannot make a statement now I ask him to assure us that he will give personal consideration to this matter which is so deserving.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I want to thank the hon. member for Swift Current for placing this matter before the committee in some detail. I am quite familiar with the case, as it was called to my attention some days ago. I have read the evidence and looked into the matter thoroughly. There were two applicants for the same licence. The function of the air transport board is to rehabilitate the veteran in a manner which will permit him to make a living, not in a manner which may get him into difficulties where he may lose his gratuity and other assets. That is the reason why some care is taken in sorting out applicants for licences of the type in question.
As I say, there were two applications. Karels' application was the prior one, the application of Walz and Schrader coming in at a later date. The examiner -was sent to Swift Current to investigate. A hearing -was held and written evidence was taken. The recommendation of the examiner was followed in issuing a licence to Karels. My understanding of the situation is that Karels is a resident of Swift Current, whereas the veteran Walz has never been a resident there.


Thomas John Bentley: Karels had not been a resident for long. He came in there only recently; I think he was there for less than a year when he made his application.
Mr. HOWrE: It was thought by the board that there were other desirable locations as a centre for flying and that possibly the veteran Walz could locate in an area which might provide a better living. Representations were made by the board of trade and responsible citizens of Swift Current suggesting that licences should be issued to both parties. Personally I am reluctant to accept them because I think eventually one of the licensees will lose his investment, but who am I not to bow to local opinion? There is no great principle at stake. The air transport board is holding hearings in the west at the present time, and I have asked the board to stop at Swift Current and hold another hearing so as to
ascertain whether there is any serious reason why both applications should not be granted. I am inclined to think the result will be that both applicants will be granted a licence. I hope my hon. friend will not be reluctant in taking his share of the responsibility in case the situation ends in disaster.


Thomas John Bentley: I will not. I thank the minister very much.
Mr. 'WINTERS: Under what items will the T.C.A. be considered?
Mr! HOWE: The T.C.A., being a selfsupporting enterprise, has no estimate. It earns its own revenue and does not depend on parliament for funds.


Mr. CROLL:: From the report I had, I thought there was a deficit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It had an earlier surplus to cover the deficit. I shall be glad to have my hon. friend discuss the T.C.A. under this item if he cares to.


Mr. WINTERS:: I should like to say a few words in connection with what seems to be a growing complaint about T.C.A. service in the maritimes. Almost everyone who flies to Ottawa comes to see me to complain about what they say is an increasingly badl service to the maritimes, a service which I had always thought was increasingly good. They complain of long stop-overs in Montreal which make it necessary for people to leave here in the middle of the night, wait in Montreal, leave Montreal still later in the morning and then arrive in Halifax on the same day. They complain of the lengthy stop-overs.
Another serious cause for complaint is the uncertainty as to when the planes will leave both from Halifax and from Montreal. I hear an increasing number of complaints from people who have called up the air port to find out what time the plane is leaving; when they get to the field they find the departure has been delayed for an hour or two, and they come back to town and then find still further delays. During the past week or so, an eminent gentleman from the maritimes took off from Halifax and the plane made an unscheduled stop at Blissville. There were ladies on the plane, and at Blissville there were no facilities whatsoever for ladies or anybody else.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have stopped at Blissville several times. I hope my hon. friend has.


Robert Henry Winters: I was told that the facilities had been removed from the buildings. It was a hot day and the place was almost insufferable because of mosquitoes. In the Light of all these complaints I should be
Supply-Transport

pleased to hear the minister make a statement, because I know there must be something to be said on the other side too, on the service to the maritimes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am surprised to hear my hon. friend speak of a lack of service to the maritimes, as operating results indicate that T.C.A. may be giving them too much service. T.C.A. has four flights daily from Montreal to Halifax and these are running about fifty per cent occupancy, whereas in the very busy section, Montreal-Ottawa, Toronto-Winnipeg, there are four flights, all running nearly 100 per cent occupancy, with many complaints because of lack of accommodation. The same care is taken in operating T.C.A. in the maritimes as elsewhere on the system. I would not mention the peculiar weather conditions on that route at a time like this, but sometimes we do have difficulty at the Halifax end, and sometimes difficulty at Pennfield. The only reason for going to Blissville was that Pennfield was closed in on that particular day. Blissville is not a regular stop at the present time. Pennfield is a well-equipped air port and ordinarily that is the stop. I can assure my hon, friend that, so far as weather in all parts of Canada is concerned, we have had the worst four months that have ever been experienced on our air lines. I think he will find that the operation is sound, and that, with the improved weather that we always get in summer and autumn in the maritimes, we shall have first-class operation.


Robert Henry Winters: Would it not be possible to arrange a schedule from Ottawa to Halifax to avoid the lay-over in Montreal and work out a better through service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are four services daily, but perhaps my hon. friend takes the evening plane. That plane is held to meet the convenience of the Post Office Department, to collect the last mail from Montreal. If my hon. friend would take one of the earlier services he could make better connections.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister give us a short statement with regard to the domestic aviation situation and the policy of the government at the present time, also with regard to the international aviation picture. For example, I understand that it has not been possible to work out any multilateral agreement, which was the original policy announced by the government several years ago. I think it would be helpful if the minister would give us a short statement with regard to both the domestic and the international aviation situation.


Mr. SKEY:: I was going to ask the minister much the same question. Would he include

in his statement a comparison of how T.C.A. has survived the last six or eight months, which have been so difficult for the United States air lines, and has he any views to offer on our organization as compared with theirs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the international field, as hon. members are aware, PICAO, the international civil aviation organization, has Canada as its location and Montreal as its headquarters. That orgnization has been meeting continuously since its formation, and at its last assembly, in May of this year, it became a permanent organization, with its headquarters at Montreal. The location of the international organization in that city has been helpful to Canadian aviation, and has helped to place Canada prominently on the world air maps.
The international organization has been dealing with the matter of a multilateral agreement. An attempt has been made to arrive at common ground, but to date that attempt has not been successful. The last meeting of the international organization debated the subject at great length, but failed to reach agreement and decided that a special meeting of the organization would be called for this autumn in Rio de Janeiro for the sole purpose of discussing the problem of a multilateral agreement. Therefore I can report at the present time that there is no multilateral agreement covering traffic matters other than the first two freedoms; that is, the freedom to fly over a country for peaceful purposes and the freedom to land for repairs or refueling. The first and second freedoms are the only multilateral freedoms at present. In the meantime, a great many bilateral agreements have been made. Canada has made five or six, all of which have been reported to this House of Commons. To date we have not given the fifth freedom, as have some other countries. We believe our location is such that our agreement should be confined to the first four freedoms. We have kept to that course.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain the third, fourth and fifth freedoms?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The first freedom is the right to fly over a country for peaceful purposes. The second freedom is the right to land for repairs or refueling. The third freedom is the right to pick up passengers in the home country and take them to any other country with which Canada has a fourth freedom agreement. The fourth freedom is the right to pick up passengers in any country in which Canada has traffic rights and bring those passengers to the home country. The fifth freedom is the right of a Canadian air line to pick up passengers, we will say, in the United

Supply-Transport
Kingdom and deliver them in France. It is the right to handle passengers who are not nationals of its own country or destined to or from its own country.


Howard Charles Green: We are not prepared to give that freedom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not as yet. We are prepared to give it on a multilateral basis. If there is a universal exchange of fifth freedom rights we are prepared to join, but our situation on the air lines is such that we feel that bilateral agreements granting fifth freedom rights would work to our detriment so far as Canadian traffic is concerned.
On the international routes at the present time we are operating eleven round-trip crossings a week between Montreal, Prestwick, Scotland, and London, England. The flights are running full at the moment, We are operating the new North Star planes. These planes have worked out amazingly well. I think no other new aircraft has taken the punishment in its initial operations that the North Star has been subjected to. With five planes in commission, we have been operating eleven round trips a week across the Atlantic, which is rather a phenomenal operation. In some cases the turn-around time at London is no longer than an hour and a quarter. The plane delivers its passengers there, takes its load and returns to Canada with no more overhaul than can be performed in that time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the length of time taken in crossing over each way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The schedule is fourteen hours from Montreal to London, with an intermediate stop at Prestwick.


Mr. FRASER:: Can the minister say whether the United States firm which operates out of Montreal cuts into the T.C.A. business at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What United States firm is that?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I saw an advertisement in the paper in which a United States firm was advertising flights to England.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would not be the Ontario government immigration project?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, from Montreal.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Acting in competition with you.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Ontario government immigration plan has made arrangements with a United States charter operator, I believe, to bring their immigrants from the United Kingdom to Canada, but there may be some difficulty about working out details of the operation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This was an advertisement in the Montreal Star advertising flights to England. I do not know whether they go via New York or not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They must be advertising a flight from some point outside Canada which can be reached by a connecting line.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Do you not need more than five aircraft?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have twenty on the way. As my hon. friend knows, we are using an interim aircraft now. We took five of the twenty aircraft being built for the R.C.A.F. As a matter of fact, we are using these until the pressurized version is completed, the first of which will be out this month. By late autumn we expect to have twenty pressurized aircraft, which will represent the permanent international planes for T.C.A. As far as the domestic services are concerned, they have been expanded. In the maritimes we are operating four services a day between Montreal and Halifax; two of them go on to Sydney and Newfoundland. We also have a new service operating between Halifax, Yarmouth, Pennfield in New Brunswick, and Boston; two services each day. In the central region service is about as last reported. From Winnipeg west there have been some changes. We have opened a, new route, Winnipeg to Edmonton by way of Saskatoon, a direct route. We have opened a new route between Winnipeg and Calgary direct, and we have put on a service from Winnipeg to Lethbridge, with stops at Swift Current and Medicine Hat, These are the new developments in the field.


Howard Charles Green: When are you flying across the great lakes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are flying across the great lakes at the present time. All flights from Toronto to Winnipeg are across the great lakes, with stops at Sault Ste. Marie, Port Arthur and Winnipeg.


Thomas Reid: What time is cut off by crossing the great lakes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I remember it, about an hour and fifteen minutes.


Howard Charles Green: What is the main obstacle to the completion of a multilateral agreement? Is the United States against a multilateral agreement at the present time? Originally that nation was very much in favour of a multilateral agreement. What are the main obstacles to the completion, of such an agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The main obstacles to a multilateral agreement are that the various
Supply-Transport

countries believe that there should be limitations to competition, and limitation on the number of services. There are various differing opinions which I think can, in time,, be reconciled. Discussions seem to be coming more in the direction of reconciliation, and I am quite hopeful that the conference in Rio this autumn will bring about agreement. The reason there is no multilateral agreement. today is that the countries have not been able to reach a sufficient measure of agreement to make it possible.


Howard Charles Green: What position does the United States take?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That country has its own idea of what an agreement should be, which differs from ours and differs from that of the United Kingdom, and differs from that of many countries. In the last assembly, the Canadian proposals seemed to have the support of the smaller countries, but they did not have the support of the United States or of the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: When is it expected that the . transpacific flights will be started? I believe the Australians are now giving that service, and New Zealand is also doing so. When will Canada have a service to Australia and New Zealand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present service is being operated under the sponsorship of Australia, New Zealand and1 the United Kingdom which share the expenses. It is actually being operated by a private company in Australia, Australian Airways. The undertaking was that Canada would run a parallel service as soon as we could make the necessary arrangements, and that still holds. Just when it will be I cannot say at the moment. We had never expected to be running eleven round trips a week across the Atlantic. I think we could put twice that number of trips on and still be booked full in both directions. Faced with that situation, we are at the moment, reluctant to divert planes from that service. With more planes coming out this autumn, I hope that early next year we shall be able to undertake the Pacific service as well as the service through the West Indies to South America.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Are there any penalty clauses in the agreement to take delivery of these machines from Canadair because it definitely penalizes the T.C.A. in its further expansion to be held up for months and months in getting delivery of aircraft? As I understand it, the first machines to come off the line were RjC.A.F. machines. They are just a temporary measure, and if competition is very

keen in this field and the T.C.A. is to keep up its good reputation, then an assured supply of planes on schedule is absolutely necessary to its continued operation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trans-Canada Air Lines could have borrowed more of the military type planes except that the cost of converting them into luxury passenger planes and converting them back to military planes is an item that should not be enlarged too greatly. There has been no particular hold-up. The only hold-up has been the slow delivery o-f Rolls-Royce engines, which resulted from the blackout in industry in the United Kingdom last winter. I understand that deliveries are now improving. I understand, that ten or a dozen of the military type planes are ready for delivery, except for engines. The arrangement was that the military type of plane would be finished first, and the pressurized type, which has a good many differences in structure, would follow. The schedule for the first pressurized type plane was always July. It is my understanding that there will be no delay in delivering the twenty pressurized planes to the T.C.A. on schedule set up in the contract.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Has the minister investigated the possibility of having a good aircraft engine made in Canada or a Canadian contract to make the Rolls-Royce engines here? The ridiculous part of this whole business is having an American boat company manufacture an American hull with a British engine in the Dominion of Canada. Our air picture is just as ridiculous as that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has his own idea of what is ridiculous.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I say that is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This whole production was Canadian sponsored. The original design was turned out by Canadian engineers and the original production was carried out by Canadians. It is only the fact that the government. felt it should not properly be in the business of manufacturing and selling aircraft that induced it to sell to a company which, though certainly it has United States capital, contains on its board of directors a number of able Canadian business men. It is no more a United States company than a good many others that I could name which are respectable Canadian companies as far as ownership goes. We believe that Electric Boat had a type of experience that was valuable to the operations. It is not a United States plane. It is true we have a basic design from the United States, but Douglas would be the last to say that they care to sponsor a design that is flying the

Supply-Transport
Atlantic in the name of the North Star today. It is a Canadian version of what is required for the route, based on Douglas design. The Rolls-Royce was chosen, first, because it is of British make. It did not represent a drain on Canadian dollars, and we believed it was the engine most suitable for aircraft to perform the service we had in mind in the North Star planes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am aware of all these things, but you cannot control operations properly nor can you control production if you cannot get parts in Canada. You should set out to have every part you can make in that aircraft produced in Canada, employing Canadian labour and industry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The immediate requirements for Rolls-Royce engines would be perhaps 160 or 170 or 200. The cost of setting up an establishment to build them would be in the neighbourhood of $15 million or $20 million. The cost per engine would be colossal. I was criticized by hon. members opposite for what they thought would be the cost of the North Star planes. That they were mistaken about that cost does not mean that they would not be. fully justified in condemning such a capital cost for so small a production of engines. We must use reason in these things. I admit at once the desirability of the objective. I wish we made Rolls-Royce engines in Canada, but I would not recommend to parliament appropriations of the size necessary to bring that about.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Did the minister not explore
this matter during the war? He spent $21,825,777.33 on Cartierville. The sum of $15 million more spent during the war to produce a good engine in Canada would have been money well spent in a post-war programme.


Clarence Decatur Howe: During the war we spent $21
million on Cartierville and we had a production in excess of $100 million worth of equipment over the years. If I could spend another $15 million and turn out $60 million worth of engine equipment I would be happy to recommend the expenditure.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Probably the mistake was
made during the war.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I should like to ask the minister a question in reference to the air service in the maritime provinces. What principle governs the schedule by which these planes fly? It seems to me that they are not getting as great a popular support as they should, and I was wondering to what extent the flights were used for passenger and mail service respectively. Going east from Ottawa,
there are two flights a day. One takes place at an opportune time in the morning but the other comes at midnight. If one is going to Moncton and from there on to the island, one has to fly at an uncomfortable hour and can get no sleep. The passenger arrives around five-thirty or six-thirty o'clock in the morning. There is another flight that could be made in the morning if you could get to Montreal to catch the six-thirty o'clock plane. If there were some other hour at which these planes flew there might be a more popular use of them. I am wondering whether the schedules have been drawn up from the point of view of passengers or with the mail service in view.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On all routes we must have
one mail service. There is one plane that serves the convenience of the Post Office Department and that plane is never very convenient to passengers. It must not be forgotten that we get considerable revenue from the post office. The schedules are balanced to meet connecting planes, having in mind the desirability of choosing hours that are of the greatest convenience to the travelling public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Although this has been
said before, I feel that this item should not pass without a word of commendation to the minister for the service and the courtesy and safety being afforded in the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines. Those who have travelled by air can appreciate the point of view expressed by an hon. member to the effect that it is a bit annoying sometimes to have to wait for a take-off, but most of us who have had that experience realize that it is a guarantee of safety so far as the operations of the air lines are concerned. The experience that has been had in some other countries in recent months during some bad weather we have been having simply serves to highlight the splendid record that our Canadian air line has achieved, and we are all extremely proud of it.
I think, too, a word should be said, not only for this record of safety, but for the service which Trans-Canada Air Lines is rendering to this country, and which may not be fully recognized until historians of tthe future write about this period. It is serving to unite the country, and in every way, it seems to me, this is one achievement that the minister can speak of with a great deal of pride. On the other hand, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister about another phase of the work of the air transport board, or indeed about another phase of civil aviation policy. I would ask the minister whether
Supply-Transport

the government or the air transport board is giving any consideration to an over-all plan with respect to Canada's north land. The minister knows the disagreements I have with him over the policy he is pursuing with respect to the north land, but at the moment I will confine myself to a few questions.
I take the position that we have, to the north in this country, a continent in itself, rich in minerals, oil and other natural resources, and the fact that we have that country up there places certain responsibilities upon us. We should be thinking in terms of its fullest development, both for its own sake, for the sake of Canada and for the sake of the world at large.
I recall remarks that the minister has made in the past about mistakes that were made in the early days of railroading. I hope that similar mistakes are not now being made in the early days of civil aviation. I do not like the idea of that north country seeming, as it does to me, to be just a field for exploitation by private companies in the direction of transportation on the one hand, and mining on the other, particularly when these companies are interwoven as they are.
We have up there minerals and oil in a great expanse of country, and I think that in the process of developing new plans for that country we should be looking, not just in the direction of private exploitation, but in the direction of what is best for that country for the sake of Canada and for the benefit of the world at large. I should like to know from the minister whether the air transport board is just receiving such applications as come along from Canadian Pacific Air Lines and others, considering them and granting them; or whether any over-all planning is being done with respect to the northern half of this country, particularly in relation to air service.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that the most careful planning of the northern services has been and is being carried out by the air transport board. One of the first acts of the board was to travel over every existing route and service in Canada. The requirements of each area were investigated. The service being given was explored and the needs for further service were noted. I might point out to hon. members that a tremendous expansion in aviation has taken place from 1939 to the end of 1946. The personnel engaged in the air services has been multiplied approximately by ten; the miles flown have been multiplied by more than six, and the areas served have been greatly increased. Before the war there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the service given in certain areas, and among. those

engaged in air transport work there was a good deal of dissatisfaction with regard to unfair and cut-throat competition. Both complaints have pretty well disappeared. I know of no area today which has more than an occasional complaint about the service being rendered by air transport.
I was happy to look over the operating results for 1946 of all the air operators in Canada. I may say that one service which the air transport board has rendered is the establishment of a statistical department which gives prompt and accurate statistics of the industry as a whole. A study of those results for 1946 indicates that, with amazingly few exceptions, the operation of air services had been profitable to the operators. A great number of new services have been undertaken by retruned men. It has been the business of the board to try to place these veterans in areas where they could make a satisfactory living; and that objective has been attained beyond my greatest expectations. Occasionally we are told that in carrying out that objective we are being unfair to someone. The hon. member for Swift Current suggests that we are being unfair to a veteran in his city. My own thought was that the difficulty arose because we were trying to be fair to the veteran. We were trying to tell him that he would find a better field in some other part of western Canada. However we cannot carry these points too far. If the veteran feels we are doing him a wrong, we will right the wrong, and let his own judgment prevail. Perhaps we were wrong. But in general we have succeeded in convincing new operators that they would be wise not to enter the territory they had in mind in the first instance. We have been able to show them the potential traffic in the area. Careful traffic studies have been made of every part of Canada. When a veteran or pioneer in aviation comes to the air transport board and talks about an area, the board is able to produce a traffic study of the area and tell him what they believe to be the potential traffic of the area and give him advice as to whether or not he is wise to undertake to make an investment and try to make his living from that particular area. I believe the air transport board has performed a great service for aviation in sorting out th'e industry, in making sure that the user of the service has service, and in making sure that operators in the service are given a fair competitive position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister indicate the proportion in the northern services, say on the route to Yellowknife and the routes down in the Mackenzie? What is the proportion as between Canadian Pacific Air Lines

Supply-Transport
on the one hand and these smaller services operated by veterans on the other? Will the minister also tell us if Canadian Pacific Air Lines is now showing a profit on these northern operations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot give an arbitrary proportion. In general, a preview of the routes by the air transport board resulted in the Canadian Pacific Air Lines retaining the routes that could be operated on wheels with heavy equipment. They kept the route from Edmonton over the northwest staging route to Alaska. They kept the service to Yellowknife. They gave up a great variety of services which were formerly operated on floats and skis; and those services, generally speaking, were assigned to newcomers in the field.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does anyone else operate on those main lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Similarly, we do not allow anyone else to operate on routes which we assign to operators of floats and skis, if it is a scheduled operation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about profits?
Mr. MaoNICOL: Does the minister mean that some other operator now flies the plane from Norman Welle to Aklavik?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I went on a Canadian Pacific plane.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure who operates that particular service. I shall be glad to look it up. As I remember it, that is a seaplane operation. I think it is flown by others.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is a float plane from Norman Wells to Aklavik. I went by Canadian Pacific plane; at least, I thought so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. But that was a year or two ago. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked about profits. Canadian Pacific Air Lines showed a small profit last year, the first year of operation when Canadian Pacific Air Lines have shown a profit.


David Arnold Croll: Has the minister available here comparable figures on the incidence of fatal accidents? He may or may not have those figures with him. In the case of fatal accidents and claims being made, does Trans-Canada Air Lines carry its own insurance, or does it reinsure through some other company? How are the claims settled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that I can give just the figures on fatal accidents which my hon. friend wanted. The airways have the best record of any form of transportation with regard to number of fatalities for the
number of miles travelled. Their record is much better than that of the railroads, and much better than that of the highways. In its history T.C.A. has had two accidents in which passengers have been lost. The first occurred at Armstrong, Ontario, I think in 1941; the second tragic accident occurred this year, when a plane flying from Lethbridge to Vancouver was presumably lost in the Pacific ocean off Vancouver. At the present time T.C.A. carries its own insurance funds, and claims are settled promptly. In the early days it was customary to reinsure part of the liability, but the fund is now strong enough so that T.C.A. carries its own risk.


David Arnold Croll: The figures I had in mind were those giving comparisons with other air services in the United States, not ground services. If the minister has the record it might be well to put it on Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our safety record still stands high among the air lines of the world. We were almost perfect until the accident this spring, but it is difficult to make comparisons, as some of the smaller operations have never had an accident. Among the transcontinental operations, I think T.C.A. is easily the best.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I want to ask the minister a question in regard to the West Indies service, particularly the service to Bermuda. I understand that there was some disagreement or difficulty in getting an agreement with the authorities at Bermuda, whom I understand to be the United States army which operates the airfield there. Can the minister say what the difficulties have been, and whether any progress has been made in overcoming them. Will he also say whether it is the intention to operate an air service from Canada to the West Indies. I have one or two other questions, but this is the main one, if I can get an answer to it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada has been ready and anxious to operate a service to Bermuda since December, 1945. The difficulty has been that the airport in Bermuda is one of the American bases built in British territory. The Americans were reluctant to allow other countries to use the base until an over-all agreement could be reached between the United Kingdom and some of her colonies and the United States covering the operation of all those bases. I understand that the agreement is now complete in all particulars except in regard to the use of Gander airport at Newfoundland. We have reason to be hopeful that within the next two weeks that difficulty will be overcome and the agreement in regard to the bases signed. It is the present
Supply-Transport

intention to start the service to Bermuda not later than September 1 of this year.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What other bases would come under the general agreement? The minister mentioned Gander and Bermuda. I understand that there are United States air bases on other Caribbean and West Indies islands. Is it the intention to continue the service further south than Bermuda?
'Mr. HOWE: It is our intention to continue farther south. We have agreements with Bermuda, Jamaica and Trinidad. Negotiations are continuing with Nassau, but no agreement has been reached; and it is our hope to extend the service beyond Trinidad toward Rio and perhaps farther into Latin America.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am very glad to hear that statement.
I have just one other question in regard to the North Star. This question was asked me by several people who have been in the R.A.F. on the technical side. I understand that the North Star is using the Merlin engine. Is that a specially designed engine for peacetime use? It is not the war type of Merlin engine?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the beginning of the mail operation with the Lancasters we attempted to use military type engines, with indifferent success. Modifications were brought about and a satisfactory engine was developed for that operation. The Merlin engines at present in use are a complete modification even of the engines used in the Lancasters. It is a highly developed engine with special characteristics for transport work, and I am happy to say that we are very well satisfied with the results of our operation.


Agar Rodney Adamson: One more question and I am through. I am not a member of the railway committee, but hon. gentlemen who are on that committee said they thought some of this information was given there. Is there available a break-down showing the amount of freight carried on lines other than T.CA.? Does the air transport board keep a record of the ton-miles of freight and the passenger-miles of other services? I know T.C.A. has such a record, but is there also a record in connection with C.P.A. and the other smaller air lines that are licensed at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have complete data on the freight carried on each separate route. That information is contained in the annual report of the air transport board. It is also contained in monthly bulletins that are issued. If my hon. friend is interested I shall be glad to send him the information.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Thank you very much.


Eric Bowness McKay: A few moments ago the minister refered to the loss of a trans-Canada air liner off the coast of British Columbia last April. Is he in a position to give the committee the result of the inquiry into the loss of that plane? Some time ago I asked the minister whether a board of inquiry would be set up, and at that time he indicated this would be done. Since then I have not heard the results of that inquiry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A board of inquiry was immediately established and a thorough investigation was carried out. The operation was checked from every possible angle, and no flaw could be found in the operation or the condition of the plane. The report of the board was published. It boiled down to this, that for no known reason the plane disappeared in the few minutes between its passage over the airport and its usual landing time. It reported in over the airport. Ten minutes later an attempt was made to reach it by radio, when it had not landed on schedule, but the attempt to make radio contact failed, and no trace of the plane was found thereafter. The consensus of all concerned seems to be that something occurred over the Pacific, and that the plane is at the bottom of the ocean.


Eric Bowness McKay: Is that evidence available to members of the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I feel obligated to congratulate the minister on having maintained the Canadian Pacific air service in the northwestern part of Canada. I remember that when the bill was going through the house I vigorously opposed one proposal, but I am now very glad to congratulate the minister on having maintained that service. I have nothing but confidence in what is done by T.C.A.; as one other hon. member has said, it gives a splendid service, and its personnel are of the best. Since no one has spoken about the Canadian Pacific service, however, I am going to do so because they do render a splendid service in that north country. Everyone who travels on their planes speaks just as highly of the personnel of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and of their courtesy to travellers, as we all speak of T.C.A. In my judgment Canada is well served by both these lines, and I hope the minister will maintain them both. He really fathered the T.C.A., and I hope he will continue to maintain Canadian Pacific Air Lines up in northwestern Canada. They are a private concern and are doing an excellent

Supply-Transport
job in opening up that part of the country. I wish them every success.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: What is delaying the arrangements to fly the Pacific from Vancouver to Australia and New Zealand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No particular delay, except that all the planes that we have immediately available are working on more profitable routes. When we get more equipment and trained crews we expect to undertake the Pacific run.


Howard Charles Green: A year ago the Canadian ambassador to Mexico announced that the T.C.A. was to fly from Canada to Mexico City, while a Mexican line would fly to Canada. Has that proposal been dropped?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the announcement was that a Mexican line intended to fly from Mexico to Canada. Canada has never entertained a proposal to fly a service to Mexico City. No bilateral agreement has been signed between Mexico and Canada. There were discussions, but I understand they were dropped. I think the enthusiasm in Mexico City died down.


Howard Charles Green: In 1945 an amendment to the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act was passed, by which power was given to set up crown companies under Trans-Canada Air Lines. Have any such companies been set up and, if so, what are they?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trans-Canada Atlantic Air Lines is operating the north Altantic service.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the only one?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: When does T.CjA. plan to inaugurate flights to Sweden to implement the joint agreement that was signed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: T.C.A. has no' present plans for operating a service from Canada to Sweden. We have the right to do so, but we know of no Canadian traffic between Canada and Sweden which -would warrant a service between the two countries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister say something with regard to the private plane situation in Canada, the personal plane or the so-called flivver plane? Is any encouragement being given to the development of this kind of flying? What is the situation at the present time in Canada, as compared with that in the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every encouragement short of subsidy 'has been given. We subsidized flying schools to teach our citizens to fly in private
planes. We have worked out a system of charges at air ports which allows the small private plane to land without paying a landing fee. We have put in a scale of hangar rentals which permits the small plane to have accommodation at a lower cost than the large planes. We have made the air as free as possible to the private plane. As far as I know, anyone who desires to fly privately in Canada can have a very good time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister any figures of the number of private planes in Canada and in the United States? When he gives that answer, would he answer a question on the other side of the picture? What is the situation with regard to safety precautions in connection with private flying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The annual report of the department dated March 31, 1946, indicated that there were twenty-seven private aircraft licensed in Canada and 446 commercial aircraft as of that date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister the figure for the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The enthusiasm for private flying is not as great today as it was before the war. Commercial air lines services have been developed to a great extent since the war. It is much safer for a man who may wish to travel from point to point to go by the commercial air lines. Fifteen or twenty years ago I used to be very fond of flying about in anyone's private plane, but today I would not step into a private plane if I could avoid doing so. I prefer to travel on the air lines. I have had an opportunity of seeing the safety measures taken by the air lines, both in the air and on the ground, as well as the communications services and so on, which are not available to the private aeroplane. All I can say is that, if anybody wishes to fly a plane himself, he has my blessing, but I take no responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree wholly with the minister. I was just asking for information.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Many of those planes would be company-owned planes used in company operations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.. The planes my hon. friend speaks of would be listed as commercial planes. They would be owned and operated by companies.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I wish to echo much of what has been said about the service given by T.C.A. I have, however, a complaint to make which, while it is of a somewhat personal nature, will, I believe, be regarded as being reasonable. I
Supply-Transport

wish the seats could be placed farther apart. I think I will get support in this from the Minister of Fisheries. This would add greatly to my comfort and I hope the minister will take it into consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member will patronize our North Star trans-Atlantic service he will find that we have put in only thirty-six seats in the space in which other competing air lines put forty-four seats. We hope that passengers of greater stature even than my hon. friend will find plenty of leg-room in the Atlantic crossing. I recommend the trip to him and I assure him that he will find it most comfortable.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish I could count on the minister complying with all my requests so quickly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When planes arrive in
Canada from Great Britain or the United States Canadians are not allowed to pass through customs and immigration, first. I know at LaGuardia and other fields in the United States, United States citizens are permitted to go through customs and immigration first.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Several conferences have been held with customs and immigration officials in various countries. We are attempting to minimize the red tape now involved, in a passenger from one country arriving in another country. No one resents more deeply than I being treated as an immigrant when entering the United States, but that happens to me and. to every Canadian. The citizens of that country are taken first. We in Canada do not do that; we take them as they come. I think ours is the better method because we save the resentment which I always feel toward the other procedure.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Air service-
HO. Air transport board-salaries and office expenses, $150,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that in the maritimes we have the Maritime Central Air-
IMr. Macdonnell.]
ways servicing Prince Edward Island and part of the maritimes, connecting up with the T.C.A. at Moncton. One little disadvantage we have is in getting reservations through Charlottetown via Moncton to go to Montreal and such places. We have always felt that we should have a few seats reserved on each plane up until at least a few hours before it leaves Moncton. If we could have those seats it would be a great help to maritime travellers and to maritime airways.
The minister knows that the president of T.C.A. made a statement in the committee on several occasions that Maritime Central Airways was one of the best feeder lines that the T.C.A. had. If the minister would look into that little matter about which the people are complaining once in a while, I am sure that it would meet with their approval and perhaps he could adjust it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can say just a word. Maritime Central Airways is giving a fine service, not only to Prince Edward Island, but to such places as Pictou and the northern shore of Nova Scotia. It would be the intention of T.C.A. to give it the best of connecting service. I shall be glad to call the attention of the officials to the remarks made by my hon. friend. If any steps can be taken to improve the connection, I am sure they will be taken.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Before six o'clock we had a fairly thorough discussion of the operations of T.C.A. and of some of the air policies in Canada. We could almost call it a probe. I should like to say a few words about it generally. I do not wish anything that I have to say to be construed as criticism of the Trans-Canada Air Lines because I think, under the circumstances and perhaps even under the direction in some cases, they have done an amazing job. As an airman, I would be the first to appreciate what they have done in carrying out their schedule of eleven return flights to England with the small number of aircraft they have.
However we have been informed that they are operating with six aircraft which were destined for the R.C.A.F.; that they are unable to operate their Pacific route; that they do not plan to operate to Sweden, and that they are in need of both aircraft and crews. To me that seems like a condemnation of the policy of the government which, in this competitive age, has led them into the position where they find themselves short of engines, short of crews and1 short of aircraft. It seems to me, that the government have a job of explaining to do, because, in competitive air line travel, the fact that

Supply-Transport
Canada should be placed in this position is quite deplorable. They had the aircraft. They had the aircraft in the United Kingdom the end of the war. They had lots of Lancasters with which to fly the north Atlantic to Sweden and to the West Indies if they chose. They had another kind of aircraft with which they could have flown the Pacific. They had the Sunderland, a flying boat which was capable of operating out of Vancouver in the warm waters of the Pacific through the winter.
We have recently seen in the newspapers that this wonderful new aircraft in the United States will carry eighty passengers, and there has been a great deal of publicity behind it. As one who has flown Sunderlands, I should like to tell the committee that one of these aircraft took eighty people out of Greece in the dark days of 1940. I should say, eighty people and the air officer commanding's parrot. They are without a doubt the finest type of flying boat that has been developed up to the present time, with all respect to Mr. Howard Hughes and his gigantic machine.
Canada paid for these aircraft with dollars, and it was this government's policy not to bring them back here, not to take this opportunity which was open to them, as everyone informed in the business knows. In fact, as the minister is probably aware, we have been criticized by our Australian and New Zealand partners in the commonwealth for not taking the opportunity to develop our Pacific air lines as we could have done.
We are in the air age in a civil as well as a military sense. I shall have more to say about the latter when the defence estimates are before us, but in the civil age we had an opportunity, and this government have probably thrown it away for all time unless they can pick up the threads of a mismanaged job. Trans-Canada Air Lines have done well with what they had. I for one will support them in everything they try to do. I would like to see them develop still further, develop by independent-minded airmen and not by niggardly government policies. As a Progressive Conservative, I criticize the conservative policy which Canada has followed in her air operations from the close of the last, war. I cannot say too strongly to the government in this house:	You have lost an
opportunity, a great opportunity. You had the crews; you had the men; you had the aircraft. You discouraged the men and threw away the machines.	-
It will be remembered that a year ago I spoke in this house about airmen trying to 83166-334
get a licence to service aircraft, to operate radios to fly in this country, but by some means or another the Department of Transport managed to discourage these men.
I will say, in closing, that the government will have to operate with great energy to pick up this lost opportunity. I feel that in one way this is a criticism of public enterprise versus private enterprise. If you had given the initiative to some of the men who knew what could be done in this country, which is so adaptable in every way to air development, you might be in a better position than you are in today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should not allow these
remarks to go unchallenged. I am fully aware of the splendid record my hon. friend has a military flier, but the remarks he has made indicate clearly the difference between military flying and commercial flying. My hon. friend obviously would proceed without any regard whatever to earning or to balance sheets. If the hon. member for Trinity could persuade-


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a minute. I did not interrupt you. Suppose you keep your seat until I have finished. If my hon. friend could persuade some of his colleagues who appear in the committee on railways and shipping to discuss the T.C.A. balance sheet, to adopt his view point, we might develop flying in this country on other lines, but we do try to keep on the basis of commercial operation.
My hon. friend says that we could have got plenty of Lancasters, and flown them across the Atlantic or the Pacific. Well, we have some Lancastrians the equal of anyone's Lancastrian planes. We used them for five years to cross the Atlantic. I would hardly wish to operate them under present conditions of competition. At the time we were operating our Lancastrians, the rates were double the present rates and we managed to break even in operating the service. To attempt to carry passengers at S325 from Montreal to London in a Lancastrian would not be profitable. I can assure my hon. friend that he could not possibly make fifty per cent of his operating expenses.
The hon. member speaks of lost opportunities to buy aircraft, and he speaks of the Sunderland.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: You owned them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one would seriously
attempt to operate a Sunderland flying boat commercially, especially from Canada. The

Su pply- T ransport

weight of the boat calls for a tremendously excessive amount of gasoline to be burned per passenger, and the icing conditions on both coasts-let us not forget that we have such conditions on the Pacific as well as the Atlantic-would make Sunderlands unsafe as a means of transportating passengers to and from Canada.
The hon. member mentions lack of equipment. I would point out that we are supposed to be in equal partnership with the United Kingdom in operating from Canada to the United Kingdom, and I believe that at the present time we are carrying at least seventy per cent of the traffic against their thirty per cent. Why? Because we have more equipment.
We underestimated, it is true, the potential traffic on the north Atlantic, or at least our share of it. Had we anticipated running in excess of eleven trips a week, which we never expected at this stage of our development, we would have had more trained crews. The bottle-neck in the Atlantic is not equipment but crews. We could make many more trips with the aeroplanes than we have crews available. We are building up our operating staff as rapidly as we can. I expect to be censured next year for having too much equipment. If anyone happened to ask me what I will do with all these planes T.C.A. has on order I could not tell him, but we have always been short of equipment. We had a chance to buy exceptionally fine planes at a reasonable price. We bought twenty. If we can keep twenty North Stars busy we shall be in international aviation in a big way.
As regards refusing licences to returned airmen, I have said we have ten times as many men in aviaiton today as in 1939, all with licences and all with suitable outlets for their energies, all making a bit of money, which I do not think was a bad achievement. I do not mind fair criticism and accurate criticism, but I have never heard a man talk about civil aviation who obviously knew so little about the problems to be encountered in that direction.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The minister has challenged me on technical grounds and I am willing to reply to him on technical grounds. His first criticism was about the numbers of aircraft. If he will recall it, he himself this afternoon said that he could use on the north Atlantic run twice the number of aircraft he has at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I had the crews.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am saying to the minister that he had the crews, only he discouraged

them since the war was over; he and some of his air people, afraid of the challenge of military men in that field, were parties to that discouragement. In case the minister does not know it, the Sunderland aircraft is the military version of the Imperial Airways aircraft which flies a comparable route from the United Kingdom to Australia. We would be merely starting in about the same latitude and flying over the same route across the Pacific to the other side.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. There are totally different weather conditions, and I think those aircraft are being discarded. I believe there are few in operation today.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: That may be. I am talking about getting on the job. The minister had the opportunity and the aircraft to be on the job, and he missed it. That is what is bothering him now. I do not blame him for being annoyed,


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might mention that we are the second country in the world in civil aviation, in miles flown and passengers carried.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am saying that we should be the first, In case the minister does not think that I know anything about civil operation-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure the hon. member does not.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: We must disagree on that, because I am practically telling the minister that he does not know anything about it either. I should like him to know that in 1938 I was one of the pilots of the Sunderland aircraft which handled the royal mail deliveries from England to Singapore, and that the military version of the same aircraft which the Imperial Airways civil pilots were flying stacked up well against them and did a better job because we delivered spare parts and many other things to the United Kingdom. However I am not going to quibble about that, except to say this to the minister. He says that Canada is carrying seventy per cent of the north Atlantic traffic and that the United Kingdom is carrying only thirty per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Between Canada and the United Kingdom.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Let me say that is practically the only overseas traffic that Canada is carrying. whereas Britain is supporting routes to the near east and to the far east-to Australia, to New Zealand and South Africa-at the same time.


Mr. McIVOR:: I will just take a minute, but I will not allow this minute to pass without expressing a word of appreciation for the

Supply-Transport
efficiency of the Trans-Canada Air Lines and the department. At the lakehead we now have a terminal. The other day I was speaking to a young man, one of the officers. I said to him, "You seem to be extremely particular about having things just right." He said, "When you are dealing with human life, you have to be particular." I have not seen anything more particular and more efficient in Canada than the service rendered by Trans-Canada Air Lines. On behalf of the two cities at the lake-head, I should like to express appreciation for our being allowed to have a terminal there.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I wish to ask the minister a question or two with regard to a city such as Yorkton which finds itself directly on a Trans-Canada Air Lines route. In this case the route runs from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and I believe arrangements have been made for a stop-over in Saskatoon. Yorkton is a centre in which was located a service flying training school. The airfield is still there, as are the runways, the beacon meteorological service and the directional beam. The people are naturally interested in finding out what will be necessary in order to have their airport recognized as a regular stop-over for Trans-Canada Air Lines. What are the requirements?


An hon. MEMBER:: Passengers and freight.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, and passenger
service. What are the actual requirements before a place of that size could be used as a stop-over place for Trans-Canada Air Lines? What are the passenger requirements? What about the length of the runway? I understand that the runway in Saskatoon had to be elongated. The people are interested in knowing what the requirements are. I am sure that the citizens and civic organizations are anxious to comply with these requirements as far as they can. Can the minister enlighten us as to what the requirements are, and what the present situation is with regard to the likelihood of having those requirements met?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only physical change which would be required woud be the addition of about another five hundred feet to the runways; I understand that they are about 2,700 or 2,800 feet long. The requirements are 3,300 feet. The other requirement would be sufficient potential traffic to pay for the cost of the stop and the delay in the schedule. That will be studied by the traffic people. As my hon. friend knows, we have just started in operation over the north route.	Today
Yorkton is an emergency stopping-place. I am sure the officials of Trans-Canada Air Lines will be studying the situation to deter-83166-334i
mine when a stop at Yorkton is justified. As my hon. friend will know, after operating over Medicine Hat and Swift Current for some seven or eight years, it was just recently that a stop was introduced at those two points. I understand that it is the intention to introduce a stop at Brandon as soon as the necessary alterations are made in the field; and I would not doubt that Yorkton might be the next stop.


George Hugh Castleden: Would it require an application to be made by the city?	\


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.	1 rr>
j


George Hugh Castleden: They merely make the decision regarding a stop there, on their own.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I wish to say one thing more on this vexed matter of Canadian Pacific Air Lines versus any government-operated scheme in the northern territories. This is no criticism of Trans-Canada Air Lines at all. It is merely an answer, and I think it should go on the record at the same time as the rest of this debate. Criticism has been levelled at Canadian Pacific Air Lines to the effect that they might not be developing the north country in the way that some socialist scheme might develop it. There is just one thing which shows the job they have been doing, and that is the ton-miles flown. The north country is developed by getting tons of equipment into it. These are the figures which the minister was good enough to let me have this afternoon. I think they are important at this juncture. The ton-miles flown by Canadian Pacific Air Lines in 1946 were 1,150,734 compared with Trans-Canada Air Lines ton miles flown of 513,493. That is no criticism of Trans-Canada Air Lines, but it does show what job is being done by private enterprise, by Canadian Pacific Air Lines in developing the northern part of this country today.


Mr. MASSEY:: I have no desire to detain the committee for more than a moment in order to ask two or three questions of the minister. As he is well aware, the T.C.A. facilities in New York city are, from the passenger point of view, pretty grim. Actually that is the front door to Canada to the American who is boarding an aircraft in New York. Now that there is considerable flying from Europe to a New Yrork port and thence on into Canada, it seems to me that the passenger who is entering Canada for the first time gets a rather perverted view of what we are like. This is no criticism of the personnel who have the usual Trans-Canada Air Lines courtesy; but the facilities in New York are far from desirable Can the minister
Supply-T reimport

inform the committee what plans are in mind or in project for the improvement of those facilities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend mean the T.C.A. facilities?


Denton Massey: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were latecomers at
LaGuardia field and took the only accommodation we could get, which was at the end of the ramp. Our traffic is handled at the field by American Air Lines. There is congestion at LaGuardia airport. As I understand it, there will be a reassignment of space when Idylwilde opens. The transcontinental and transocean lines will be moved to Idylwilde; the local lines will have more space at LaGuardia; certain other traffic will move to Newark, and I believe private flying will go to a fourth field in that area, so that after a while there should be some relief. In the meantime I think we are doing as well as we can with the space we are able to get.


Denton Massey: I think the minister will agree that a little paint and a few bits of attractive furniture might add to the appearance of the space we now have,


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true.


Denton Massey: It is very dirty. The personnel are perfectly clean and treat the passengers very well, as I have said, but the facilities are not good and I think they can be improved.
My second question is whether there is any idea in mind at all of the island airport at Toronto being used at any time by T.C.A., by extending the runway.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; T.C.A. has no plans for the island airport. There are too many obstructions in the area and too many difficulties as compared with Malton, which is almost an ideal airport from a flyer's point of view. No matter how long the runways were, the island airport would be unsatisfactory for T.C.A.


Denton Massey: Are any plans projected for additional direct runs from Toronto to Montreal, without the Ottawa stop, and vice versa?


Clarence Decatur Howe: One service runs direct now, leaving Montreal at 1.35 o'clock in the afternoon and arriving in Toronto at 3.55 o'clock, and there is a corresponding service the other way. It is just a matter of studying traffic requirements. We are a little underequipped in the Montreal-Winnipeg area at present, and I dare say there will be additional non-stop trips later.


Denton Massey: Then, as perhaps the minister may have noted himself, if for any reason

there is a delay in the take-off, I have observed at several different airports that you are told there will be a ten-minute delay; then it is a fifteen-minute delay, then thirty minutes, then forty minutes and fifty minutes. I quite realize there are times when it is quite impossible to forecast the length of a delay, but on one or two occasions I have taken the trouble to ascertain the reason for the delay, and certainly when the delay occurred it should have been know that it would amount to at least an hour. It is very unsatisfactory to passengers to have the departure time put back three or four times, and I think T.C.A. is a bit remiss in that direction.
When the aircraft were first put into service by T.C.A. they were of the Lodestar type, and accordingly the head room was somewhat limited and a restriction was placed upon the height of the stewardesses. Now the aircraft are of a very different type, and even the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, who finds it difficult to sit down comfortably, can stand at full height in the passageway of the aircraft. Therefore it seems to me that stewardesses should not continue to be restricted to a height of five feet five inches, which I believe is the present limit. Has there been any idea of changing the specifications of the stewardesses?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have heard no complaints from the travelling public about our small stewardesses. It is some advantage not having to carry too much weight through the air, and probably we shall keep to the present standards.


Denton Massey: Quite seriously, and I
imagine many hon. members have been approached bv graduate nurses who are anxious to become stewardesses on T.C.A., But who are five feet six inches or five feet seven inches in height, and as a result are not considered, it does seem to me it would be quite reasonable to consider a girl who is a little taller. I was not questioning the weight; I was thinking of height.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-civil aviation division-
Operation and maintenance
[Stage Direction]
446. 'Radio aviation services, $1,231,580.
Lawrence Wilton Skey: What type of blind landing equipment is being considered by PICAO for standardization, and what type is the Canadian government recommending?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada has standardized on the ILS; that is the instrument landing system operated by the pilot from the plane. Some eleven installations are now in process of construction at our principal airports from

S u pply- T ra nsport
Halifax to Victoria. We believe that from the practical point of view the ILS has advantages over any other system, and our pilots share that view. The pilot likes to be responsible for the plane, rather than depend upon a man on the ground telling him what to do. We believe the efficiency of the line will be greatly improved when these installations are completed and the necessary training has been done.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I agree with the minister as to the efficiency of the installations. I was wondering if the department was considering installing the ground controlled landing equipment at overseas airports, to give the benefit of this equipment to aircraft of other lines which may be carrying it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The R.C.A.F. have installed that system at one or two points, notably at Rockcliffe near Ottawa, and we are studying their operations. If we find that any purpose can be served by having both systems we shall be glad to consider it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-civil aviation division-
447. Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $30,500.
Agar Rodney Adamson: I see there are three
grants under this item, one to the university of Manitoba, one to the Canadian flying clubs association and the third to the national research council, which is by far the largest of the three. First, I want to ask, what qualifies a flj'ing club for a grant? My second question is in relation to the national research council. Does this represent all that is being done to promote experimentation and research in civil aviation, or is that carried on in some other way as well? Despite our drive for economy, it seems to me that S25,000 is a very small sum, if that is the total.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the early days of flying clubs, grants were voted by parliament and paid to the clubs on a certain scale. I dare say there would have been no flying clubs today if that policy had not been followed. That was the practice up to the time war broke out. Then, as my hon. friend knows, the clubs were given contracts with the R.C.A.F. to train piLots, and they all became wealthy. Today we are not giving grants to flying clubs. The item of $5,000 is a grant to the association of flying clubs to pay for its secretariat, but the flying clubs are on their own and, I understand, are doing very well.
As far as the item of 825,000 goes, that is only to provide for special research ordered by the department. Aeronautical research at the laboratories of the national research council is paid for under an appropriation of the council itself, and is on a scale wholly out of proportion to this amount of 825,000.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does the minister know offhand how much it is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know. The council maintains an airport of its own. It is working on frost and winter conditions in relation to aircraft. It has a wind tunnel, and it conducts experiments with models. They do work on jets particularly, and freezing, which is the main problem in connection with jets. I would say that a considerable part of its income must be devoted to studies of aviation.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is Professor Parkin still there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: In many of the smaller centres of Canada there are airdromes which may be described as the residue of the empire air training plan. As the minister knows, many of these communities want to keep these airports in operation, and I should like to know if the department has any policy by which these smaller airports can be assisted and kept in operation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the airport is a key port on a transcontinental line it is maintained by the department, or an arrangement is made with the municipality to keep the airport up to departmental standards. If it is an off-line airport the city or municipality is given an opportunity to lease it for SI a year. As long as they maintain it as an airport they are permitted to operate it in any way they like. Many smaller centres have taken advantage of the offer and have taken over local airports for local purposes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Has the minister any knowledge as to whether some of the smaller centres are able to stand the cost of operating these airports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The operating cost is what they wish to make it. They are not required to keep them up to any standard. As far as I know, no one is going into the red ink through operating a local airport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-radio division-
J/S0. Administration of the Radio Act and regulations, $103,320.
Donald Methuen Fleming: This brings us to four items under the general heading, "Radio
Supply-Tra nsport

Division." I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the chaotic system under which the administration and the control of radio and broadcasting are being continued under three departments and two ministers when common sense would dictate that the administration should be brought under one department and one minister. In saying what I am about to say I do not ' intend to enter into the subject matter of the final report which was tabled earlier this evening from the radio committee, or the earlier report which came from that committee and which was tabled in the house last Friday evening. I am informed that the government has given an undertaking that full opportunity will be afforded the house to discuss those reports on a suitable occasion this week. Therefore hon. members may be assured that in forgoing the opportunity to discuss more widely the question of radio broadcasting at this time, they are not forgoing that opportunity for the entire session. This matter is of such leading importance that this house has no right to prorogue without having discussed it fully. In view of that undertaking which I understand the government has given I shall confine my remarks to certain aspects of the situation created by the present system of administration and control by the government.
Radio and broadcasting at the present time are regulated under two statutes of this parliament, the Broadcasting Act of 1936 and the Radio Act of 1938. Under both of those acts certain functions were assigned to the minister named in each act, and it happens that in the case of both acts the minister named was the Minister of Transport. We have the amazing situation today that the hon. gentleman who holds the portfolio of Minister of Transport has nothing to do either with the functions assigned to the Minister of Transport under the Radio Act or with the functions assigned to tfie Minister of Transport under the Broadcasting Act.
The effect of the Broadcasting Act of 1936 was to give certain functions and powers to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and also to the Minister of Transport. The effect of the Radio Act of 1938 was to give the Minister of Transport the power to license radio stations. He alone is the fountain of licences for broadcasting in Canada. Under the present system he seeks the advice and recommendations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; but, as I say, he is the sole fountain of licences. His radio division has been ordered by the government to carry on this form of administration.

The committee will recall that when these acts were passed the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) was Minister of Transport. When the war came along and he was appointed Minister of Munitions and Supply he took with him certain functions of the Minister of Transport, even though he wras relinquishing the portfolio of transport,. He took with him the functions assigned under both these acts to the Minister of Transport.
There followed a series of orders in council under which jurisdiction which was vested by these two acts in the Minister of Transport was juggled, with this curious result. First, we had order in council 3076, dated July 8, 1940, which provided that the duties, powers and functions vested in the Minister of Transport under various acts, and the radio services of the Department of Transport under the Broadcasting Act of 1936, were transferred to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. The next order in council was 3435, dated July 25, 1940, which conferred upon the Minister of Munitions and Supply the duties, powers and functions vested in the Minister of Transport under the Radio Act of 1938. Then came order in council 8207. dated October 24, 1944, under which the duties, powers' and functions in respect to the radio services, Department of Transport, and under the Radio Act of 1938 and other acts, were transferred to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. There was a further order in council, P.C. 6552, dated October 18, 1945, under which the functions of the Minister of Transport under the Broadcasting Act were conferred upon the minister who was Minister of National War Services and who is today the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). The portfolio of national war services being in course of liquidation, we can expect a further order in council vesting in the Minister of National Revenue the powers assigned to the Minister of Transport under the Broadcasting Act.
That situation is a hodgepodge. There are three departments involved and two ministers. We have the curious anomaly where the minister now holding the portfolio of transport has nothing to do with two important branches of the Department of Transport, the one which we discussed earlier this evening, namely, air services, including civil aviation and meteorological services, and, second, this radio division. It is anomalous also that the control of radio, including the licensing of stations for the purposes of broadcasting, should be vested in one minister, and then that other jurisdiction should be vested in still another minister by the act which establishes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and gives it its sweeping

Supply-Transport
powers, including its powers over private broadcasting in Canada. I urge upon the committee that 'that anomaly should not be allowed to continue. If the right hon. gentleman who holds the portfolio of reconstruction and supply is, with the will of the government, to continue to hold and exercise the functions of Minister of Transport in respect of the Radio Act of 1938 and the functions of the Minister of Transport in respect of air service, it would certainly seem to be the part of common sense that the functions of the Minister of Transport under the Broadcasting Act of 1938 now exercised by the Minister of National War Services, who is now the Minister of National Revenue, should also be vested in the right hon. gentleman who holds the portfolio of reconstruction and supply. That anomaly and that puzzling situation constitute I submit, a source of constant confusion. The confusion is evident among hon. members in the questions they ask from time to time in the house. The situation is confusing also to members of the radio committee, and it is high time 'that the government take the matter in hand and take the sensible course of bringing both jurisdictions, namely jurisdiction under the Radio Act and under the Broadcasting Act, under the one minister.
Here is the situation that was recently before the radio committee in a very striking form. It is quite possible that government policy may lead in one direction in respect of the administration of the Broadcasting Act by one minister and that it may lead in quite a .different direction through the other minister, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, in respect of the licensing functions he enjoys under the Radio Act.
In the radio committee quite recently we had this amazing situation. After extensive submissions had been made to the committee looking toward confiding in an independent tribunal both certain of the powers given under the Broadcasting Act to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the licensing powers of the minister under the Radio Act, a brief was introduced before the committee, presumably from the radio division of the Department of Transport, which had not been asked for by the committee-an amazing situation! But the controller of the radio division of the Department of Transport, an official who functions under the Minister of Reconstruction, introduced into the committee a brief in the minister's absence, which brief I repeat had not been asked for. That brief undertook to give statements of opinion in relation to policy, statements of opinion which were intended to answer opinions submitted to the committee by those who were seeking the
establishment of an independent tribunal for the purposes I have mentioned. On further inquiry, it transpired that the Minister of Reconstruction, to whom the official was responsible, disclaimed all knowledge of the brief and disclaimed any responsibility for it. Here was a committee of the House of Commons receiving and considering a brief submitted on the letterhead of the Department of Transport, Ottawa, which was disclaimed by the minister who exercises the functions of the Minister of Transport in respect of radio under the Radio Act. That is a sample of the sort of thing that happens and is likely to continue to happen so long as we permit the condition to continue where we have two ministers and three departments all mixed up in the one matter.
The minister's disclaimer of any responsibility for this brief was not conveyed to the committee by himself, as I think ought to have been done, but second-hand by the chairman of the committee.
Now that the committee has submitted its final report and comment on the matter is permissible under the rules, let me say that I introduced a motion in the committee that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply should be invited to come before the committee and state how things like this are permitted to happen, how a senior official of the radio division takes it upon himself to prepare a brief answering submissions which had been made to that committee with respect to a change in government policy. My motion was that the minister be invited to appear before the committee and explain how all that could happen without his authority. The Liberal and C.C.F. majority on that committee with one exception, the hon. member for New Westminster, whom I compliment on not being a party to that Liberal-C.C.F. majority on the committee, turned down the motion, and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply accordingly was not invited to come before the committee to make a statement on this question.
I ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply not merely to take in hand this curious anomaly that has been permitted to continue in respect of three departments and two ministers, not merely to explain how this brief, dealing with far-reaching questions of policy, was permitted to be written by a senior official of his department and be presented to the committee, but also to say how he, the representative of the government in respect of the licensing functions of government under the Radio Act reacts to the submissions in this brief. To what extent does
8 apply-Transport

this brief, which I am sure he must have seen and1 read bv now, represent government policy? All that the members of the committee and the members of this house know is this, that this brief has been presented by the senior official of the radio division, that the minister, through the chairman of the committee, has disclaimed, second-hand, all knowledge of the preparation of the brief and of its contents and disclaimed any responsibility for it. Nevertheless the brief appears on the letterhead of the Department of Transport, and it unquestionably left on the minds of many members of that committee the firm impression that this brief bespoke government policy. I am prepared, Mr. Chairman, to give expression to more than a surmise that that brief had very much to do with shaping the terms of the final report which was read in this house tonight. I am not going to discuss that report now but shall reserve what I have to say on it for the opportunity which the government has promised us we shall have later this week to discuss it. But I say that that brief, in the form in which it was submitted and in the circumstances in which it appeared before the committee, could1 not fail to convey to the members of the committee, particularly the Liberal members, the firm impression that the brief represented government policy. It was evident to members of the committee from that point on that there was much less sympathy for the proposal which had seemed up to that time to have had a substantial measure of acceptance in the committee, namely, the proposal that the regulatory powers of the broadcasting corporation over private stations and the licensing functions of the minister under the Radio Act should be vested in some independent regulatory tribunal with powers and functions and jurisdiction similar to those exercised by the Board of Transport Commissioners in the field of transportation.
These are serious matters. The issue to which I have referred was undoubtedly the most important one confronting the radio committee this year. The circumstances to which I have referred have undoubtedly had a substantial effect in shaping the attitude of certain members on the radio committee, culminating in the issuance of the majority report which was read here tonight, and which was opposed by members of the Progressive Conservative party and also by the eminent member of the Social Credit party who sits on the radio committee. I think the committee is entitled to know from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply whether this brief,

now that he has had a full opportunity to peruse it, now that he knows, I trust, the effect it has had on the minds of the Liberals and C.C.F. majority in the committee, again with the exception of the hon. member for New Westminster, meets with his approval. He owes it to the committee to say where he stands with reference to this brief. Does this brief contain a true statement of government policy? If it does not, will the minister say that he not only disclaims any responsibility for the contents of the report but state emphatically that the report does not represent government policy but is an expression of what is not government policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I am not
surprised that my hon. friend is confused about the relationship of the various departments. After hearing him explain what I thought was a very simple relationship, I am almost confused myself. He speaks of three departments being involved and then he proceeds to eliminate one himself, thus leaving two. I thought the functions of each were quite distinct. Perhaps I might run over them once again. I have been over the ground before in the radio committee in other years and in the house. First, the Radio Act; the hon. member speaks about 1938. The Radio Act is about as old as confederation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Radio Act was passed in 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Amendments to the Radio Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The present act is the Radio Act, 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Radio Act was passed in 1902. If my hon. friend will go back into the records of the Department of Marine, one of the predecessors of the Department of Transport, he will find the Radio Act very much as it is today. The functions of the-


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister will permit me; if he will look up the statutes of 1938 he will find the Radio Act of 1938. I have a copy in my hand, which is an act with respect to radio, assented to in 1938. .I.t is always referred to as the Radio Act, 1938. I know there was another Radio Act before that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will read the act of 1902 he will find that it is not very much different. The reason there is a Radio Act is that someone' had to control the wave lengths of the spectrum. In the spectrum there are wave lengths that have to do with broadcasting; there are wave lengths that have to do with wireless tele-

Supply- T ranspori
graphy; there are other wave lengths that have to do with the control of radio beams; there are other wave lengths used for police broadcasting, and there are certain wave lengths reserved for ship to shore telegraph, safety of ships and so forth; but one important function is to make sure that, once a wave length is assigned, that particular wave length is the one used and that the signal does not stray over into another band or into another wave length. I.t is the duty of the administration of the Radio Act to be the policeman of the air.
At the present time a large part of the staff of the radio division is at Atlantic City, for what purpose? To reassign all the wave lengths of the spectrum and to work out the use of these wave lengths between all the countries of the world. It is true that broadcasting wave lengths are involved in that discussion, but it is only a minor part of the whole discussion. The policing and assignment of the wave lengths of the spectrum is an important duty of government, of this or any other government. It can be discharged only by government, and it is discharged only by government in any part of the -world. So much for the radio. As I say, for many years the Radio Act was in the Department of Marine. When there was a consolidation of the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Marine the work of administration of the Radio Act was brought into the Department of Transport.
By act of parliament the Prime Minister is given the privilege of assigning the duties of government to any minister that he may decide to make the assignment to. In 1940 the Prime Minister assigned the work of the air branch of the Department of Transport to the Minister of Munitions and Supply and later to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. When my hon. friend becomes Prime Minister he will have the duty of making these assignments himself, but perhaps in the meantime he will let the duly authorized authority carry out that function which has been given to him by parliament. So much for the reason why the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is at the moment administering the air service branch of the Department of Transport under which is the Radio Act.
Let us trace the broadcasting side. Broadcasting was another function of the Department of Marine. It was formerly carried out as a side issue of the air service administration of the Department of Marine. Along about 1930 the radio commission was set up and the duty of administering broadcasting was turned over to it. Then in 1936 the present Broadcasting Act, or something similar 83166-335
to it, was passed and the work of broadcasting was turned over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If my hon. friend will read that act he will find that all matters of policy affecting broadcasting are the function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Therefore, if anyone has any question on broadcasting policy he does not need to look to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply; he does not need to look to any other minister. His relations are confined solely to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
So far as the Radio Act is concerned, that part of the spectrum which is used for broadcasting is assigned only on the recommendation of the Department of Transport. Any hon. member who has been a member of fhe radio broadcasting committee is well aware of that fact, because testimony to that effect is given to that committee every year.
We shall now come down to the question that is exciting my hon. friend, namely, the brief submitted to the committee by Mr. Browne, director of radio. Mr. Browne was called before the committee, by whom I do not know. It was not through me. I presume that the committee clerk sent a message to Mr. Browne saying that he should appear before the committee. He has appeared before the committee every year. He appears in his capacity as director of radio and he appears because the committee sends for him. It does not send for the minister or ask him to delegate someone; it sends for Mr. Browne. In this case Mr. Browne is leading the delegation to Atlantic City which has been in session for some months and will be for some further months. Before going he felt that the work and the time that he had put in, in following the .work of the committee should be capitalized on in some way. The result was that he wrote a report of his views on the evidence that had been submitted thus far. He did not refer it to the deputy minister; he did not refer it to the minister. He handed it over to the clerk or to the chairman, I am not sure which, of the radio committee. No one was more surprised than myself when I heard that there had been a report no one was more surprised than the deputy minister.
My hon. friend says that undoubtedly I have read it and considered it since then. I have not seen it since then. I was told by the chairman that there was some report. He gave me a summary of what was in it. He wanted to know if it was government policy. I said: "It is not government policy or my policy or anyone else's policy." There is no reason why I should have a policy because it is not a function of the Depart-
REVISED EDITION*
Supply-Transport

ment of Reconstruction and Supply to have a policy on radio. That is the responsibility of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Mr. Browne, as I say, was called as a witness before the committee by the committee. He felt it his duty, since as he was leaving the city for an extended period, to supply his views. If he had asked my opinion as to whether that was his duty, I would have said that his duty would have been to submit it through his senior officer. However, he did not take that view, and I made haste to say that the views contained in that brief were the views of Mr. Browne, who prepared it and submitted it on his own responsibility. I hope I have made the position clear. My hon. friend gets confused about three departments and two ministers, but I assure him that the work of one no more overlaps the work of the other than my work as Minister of Reconstruction overlaps with the work of external affairs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has indicated that he has not seen the brief since the issue arose in the committee and that it does not represent his views or government policy. Do I understand that there is no government policy opposed to vesting in an independent regulatory board or tribunal the regulatory functions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over private stations under the Broadcasting Act and licensing powers of the minister under the Radio Act, and that government policy is not opposed to vesting these powers in an independent regulatory board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been a member of the government for a considerable period and a fairly regular attendant at meetings of council. and I have never heard the government asked to express a policy on that, nor have I ever seen a report indicating why a policy should be expressed. The policy on broadcasting is a function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Unless the government is asked for a decision by the corporation, it has been in the past, and, I think, will be in the future, quite satisfied to leave the matter of broadcasting policy to the corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One further question
arising out of the minister's answer. May I ask the minister whether he has any objection or sees any obstacle in the way of his taking over the functions of the minister under the Broadcasting Act. If he is to continue to exercise the functions of the minister under the Radio Act, is there any reason why he should not also exercise the functions of minister under the Broadcasting Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no reason why I should or should not. There is no relation between the two functions. There is no relation between the administration of the Radio Act and the administration of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At one time I was administering both, when I was Minister of Transport and subsequently for a time. During the war it was considered wise-and I agreed with the decision-that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should report to another minister. There is absolutely no reason why it should report to the minister who administers the Radio Act.


Ernest George Hansell: I rise to say a word in the present discussion since I am on the radio committee and take a good deal of interest in my work there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are you the distinguished member referred to by my hon. friend?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is yes.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member has answered yes, and I thank him for the compliment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A very apt description.


Ernest George Hansell: It comes from him and not from me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What kind of marriage is this?	.


Ernest George Hansell: I will not discuss the radio committee's reports because we have had the courtesy extended to us by the minister that the opportunity will be given at a later time for the consideration of that report when a bill is to be brought down to the 'house. But there is some merit in what the hon. member for Eglinton has said with respect to three separate departments of government all having a finger in the radio pie. I have listened to the minister's explanation and I am sorry to say he did not tell us anything we did not already know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hear, hear. I was trying to explain that to my hon. friend in this corner. He did not know.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Eglinton knew too. What I have been listening for is a justification for having three separate ministries looking after two acts with respect to radio. I could understand perhaps that there might be some justification for two ministers. I can quite understand that there is a difference between the functioning of a radio licensing authority, that is an authority that licenses radio stations for the purpose of broadcasting, because, as the minister has

Supply-Transport
already explained, there are various types of air channels, some of which are taken up by the different kinds of services in Canada requiring these channels. I can also quite understand how there could perhaps be another responsibility imposed upon the minister with respect to radio broadcasting as it is generally known in Canada for entertainment and commercial purposes. But why there should be a third, I am at a loss to understand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Can my hon. friend explain to me what the third minister does?


Ernest George Hansell: If he does not do anything, then I am more bewildered than ever, because we find here an item in connection with the radio division under the Department of Transport. If the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply wants to know what the Minister of Transport thinks, there is the Minister of Transport now. No, he is not there. He was there a moment ago but he has fled now.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is there.


Ernest George Hansell: Oh, he has suddenly become a backbencher. Well, the very fact that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is now piloting through this estimate under the Department of Transport indicates that there cannot be any reason for three ministries looking after radio in Canada. I do not think I need to say any more and I do not know that it affects me so greatly, but it does seem strange to me. As an illustration, suppose we take the Department of Transport. Suppose we should discover suddenly that under the Minister of Transport there should come into existence another minister whose responsibility it is to determine where railway lines should run and where they should be built. If after a while, a third minister should suddenly appear upon the scene as a sort of connecting link between the government and the actual functioning of the railway business in Canada, we would think a divided ministry in respect of transportation would be a strange thing. Some of us are wondering why it is any the less strange for three ministers to be occupied with radio in Canada. As far as the public are concerned, I do not know whether it makes much difference. I suppose John Jones out in the street here does not know very much about whether it is under three ministers or one.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And cares less.


Ernest George Hansell: But from the point of view of efficiency in government, it does seem that it could very well come under one ministry.
83166-335i


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The minister said that the two functions do not come together, the functions of one minister and the functions of the other. The question of licences comes under both ministers. Despite what the brief says-and it was written by Mr. Browne and fathered by none-I cannot for the life of me see why there cannot be a proper tribunal to license broadcasting in this country. It seems to me most necessary that it should be done, especially in viewT of all the controversy now going on.
I just wish to make one or two other observations. We had set before us in the radio committee some statistics in connection with licensing and licence fees collected. I will defy any member of the House of Commons to go through this thing and make any head or tail of it. For instance, we have here administration of radio, S189.000. I understand that some of that goes into the collection of fees, but I do not know. Then we have the issue of radio licences, $241,000 in the estimates. We have here in this brief which we received, that the total cost of administration, as a matter of fact, in connection with the collection of radio fees, was $237,000 last year, and yet this year they want $241,000. Let us look at another picture. We have here total licences issued, 4,406,964. Those are licences issued. Now we go over to another page and we find receiving licence fees, $4,099,795. Then we go back over to this first figure and we find the cost of collection of the $4,406,000-to work it out you take 12-36 per cent of $4,406,000-is $543,000. You go over to another place on this thing and it gives you what the total cost of collection was:	$206,500, plus $237,388, or
$413,888. Then we have net revenue of $3,905,000, when we first of all had licence fees issued, $4,406,000, and yet had costs of $543,000 to collect it. The difference between the amount collected. $4,406,000, and the net, $3,905,000, is only $501,000. There certainly must be some confusion in the department itself, with this document we have here, because the whole thing does not make sense. You can go through it from top to bottom and you cannot make anything balance. You cannot make anything jibe. The question I should like to ask is, what was the total amount of revenue collected from private broadcasting stations and how much was turned over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For receiving licences, the amount of cash collected was $4,099,795.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not want the amount of cash collected. I want to know
S upply- T ransport

what the total amount of fees was and I want to know how much it cost to collect them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The number of licences issued were: private receiving station licences at $2.50 each, 1,584,710.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Just while the minister is on that, might I ask-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just let me finish my statement, because it will upset the hon. member worse if he tries to add this.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What was the amount given?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was 1,584,710 licences at $2.50 apiece. Then we sold 231,470 licences at $2 apiece. Transmitting stations were 111, which also paid fees.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am not asking for that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has them.


James Arthur Ross: I just want the receiving licences.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has those. There are two kinds, for the electric sets and for the battery sets. I gave the figures on those. If you multiply those by the appropriate figure you will get the gross collections. However I might point out that the department does not collect the gross, because commissions are allowed to post offices and various agencies. The gross amount received by the department in cash was $4,099,795.15, plus transmitting licences of $44,550, making a total gross paid to the department of $4,143,345.14.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What did the broadcasting corporation receive?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The net revenue to the Canadian broadcasting corporation was $3,905,841.17.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister give us the cost of collection which was deducted before the fees came into the hands of the Department of Transport? Has he that figure? In the same return I find the costs of the Department of Transport given as $206,388.40, and there were other costs of $31,115.57. The note states that the last item includes all costs additional to direct Department of Transport costs and involves salaries of staff of treasury branch engaged in licence work, rental of space occupied by the licensing organization, and so on; but the return does not give us the total of collection costs.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to give a break-down of that. The total gross cost

of collection was $544,672.85. The commissions deducted at the source amounted to 8307,169.20; the cost of administration was $237,503.65. I think my hon. friend will find that accounts for everything.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then it cost roughly $544,000 to collect $4,406,964.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Does the minister think that is economical?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I think so. That is about twelve per cent, or around thirty cents a licence. I think the hon. gentleman will find that other countries collecting licence fees in this way would consider that a reasonable cost of collection. I would remind my hon. friend that this involves the handling of some
2,000,000 pieces of paper, 2,000,000 separate transactions; and for that service I think the cost is reasonable.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How large a staff is required to collect that amount of money?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A salaried staff of sixty-four.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then does the minister think a man with a radio should be penalized to the extent of $2.50 just because he has that radio? Does he not think each individual should be licensed, or does he think it should be the radio? Why not license wash ing-mach ines ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, it seems to me the man who wants to use a radio should properly pay for the service. We pay for most services we get in this country. If my hon. [DOT]friend wants a washing-machine he buys one. If he wants entertainment in his home I see no reason why he should not pay for it. The cost is very reasonable.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: To a certain extent I agree with the minister; but if you license one radio, why should you not license ten radios? You are licensing the radio; you are not licensing the man who listens to it. It is the man who should be licensed, the man who gets the benefit of the service. If a man has five radios he still buys only one license. A poor old pensioner who gets only $30 a month has to pay the same $2.50. That is the point; the principle of licensing is wrong. And I venture to say that it does not cost 12 per cent to collect money for the consolidated revenue fund of this country.
I believe another method of collecting fees of this kind for the corporation might be looked into to great advantage.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I once shared the view advanced by my hon. friend that each separate radio should pay a tax, and the law so

Supply-T ransport
provided for two or three years. Several reasons were advanced against that point of view. A man might have a radio in every room in his house, but he can listen to only one at a time. The second reason was that we were making too many offenders out of the population of Canada. In other words, they had to report the number of radios they had, and we were not always sure they were accurate. So we came to the conclusion that for practical reasons we would license the place rather than the set.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have only one more question and then I am through; it is in connection with the prosecutions which took place under the act. I find this matter very interesting. I notice that there were 11.624 prosecutions for not having licences, but the point which interests me is that in Ontario there were 7,572 prosecutions, while the next highest province had only 1,164, in Quebec. There were only 109 in New Brunswick, 191 in British Columbia, 734 in Alberta, and so on. Could the minister say why there should be over 7,000 prosecutions in Ontario and so few in the other provinces? That does not seem logical to me, because I do not believe the people of Ontario are any worse than the people of any other province in reference to evading the payment of these fees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say is that the number of prosecutions conforms to the number of violations reported. It may be that our staff in Ontario is more efficient in spotting violations, but as far as the department is concerned we only prosecute when we have the report of a violation. When we receive such a report it is handed to the proper officers and the prosecution follows.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
Air service-civil aviation division-
596.	Radio aviation services, $1,948,455.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: On looking up the details of this item on page 281 of the estimates, I find what I have brought to the attention of several ministers in connection with other items, namely, that the provision for temporary assistance accounts for the greater part of this vote. In this case the amount for temporary assistance is $1,023,480. I have asked several of the ministers so far to explain this point, and I must say my question has not been answered very satisfactorily. Perhaps the minister might be able to give me something definite as to what this is for, and so on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I can do that. The purpose of this vote is to administer installations that are purely for war. The men
involved, paid out of the vote, are temporary employees, and today their services are temporary. For instance, I will give my hon. friend a list of the services paid for out of this vote. There is the radio range at Yellowknife, at Graham, at Gore Bay, at Wiarton, at Sarnia, at Cape Ray, at Cape North, at New Waterford, at Sandspit and at Mount Hayes. There is the requirement of the point-to-point Atlantic stations. These are services which were war services and have not yet been incorporated into the civilian services of the department. My hon. friend will find that this vote is much smaller, although this particular item is somewhat larger than it was last year. However, this is a disappearing item. I suppose this is the last year there will be demobilization estimates. By that time we will sort out the services which require to be incorporated into our system, and the services which can be abandoned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion

Air service-civil aviation division-
597.	Care, operation and maintenance of Royal Canadian Air Force airfields transferred to the Department of Transport, $374,800.
Mackenzie river route-operation, maintenance. and acquisition of equipment-now included in normal estimates.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I would direct the attention of the minister to the last four lines in the estimate. Where, in the normal estimates, are the votes pertaining to the Mackenzie river route?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are in vote 445, for civil aviation services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
Air service-civil aviation division-
598.	North East (Crimson) staging route- maintenance of airfields, $25,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the reduction in this item mean that the amount is being transferred somewhere else, or that the maintenance of this route is being abandoned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was never really a route, so far as war operations were concerned. Churchill is now to be taken over by the army. The Pas airfield will continue to be operated on a civilian basis. Southampton island is on a maintenance basis, with just a watchman in charge.


Agar Rodney Adamson: These are airports built by the Americans during the war, are they?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not necessarily by the Americans. The Pas was huilt by Canada, and I believe Churchill was largely built by Canada. The Americans built Southampton island.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport
[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
Air service-civil aviation division-
Alaska communications system-
599.	Additions and betterments, including transport equipment, capital, $216,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a new item. Would the minister give the details of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The funds are required for the continued operation and maintenance of the Canadian portion of the so-called Alaska communications system from Edmonton to Fairbanks. This system was formerly operated by the United States army. This is a capital vote. It is capital which it is estimated will be required in operating telegraph and telephone lines between Edmonton and Alaska.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is, the lines over which Canadian Pacific Air Lines operates in part on its own and in part on behalf of Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Part of it is through service and relates to American operations in Alaska. Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
Air service-civil aviation division-
Alaska communications systemtiOO. To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31, 1948, not exceeding $682,090.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Would the minister give a break-down of this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is as follows:
Revenues
Lease of lines to U.S. government	
Lease of lines to Department
of Transport	
Lease of lines to airline operator	
Commercial traffic and other leases	
$27:1,000
103,000
35,000
m.ooo

Expenses
(Canadian National Telegraphs)
Salaries and wages

Permanent	
Salaries and Wages-Temporary	
Salaries and wages-Casual ..
Allowances-Board	
Travelling expenses	
Teletype rental	
Printing and stationery...
Materials, supplies and equipment	
Freight, express and cartage Management fee

3 per cent
Allowances-Living	
Pension charges	
Sundries

Estimated operating deficit 1947-1948 $ 682,000 [Mr. Howe.)


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is a loss being taken on the operations in that section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And it is a new operation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was operating throughout
the period of the war. It was built by the United States government and was purchased by the Canadian government. For a time it was operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force. For reasons of economjr it was turned over to the Department of Transport for operation. That department made an operating agreement with the Canadian National Telegraphs. The statement I have just given is the expected revenue and expected cost of operation by Canadian National Telegraphs.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will this be in next year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should think so.


Howard Charles Green: Why is this not shown in
the ordinary estimates? I understand that it has to do with the Alaska communications system. The Department of Transport will be handling that each year. Why is it shown as a demobilization and reconversion vote rather than in the ordinary estimates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are demobilizing at the
present time. We took it over only last spring, and we are changing it from war to peacetime operations. By next year we shall know what to include in the permanent estimate, and shall include it accordingly.


Howard Charles Green: But it is to 'be kept by
the Department of Transport?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the present intention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
Radio division-
601. Administration of the Radio Act and regulations, $252,520.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why is this not in the main estimates? While I am on my feet, I should like to make it clear that I am not in favour of licensing every radio in every house, just in case I might be misunderstood. Why does this not come under the other estimates for the Department of Transport?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This has not anything to do
with radio. There is some misunderstanding in this respect. Some people seem to think the radio branch has nothing to do but look after radio broadcasting. I suppose radio broadcasting takes about two per cent of the time and attention of the administration of the Radio Act. This has to do with the real functions of the radio branch of the Department of Transport, and is in connection with

Supply-Fisheries
the acquisition of two transmitters for the radio ionospherics stations at St. John's, Newfoundland, and Clyde River, Northwest Territories, in replacement of obsolete and uneconomical present equipment, to the cost of $30,000. This is an appropriation for the technical and clerical staff at Ottawa headquarters and district offices engaged in administering services which were developed during the war and which are necessary functions in the normal peace-time administration of the act. Provision is also made for the full operating expenses of radio monitoring stations at Hartlen Point, Nova Scotia; Winnipeg and Vancouver, and for a portion of the expense of the Ottawa and Strathburn stations, and for two ionospherics stations at St. John's and Clyde River in Arctic bay.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is vote 450 for the administration of the Radio Act and regulations not for the same purpose as this vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That other item refers to normal peace-time activities. This item has to do with the operation of certain war-time equipment which has not yet been converted into peace-time equipment or abandoned. I dare say part of it will be abandoned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
75. Departmental administration, $184,000.
Thomas Reid: There is one important and, I believe, serious matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries with respect to which I am going to ask him that between now and next session every possible investigation be made and steps be taken to prevent what I claim is a menace to the fisheries of the Fraser river. But before dealing with that one specific question which I have in mind tonight, may I draw to the minister's attention some of the communications which I received following a speech I made in this house a short time ago when the Fisheries Research Board Act was under review.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was a good speech.


Thomas Reid: Thank you. At that time I dealt particularly with the quality of fish, amongst other matters. Following a report of my speech which appeared in many newspapers, I received, in all, thirty-five to forty letters; and invariably the writers, whilst reminding me that quality was essential to the consumption of more fish, pointed out, each and every one of them, that price was just as important a factor, if not more so, in increasing the consumption of fish. I wish to put one of those letters on record tonight,
and I do so because I think the minister will agree that, while we must go after quality, nevertheless something more must be done than has been done to make fish cheaper and more readily available, particularly to those living in the interior provinces. This is one of the many letters that came to me:
Dear Sir:
In the Saskatoon Star issue of April 23, you are wondering why the public does not eat more seafood. Perhaps a few price quotations will
help you. Shrimp 			cents 85
Lobster			95
Crab 			69
Salmon 			35
Sole fillets			45
Salmon 			45
White fish 			43
and so on down the line to the once so cheap Canadian sardine, which has doubled in price. Who with a family can afford such prices?
At least one can buy a cheaper cut of meat. Hamburger, for instance, at 25 cents per pound, and shoulder cuts at much less than any of the above fish quotations.
There is really no object in spending a great deal of money in an educational campaign unless prices come down or purses are better filled. Then you won't need a campaign of any sort. The eating of fish will take care of itself. The price of whole fresh fish is much higher than the cheaper cuts of meat.
I like fish and would rather eat it than meat, but my budget won't allow it too often.
That was the gist of the majority of the letters I received, following the debate in this house on the Fisheries Research Board Act. I am bringing them to the minister's attention to emphasize that some steps will have to be taken by his department, and the industry as well will have to be reminded that fish must be distributed .more abundantly and more cheaply than is the case at the present time.
My particular reason for rising at this time is to bring to the minister's attention what I claim is a serious menace to the salmon industry of the Fraser river. In fact, if no steps are taken in the matter it is my opinion that we face in the near future the depletion of the salmon industry on the Fraser river.
It may interest the members of the committee to know that the great Columbia river to the south of us in British Columbia, which has its head waters in that province but its outlet in the United States, was once the great salmon river of the Pacific coast. But dams were built on that river in the state of Washington to develop hydro-electric power, and on three occasions I raised my voice in this house drawing to the attention of the government, both Conservative and Liberal, that by simply closing our eyes and
Supply-Fisheries

remaining silent we had lost a great fisheries heritage through the building of dams on the Columbia river by the United States. Away back in 1845 there had been entered into between Great Britain and the United States an agreement which contained a clause stipulating that the Columbia river, which rises in British Columbia, was to be free of access to all British and Canadian citizens. But when the United States started to build dams on the Columbia river for hydro-electric power no voice was raised at that time by the government of Canada to maintain the rights which were given to us by that treaty. I may inform the minister, although it is too late to tell him now, that when the hearings were being held in the state of Washington at the time these dams were projected, those who had to do with the fisheries in the state of Washington firmly believed that the voice of Canada would be heard in protest against the building of these dams for power development.
What has been t'he effect? I had the pleasure of visiting one of these dams where there is a fishway or ladder which cost seven and a half million dollars to build. That fishway, it is true, takes the salmon up over the dam. Ever since, the United States authorities have been trying to bolster up the whole project with figures and statistics. They have men engaged in what they call a counting-house where machines are used to count the fish and classify the various species or varieties. The machines operate very much like a typewriter. The fish travel over a white table and the men who are sitting above the table can easily see the fish through a glass floor, and they know the varieties, and hence can make a fairly accurate count of the fish passing up the river. Every year they can show the great numbers of salmon that go up over the dam. For many years they have been endeavouring to put across the idea that this fishway was a success, owing to the numbers of salmon which were able to go up the river and which previously could not go over the hydro-electric dams. I can tell hon. members, and I wane the minister to remember this-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the hon. member please tell us which hydro-electric dam?


Thomas Reid: I am speaking particularly of the one at Bonneville in the state of Washington. They .constructed there a $7,500,000 fishway to take the salmon up around the dam; but in all the dams that they have built to take the fish up, that is, but one aspect of the situation, for they have never been able to find a way to bring the little fingerlings 
down successfully, and those who know tell us that the Columbia river is doomed. It is doomed because, after ten years of research, they have never been able to discover how to bring the fry or little fish down over the dams or through the turbines without great mortality. The result is that the fishway in the Columbia river will in time be of no use in that regard. It will be only a matter of time until there will be no fish left in the Columbia river.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The fish would have to come up over the Grand Coulee dam and come down through the turbines.


Thomas Reid: The Grand Coulee dam is too high.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How do they get them through?


Thomas Reid: They do not go through; it stops them. The dam blocks them; but on the Bonneville farther down the river they built a fishway at the cost which I have just mentioned, which is able to take the fish up over the dam; but as I said a moment ago-and I wish to repeat it-they have never been able to bring the small fry down successfully. It is estimated that every year the small fry die by the millions; consequently, in spite of the fish going up to spawn, the fishery actually is decreasing.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is it a fact that, the fish do not get up to British Columbia to spawn at all?


Thomas Reid: The hon. member is right. Since the dams were built on the Columbia, no fish are now going up in British Columbia. We lost the entire fishery in the interior of British Columbia by the building of dams, and no protest was made by any Canadian government, although we had a right to protest under the treaty of 1845.
I shall now deal with what I particularly wanted to say, namely, the menace to the Fraser river. In 1938, the province of British Columbia had a survey made of the potential water power of the Fraser river. I shall quote what was said:
When the demand arises, the waters of the Fraser river are capable of furnishing over six million horse-power.
They put out a little booklet-hon. members from British Columbia may have seen it-called "Water. Powers, Fraser River, British Columbia." In this report of the power commission of British Columbia there is outlined all the potential hydro-electric development of the Fraser river watershed. Almost each page shows the spot where hydro-

Supply-F isheries
electric power could he developed. Those having to do with fisheries view with alarm the building of dams on the Fraser river. Let me say that, speaking as a member of the international salmon fisheries commission, we realize, as a commission, that dams will have to be built on the river for the development of electric power. We are not entirely against the construction of dams. Our engineers have also made a survey of the waters of the Fraser river,-and we have discovered that there are great areas to which no fish go. There are other areas to which the fish go, and therein, we believe, lies the danger.
Beginning a year or two ago, the British Columbia Electric Company started with a project on the Bridge river which I think is to be completed this year. Most hon. members from British Columbia have received a copy of the "Construction World". In that booklet is outlined the great project of hydroelectric development on Bridge river. An 800-foot reservoir dam is being constructed. They are raising the level of one lake forty feet and taking the water through a penstock many miles, thereby developing power for electricity. No intimation has been given by the company to the fisheries department of what the effect might be. May I point out to the committee that when the British Columbia Electric constructed a dam at Stave lake some years ago, certain streams were completely dried out and the salmon that used to go up these streams disappeared. The report now is that they may now abandon this dam after the Bridge river project is completed. But may I point out to the committee that when they built the Stave lake dam and put in the project there, no protest of any kind was made either by the provincial or dominion government or by their officials against the building of the dam.


Mr. BRIDGES:: What year was that?


Thomas Reid: I am not sure. If my memory serves me correctly it was back in 1925 or 1926. I think it was around that time. No protest of any kind was made, and I claim there was a great loss to the salmon industry.
If the sockeye salmon comes back to its once great value on the Fraser river, as we hope and expect it will-I mean to the extent which it was in 1913 at the time the slide occurred, and which it is the duty of the commission of which I have the honour to be a member to endeavour to bring about, and we are working to that end-it will mean an annual return of between 835 million and $40 million. In 1913 two and a half million cases of sockeye salmon were canned from the salmon that went up the Fraser river to the
headwaters of that river in the interior. After the disaster of 1913-14, of course the decline took place; but we are hopeful that, before long, we shall be able to bring back that great fishing industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To what does the hon. member refer?


Thomas Reid: I refer to the disaster that took place when the contractors were building the Canadian National Railways through the mountains to Vancouver. They blasted hundreds of thousands of tons of rock into a place on the Fraser river called Hell's Gate canyon. In the spring of 1914 a slide also took place. In the year that they blasted the rock into the canyon millions of sockeye salmon were unable to pass up the gorge and so died without spawning. Since 1913 the industry has gone down and down. In 1937 the commission was set up to overcome the difficulty. That, however, is a story all by itself and would take an entire evening to tell.
I am dealing particularly with the menace of the water-power development, and I suggest to the minister that he look at what is now being done in the United States. It is true they are doing this in the United States after some disaster has befallen the fishing industry. I shall read to the minister the laws of the state of Washington. I realize that he may probably have to consult writh the province of British Columbia. Someone in the dominion government should, however, approach the province and have a law something like this put into effect. I quote from the "Annotated Laws relating to Food and Shell Fish 1945" of the state of Washington.
In the event that any person, firm, corporation or government agency desires to construct any form of hydraulic project or other project that will use. divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of any river or stream or that will utilize any of the waters of the state or materials from the stream beds, such person, firm, corporation or government agency shall submit to the department of fisheries and the department of game full plans and specifications of their proposed construction or work, complete plans and specifications for the proper protection of fish life in connection therewith.
I want to compare that with what we have in our law today. We have nothing like that to prevent the building of dams, but we have something which many years ago might have acted, I presume fairly well, although some of us have doubted it. If you take the revised statutes of Canada and refer to the Fisheries Act you will find that section 31 merely states this:
Every slide, dam or other obstruction across or in any stream where the minister determines it to be necessary for the public interest that a fish-pass should exist, shall be provided by
Supply-Fisheries

the owner or occupier with a durable and efficient fishway or canal around the slide, dam or other obstruction which shall be maintained in a good and effective condition by said owner or occupier in such place and of such form and capacity as will in the opinion of the minister satisfactorily permit the free passage of fish through the same.
That was in 1927. I claim that that law is antiquated and is useless in the face of the potential dangers confronting us on the Fraser river. The present section will come into operation only after the dam has been built, and if, in the opinion of the minister, a fish-pass is required he can then order the company to build one. That is hardly good enough because, once the dam is up, the damage may well have been done, as it may take only one year to wipe out a fishery valued at many thousands of dollars.
Let me point out another danger on the Fraser river and, I suppose, on other rivers as well, and that is the dredging which is taking place. There was dredging for gold at a place called Quesnel many years ago. On the Quesnel system we estimate that we have one [DOT] of the greatest potential sockeye salmon streams in the entire Fraser river watershed. In 1912 or 1913 some four million sockeye salmon went into that area, and last year, by actual count, there were only around 685, or a drop from four million to 685. In other words, that area has been practically wiped out. In consequence of the gold mining company going there with a mammoth dredge and expending many millions of dollars in dredging, they have blocked rivers and lakes. No steps were taken to have them remove the gravel. The damage has been done and now it is our duty as a commission to endeavour to bring that area back to what is was in 1912. If the department of the day had been fairly active or had had some power such as I have cited from the laws of the state of Washington, steps could have been taken immediately against such an operation or company.
I contend that our laws will have to be amended and brought up to date, because we stand in grave danger, on the Fraser river at least, of the entire fishery being wiped out.
Let me bring another instance to the attention of the minister, and this one is nearer home. A certain project is being carried out by the dominion at Pemberton Meadows. They started work early in March of this year. If that work had been carried out as intended, they were going to dig a canal and divert the river. If they had proceeded with that we would have lost one of the finest spawning beds in that area, one that usually harbours some thirty thousand sockeye salmon. By

good luck we were able to get hold of the engineer, and when the matter was drawn to his attention he was good enough to order that the work be discontinued until a complete survey could be made as to its effect.
I mention this particularly to the minister in order to bring it forcibly to his attention that there is no protection at present against digging canals, gold mine dredging or the construction of hydraulic dams. There is some protection, seemingly, in the act, that if a dam is built and it is found to be to the detriment of the fishing industry the minister can take certain steps.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am very much interested in what the hon. member is saying, because he is perhaps the best-posted member in the house on this subject. According to what he now says, if they are to build dams on the Fraser river, I believe the whole fishing industry there will go to pieces, because on the Columbia the Grand Coulee is 550 feet high and fish cannot go up that dam, and the same will happen on the Fraser river.


Thomas Reid: Everyone knows the high
pressure sort of propaganda campaign that can be put on by a company that wishes to construct a dam across a stream for the development of electrical power, especially if the people in the area are not receiving any benefit from the salmon on the river. It can be pointed out that there would be cheap electricity for the farms and industrial power for those who wish to go into industry. A beautiful picture can be painted to the people generally and I fear that in a campaign of that kind the fishing industry may suffer and become the victim of such propaganda. I am calling this matter to the attention of the minister in time, as I believe, and I submit that it is time steps were taken before any great development or building of dams takes place. I doubt whether one of his officers has been up to see what effect the Bridge river project may have on the salmon industry on the Fraser river.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the hon. member whether his commission has registered any complaint to the minister?


Thomas Reid: We have protested for the past five years to the provincial government. We have asked the provincial government on every occasion if they would be good enough to consult with us, to present their plans to us and give us a chance to look at them before going ahead with the work. But although we have requested that, and had an assurance from the premier that that would be done, so far it has not been done Fortunately or

Supply-Fisheries
unfortunately, these works are carried out by officials, and since the province of British Columbia, like certain other provinces, do not control their fisheries, perhaps they are not as much interested as they might be if they had the control, as the province of Quebec and some other provinces have.. I believe the province of Saskatchewan controls its fisheries, but we in British Columbia do not control ours. The fisheries come exclusively under the dominion, and therefore the province may not be so much concerned. There is sitting in Victoria a little group of men who are power-minded'

I say that advisedly-their thoughts being for the development of hydroelectric power on the Fraser river, and they have no thought whatsoever of what effect the building of these dams may have on the fishing industry.
The fishing industry is so valuable to British Columbia that we cannot sit idly by without taking proper steps and putting in the proper safeguards now. What I suggest to the minister is that every department, both provincial and federal, before proceeding with projects of that kind, and private industry as well, should be required to place their plans before the fisheries department and so give them a chance to find out what effect these projects will have on the fishing industry.
There is a principle or, at any rate, a precedent that we can act upon. Neither a provincial government nor a private individual can construct a bridge over a navigable river unless, first of all, the project is approved by the Department of Public Works. There you have a precedent, and if that safeguard is provided to take care of shipping, surely we should be more concerned or, at any rate, as much concerned about an industry that gives employment to thousands of men and is worth many millions of dollars.
I am asking the minister to give serious thought to the matter between now and the next session of parliament, and to take steps to see what can be done so that in future we shall not witness on the Fraser river what has taken place on the Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Am I to understand that the provincial government would permit the damming of the Fraser river, which I believe is a navigable water, without con. sultation with the government?


Thomas Reid: There is issued by the provincial government a booklet in which the entire Fraser river is outlined, giving the places they recommend should be used for the development of hydro-electric power, and Bridge river is named in this booklet. That is the first one that is being proceeded with.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am merely asking the question for information. My understanding is that the Fraser river is navigable. Surely the federal government has control of that, has it not? The famous beaver we hear so much about went up there and the whole development of Canada other than Ontario was through the Fraser river. If it is not navigable, I do not know what it is.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: We all certainly have enjoyed listening to the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster in connection with the damage which may be caused to the fisheries of the Fraser river and in British Columbia by virtue of the possible development of hydro-electric power. I have not had an opportunity to make a full and complete study of the legislation which now exists in regard to the construction of fishways and dams for this purpose. I would point out, however, to the hon. member the fact that the present act under which we are now functioning is the Fisheries Act of 1932. It is quite possible that in section 20 of the Fisheries Act of 1932, which contains some ten sections, there may be some powers which the minister now has, but which he did not have under the old revised statutes of Canada which were passed in 1927. I would, however, assure the hon. member most sincerely that, so far as I am concerned, if the legislation as it now exists is deficient, having regard to the proper protection of the salmon fisheries, I and the officials of my department will certainly make a careful study of the matter between now and the next session and see what can be done.


Robert Henry Winters: I should like to invite the attention of the committee for a few minutes to the fisheries problems on the east coast. At this late stage I hesitate to take up the time of the committee, but when one realizes the proportions which the fisheries are assuming in our economic life, I feel that the subject merits all the consideration we can direct to it from the people of Canada generally. The solution to the immediate problems facing the fishing industry lies with the people of Canada themselves in the way of increased consumption, as was brought out in a recent debate. Therefore, I feel it is a problem which is of great concern to each and every person in Canada. For that reason I feel we are justified in asking the committee to bear with us for a short time even at this late date.
At the outset I should like to say that, from the point of view of the industry on the east coast, the past year has been one of development as far as the relationships
Supply-Fisheries

between the industry and the department go. We feel that, in the dying days of the last session, we had in this house a good debate and one which was constructive. Since that time the department has embarked on a wide programme of reorganization which has certainly benefited the department and the industry. We feel that a great deal of credit is due the minister who has applied himself with such great vigour and constructiveness to the problems facing the industry. We are now looking hopefully to the new deputy minister who has shown, by his ability in such matters as assisting the industry through the recent support announcement made by the minister, that the department is certainly on the right track.
The first problem I should like to draw to the attention of the committee tonight is an international one, and it has to do with the general problem of depletion. The hon. member for New Westminster ably brought to the attention of the committee tonight the matter of the depletion of salmon from the great salmon rivers of British Columbia. I am concerned with the depletion of deep sea fish on the Grand Bank and other banks off the coast of Nova Scotia, involving principally the fishing industries in the United States and Canada. The minister is well aware of the situation. It has been brought to his attention a number of times, both through his own departmental channels and through the industry. I know he has a sympathetic feeling toward the problem. Recently, on July 4, the question was brought to the attention of the government by the hon. member for St. John-Albert, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs at page 5080 of Hansard indicated that he is fully aw7are of the scope and difficulty of the problem and its solution. The problem arises out of the fact that the modern way of deep-sea fishing is by means of dragging or trawling, whereby draggers tow behind them a net which scoops up fish more or less indiscriminately. It is a method which is directly opposed in that respect to the old-fashioned and still existing method of dory fishing, which is a hook-and-line propostion and is, therefore, more selective. There is no doubt that this dragging method does destroy a wide variety of types and sizes of fish. At the present time one difficulty is associated with the fact that there is sufficient codfish on the market. The inventories are high. Some countries, particularly the United States, have little or no demand for fresh codfish. The accent and emphasis is on fresh haddock. The result is that many of the draggers, which catch cod in greater quantities than 
they catch haddock, are forced to dispose of their cod whilst still at sea. The United States has always adopted a reasonable attitude toward this problem. It is the nature of the industry that it is destructive. There is no intent on their part to deplete the banks. I would', however, again urge this government to do whatever they can by way of negotiation with the United States to see if some reasonable understanding cannot be arrived at to avoid the depletion which will so greatly affect the industry in the future.
Then there is the matter of the continental shelf, which was raised last year by the hon. member for New Westminster and emphasized during the debate on the fisheries estimates, in the last session of this parliament. That problem has not been solved. Our fishermen are still encountering destruction of their gear and running the hazard of having their ships destroyed, with the attendant loss of life, on what we have always considered to be our very own banks off the coast of Nova Scotia. I refer particularly to the Banquereau or, as it is otherwise called, the Quero bank. I would again ask the minister if he would seek some avenue for approaching the other nations involved in this fishing problem on the coast of Nova Scotia and try to come to some understanding and create regulations which will circumvent this hazard to our own fisheries.
Before proceeding farther, I should like to say that we feel there is a need for a further extension of the protective service we have off the coast of Nova Scotia. In my particular part of the province, the constituency of Quecns-Lunenburg, the only protective craft we have immediately available is one known as the Gilbert, which is entirely inadequate. The accommodation in this boat is poor. It would certainly be well worth the department's while to look into the matter of providing a replacement craft for the outmoded Gilbert.
There is the new air-sea rescue service which we feel fits nicely into the programme of protective service, and so far there are good indications that it is performing the function it was intended to perform. There have been one or two instances, however, where the service was slow in going to the rescue of craft which it deemed to be not in immediate danger. The craft in one instance, and I believe in two, was drifting helplessly, and the protective service, when it was got in touch with, is reported to have said the craft was in no immediate danger. The craft in question were rudderless and had no radios. It is pretty difficult to convince seamen at the height of a storm, on small craft, that they are in no immediate danger. If the

Supply-Fisheries
obstacle is towage; if the matter of competing with private enterprise for towage is the consideration, then I feel that at least the protective service should stand by in case of danger, to see that there is no loss of life.
I should like also to repeat our oft-presented demands that further consideration be given the question of breakwaters and wharves, which are such an important feature of any fishing community. There is a great economy drive on now, and we know that government expenditure is to be cut to the minimum; but I think the minister must urge that discretion be exercised and see that the wrong emphasis is not applied to cut dowm the number of wharves and breakwaters. I would urge also that more dredging be done, because inshore fishermen simply cannot operate without dredging and the dredges available on the coasts of Xova Scotia are entirely inadequate.
As various hon. members informed this house during the debate on the Fisheries Research Board Act, the industry is in a difficult position brought about by the conversion from a wartime to a peacetime economy. Without going into this matter fully again I desire merely to state that war-produced changes in the markets for our fish placed more emphasis on frozen fish than had been the case up to that time. In addition, heavy demands for food occasioned by the war made it necessary to produce fish in larger quantities than ever before. Now reconversion to a peacetime economy means that we must revert to our old markets, which in many cases are no longer available to us because of increased competition. We may also be obliged to place more emphasis on salt and pickled fish, as was the case prior to the war, rather than on fresh fish. This was thoroughly covered in the minister's statement on June 24, in which he announced that up to 88,000,900 would be made available to support the fishing industry for the remainder of this year. The industry was very grateful for the programme of relief feeding outlined in the minister's report. Under the Fisheries Prices Support Act, funds will be made available for engaging in an extensive programme of education which should increase the consumption of fish in Canada. When we realize that the fishing industry in the United States has been ttying for some time to raise a fund of half a million dollars to embark upon a programme of education within that country, the industry realizes how fortunate it is to have the government come forward with this offer of assistance.
An analysis of the minister's statement will clearly indicate where the difficulty lies in our industiy at the present time. For relief
feeding the government is prepared to buy sizeable quantities of dried, pickled and canned fish, but for various reasons it cannot see its way clear to purchase frozen fish for the same purpose. To deal with the east coast, this boils down to the fact that the government's programme of relief feeding, with the exception of the canning industry, provides support for that phase of the industry which could best get along without it, and makes it necessary to find other means of supporting the fresh fish industry, which is the only part of the industry left in real difficulty after the relief feeding programme is implemented. The minister's solution of this problem is to implement the Fisheries Prices Support Act to permit the government to buy frozen fillets, and to recommend that the industry divert as much raw codfish as possible to salting rather than freezing. I wish to emphasize that on the east coast the codfishing involving fresh fillets is the only phase of the industry in real difficulty. That is the only item which is giving us any concern; our other problems in tire fishing industry are considerably in the future.
The minister's statement presents several outstanding difficulties with which the department is fully familiar. As in the past the industry will adjust its own production to suit outstanding demands, and there will be some diversion of cod into the salt fish industry. But too much should not be expected in this direction, because refrigeration and other facilities were built during the war at great cost to accommodate an expanded demand for fresh fish, and it would seem to many a retrograde step to leave these facilities idle to any great extent if it is possible to find other solutions. A second outstanding difficulty would be encountered by the government in selling domestically the frozen fish it would buy under the Fisheries Prices Support Act. At the present time, speaking very approximately, there are two and a half million pounds of frozen cod fillets in existing inventories, and it is estimated that, under normal circumstances of production and in the light of present markets, this surplus will rise to approximately ten million pounds over the next eight to ten months. This means that the government will be faced with the necessity of purchasing and disposing of approximately ten million pounds of frozen cod fillets. This programme will involve all the difficulties of storage, transportation, financing, merchandizing and so on. However, it is assumed that by the end of the period I have mentioned, from eight to ten months, this reconversion phase will be completed and
Supply-Fisheries

the industry will know what its markets are, so that it will be able to gauge its production accordingly.
There would appear to be a much more direct solution to this problem than government purchasing, a solution which the industry on the east coast would much prefer. However, in view of the international monetary situation the solution I have in mind is dependent upon the availability of Canadian funds in foreign fish-consuming countries. The invoking of the Fisheries Prices Support Act naturally gives the impression that there is no export demand for frozen cod fillets, but this is not the case. There are known to be demands in England, France and Italy, and it may be that there are demands elsewhere. We know that inquiries have been received from representatives of these three countries seeking to work out an arrangement to buy cod fillets. The obstacle is that these countries lack Canadian dollars. The industry itself is confident that it can find the markets and can readily circumvent such problems as transportation, storage and distribution, because it has well-established channels. The quantity of fish involved is approximately ten million pounds, and this quantity can be absorbed in these three countries where people are ready and able to pay for it in the currency of their own country. This would not be a programme of relief feeding. The cost of the amount of fish involved would certainly not be more than $1,500,000. There is no certainty that the countries concerned, England, France and Italy, would accept loans to buy fish, but we in the maritimes feel that this is an approach to the problem that should be fully explored.
It seems clear to the industry and to all in the maritimes that the direct solution to this problem would be to make loans available to these three countries in the amount required to purchase the approximately ten million pounds of fish that are likely to be surplus over the next eight to ten months, rather than to have the government use the same amount of money to purchase those fish and attempt to have them consumed domestically in a market which at the present time must be considered somewhat doubtful. When I say that I do not mean in any sense that I believe the consuming capacity of the Canadian public is doubtful, because I am strongly of the opinion that, with an intensive programme of education and inspection to ensure a good quality being on the market, the per capita consumption in Canada will increase sufficiently to take care of our present surpluses.

The government may take the stand that it has gone as far as it proposes to go in the matter of making loans available to foreign countries, but we in the maritimes do not see the justification for that stand. In the first place, the government is making the money available anyhow. In the second place, as has been pointed out previously in this house, the maritimes have benefited from the government's heavy loan programme less than any region in Canada to date. The returns to the maritime provinces from the hundreds of millions of dollars lent to foreign countries have been infinitesimal when compared with the returns to Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia; and when one considers the contracts for wheat, beef, and other farm products which bring good returns to the western provinces, it must be conceded that the maritime provinces have not fared at all well in this programme of external trade.
In a speech in the house at an earlier date I showed that, of the total amount of $330,872,575 in contracts awarded against these loans by the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Canadian export board as of March of this year, Nova Scotia benefited to the extent of only $2,151,351 or -65 per cent. The three maritime provinces together benefited to the extent of only -76 per cent, whereas they comprise ten per cent of the total population. In this particular instance, we are not asking for additional funds; the funds are there anyhow; we are asking, however, that the funds be rediverted to be made available as a further loan rather than for the purpose of government purchase of fish for domestic use. There are many advantages accruing from the foreign loans approach to the problem which are self-evident, the most obvious being that this programme would permit the industry to stand on its own feet rather than lean on the government, and this is all to the good. It would also serve the important purpose of letting it maintain valuable contacts and markets abroad, which it already has. Furthermore, it would save the government all the difficulties involved in purchasing large quantities of fresh fish and disposing of them domestically.
I feel quite certain that 'the other maritime member's feel the same as I do in this respect. My colleague the hon. member for Vancouver North says that the British Columbia members feel that way, too. I did not wish to give the impression that the industry is not appreciative of the government's splendid offer of assistance. I am sure the industry fully appreciates that offer, and every fisherman in the industry on the east coast will appreciate

Supply-Fisheries
this government's willingness to come to the industry's assistance when trouble arises.
We have no criticism of the government's action at all; we are merely trying to suggest how funds already available may be used to the best possible advantage of the industry and with the least difficulty to the department.
I would say, in conclusion, that this fund of 38 million to be made available by the government for relief feeding is a great boost or "shot in the arm" for the fishing industry on the east coast. The industry, as we are aware, is facing problems which are growing more difficult. Fish prices took a small slump, and there was some indication that they would take a further slide because of mounting inventories. This offer of assistance through the channels of relief feeding and the Fisheries Prices Support Act is the impetus the industry needs at the present time.
Mr. MoLURE: Mr. Chairman, I know how anxious the minister is to have his estimates passed, and for that reason I am not going to make any extended remarks. I shall discuss the different items in which I am interested when they are reached. We have listened to two excellent speeches, one from the west and one from the maritime provinces. I was, however, disappointed that the Minister of Fisheries did not, as usual, give his excellent address respecting the policy and the organization of his department. Probably he was in a hurry to have his estimates passed and did not make those observations this year, as has been his custom.
On this item I should like to ask him about the allocation in connection with the $8 million which will be spent on relief feeding and for the fishermen of the maritime provinces. Then, perhaps he would give us a statement with reference to the prices board, as to whether they are operating and whether definite floor prices or ceiling prices have been put on lobsters for the season.
I would ask from him a report respecting the fishing season on lobsters, which is now, at least in part, closed for the maritime provinces. I shall not speak at length because I realize that all hon. members are anxious to have the estimates passed, and I realize that under the different items I shall have an opportunity to say what I have in mind.


Mr. BRYCE:: This seems to be fish day in the House of Commons.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to have an answer.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I can answer the questions on the different items as they come up.


William Scottie Bryce: I have listened attentively to the hon. member for New Westminster, who told us a wonderful story about sockeye salmon. I listened to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg tell us about cod and haddock, and the hon, member for Queens tell us about fish in the waters of Prince Edward Island.
I would remind the committee, however, that we have some excellent fish in the prairie provinces. I would refer to the Winnipeg goldeye and the lake Winnipeg whitefish. We do not trouble the dominion government so far as the care of these fish is concerned. The provincial government looks after the matter. Would the minister be good enough to do as his predecessor did, namely, to give me a report respecting the work done in connection with the whitefish in lake Winnipeg so that [DOT] I may use that information when I return to my constituency.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: We have reports from the national research board. They are not confined to lake Winnipeg alone, but deal with research work in all the prairie lakes.


William Scottie Bryce: This is research carried out by the minister's department with respect to whitefish. He will know what I mean.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I shall be glad to give that information.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Chairman, may I
offer my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Fisheries upon his timely statement of June 24 when he announced the new policy of the government with respect to purchases of fish and the proclamation of the Fisheries Prices Support Act.
However, I fully concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. This policy of the government is indeed a step in the right direction, but we feel that this policy does not bring a complete solution to the most important problem of fish marketing in eastern Canada and more especially for the Gaspe region, which I have the honour to represent in this house. In his statement the hon. minister said:
The act gives the board powers to buy and sell fish and to prescribe prices. The board will be established without delay. It will confine its operations during the present fiscal year to fish produced during the remainder of the 1947 season. It will be asked to prepare in collaboration with industry a general distributional programme, including advertising, designed to increase domestic sales of fish of all species and kinds, and particularly packaged fish, and in particular to consider the specific species of the east, prairies and British Columbia in which the pricee received by fishermen
Supply-Fisheries

from the freezers are unduly low in 1947, and to devise means of maintaining these prices at or near their current levels.
This programme of support of the prices of fish for sale on the Canadian market does not, as I said a moment ago, solve the problem in my part of the country. Indeed, if the government tries to sell our fish on the domestic market our fishermen will be at a great disadvantage in comparison and in competition with the fishermen of British Columbia and of the maritime provinces. The fishing season in Gaspe lasts normally from three to four months a year, and by early December or January our frozen fish cannot compete with the fresh catches from other parts of the country. Therefore our products are not as easy to sell on the domestic market as fresh caught fish coming from other parts of Canada. What our fishermen are interested in is to regain former markets in w'orld trade. At the beginning of hostilities, and more especially at the beginning of the Ethiopian war, the Gaspe area lost its main market, which was then Italy, through the sanctions which were imposed against that country. During the last great war we sold most of our fish to UNRRA, and today, since the foreign market demand has fallen, our fishermen are faced with the fact that if they do not regain their market in Italy they will soon have either to stop fishing completely or to go into it on a part-time basis only. I am told that recently offers were received by my fishermen for quite a considerable order of fish from Italy and France; but, unfortunately, since these two countries cannot afford to pay in either Canadian or United States dollars, we cannot sell to them. In agreement with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg, I hope that the government will, without delay, study this problem, which is more of a financial nature, and try to find a solution to it.
While I am speaking on these estimates, I wish to bring to the attention of the minister some of the resolutions which were adopted at the last meeting of the organized fishermen of my county, held at Ste. Anne de la Pocat-iere on January 9, 10 and 11, 1947. The first of these resolutions reads as follows:
That a request be made to the Hon. H. F. G. Bridges, federal Minister of Fisheries, to appoint a superior officer of the United Fishermen of Quebec, a member of the national research office on fisheries, to represent the fishing industry of the province of Quebec.
In this connection I wish to mention that our industry in Quebec is not represented on the board. The second resolution reads as follows:

That a request be made to federal Department of Fisheries to assume entire responsibility of the fish inspection service in the province of Quebec as provided by the federal-provincial-agreement of 4922 and this in order to relieve a part of the provincial budget that could be used for other urgent needs of the industry.
This resolution is most important to our industry on the Gaspe coast. In that part of the country our fishermen cannot benefit from the many advantages of having dominion inspection, since this inspection is done by officials of the provincial government. I hope, now that our organized fishermen are asking to revert to dominion inspection that the autonomists of Quebec will not come out and say that this is an attack on the autonomy of the province, because those who are mainly interested in this dominion inspection and are asking for it are the fishermen of the province of Quebec themselves.
The third resolution reads as follows:
That the united fishermen of Quebec accept to actively collaborate with the International Bureau of Salt Fish to be organized in London, under the fallowing conditions:
(a)	No engagement shall be taken for a period of over one year;
(b)	the provincial department of fisheries shall pay a strong proportion of the contribution required from the producers of the province;
(c)	that Canada be represented on the executive office at London through the intermediary of a distinct section for the salt fish industry at the National Council of Fisheries but with the same secretary.
I do not think I need comment on that resolution. I know the minister has a copy of it and is giving it his active consideration.
Before closing my remarks, I wish again to impress on the government the urgent need for more suitable fishing harbours along the Gaspe coast.
On several occasions I have made representations, both in this house and out of it, to the departments concerned especially the Department of Public Works, on the urgent need for such harbours. I hope that our urgent plea will be heard this time and that action will soon be taken.
I think we must realize that the fishing industry of Canada is an important one. As I said at the beginning of these remarks I was informed a short time ago that we received favourable orders for fish from Italy. I am told that the shipments for which Italy is now asking are just sample shipments, but these orders will amount annually to some thirty million pounds of dried fish and some ten million pounds of frozen fish. These figures will, I believe, convince the committee that this industry is not to be neglected- and must be given every opportunity to increase its

Supply-Fisheries
production and should also be given all the advantages that the government has the power to give to our fishermen for the expansion of their industry.
As I intimated at the opening of my remarks, I have congratulations to offer to the minister on the efficient manner in which he is heading his department. I also wish to add my congratulations to his able assistant, the deputy minister of fisheries, who is new in the department but who is also doing a very good job indeed.


Mr. HAZEN:: It is not my intention to make any extended address, but I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. Are any investigations being made at present with a view to conserving and increasing the salmon fisheries in the bay of Fundy? The Atlantic salmon is one of our best fish. The supply by n-o means meets the demand, I do Hot believe these fish are increasing in number; in fact I have reason to believe that they are decreasing. During the present season in the port of Saint John and along the shores of the bay of Fundy at Lorneville and at other fishing villages the catch is, I understand, very poor indeed, Study should be made to ascertain ways and means of conserving and increasing these fish in the bay of Fundy and also in other waters of the maritime provinces. It would help to conserve these fish if certain dams which serve no useful purpose at the present time were removed to permit the fish to get to their spawning bed. I have in mind dams at the mouth of the Mispec river in the county of Saint John, a great salmon river which enters the bay of Fundy about the village of St. Martin's. The Nashwaak river, as the minister knows, flows into the Saint John river almost opposite the city of Fredericton. On January 14, 1946, a delegation from the Saint John branch of the New Brunswick Fish and Game Protective Association interviewed the minister at the Admiral Beatty hotel in the city of Saint John. This delegation, which was headed by Gerald H. Cox, president of the association, asked for the construction of a new fishway on the Big Salmon river at St. Martin's in order that the river might be developed into a first-class salmon angling stream. The report that appeared in the papers stated:
. . . pointed out to the minister that the present fishway is not only poorly constructed but it is on the wrong side of the river, where the water is oftentimes too shallow for the fish to take advantage of this means of getting upstream.
The report goes on to say:
Mr. Cox stated that Mr. Bridges had promised to have the matter investigated, and it
was indicated that a survey would be made of the present fishway and conditions existing there.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: What is the date of that?


Douglas King Hazen: I am reading a dispatch from the Telegraph-Journal of January 15, 1946. Has the survey been made? Has the investigation been completed and a report made to the minister's department? If an investigation has been completed and a report made, what action, if any, has been taken?
I read in the press not long ago that the minister was interviewed by a delegation from the city of Fredericton about the dam in the Nashwaak river. Has an investigation been held into the possibilities of improving the salmon fishing in that river? If a report has been made, what action, if any, is contemplated?
There is also a dam in the Mispec river near Saint John which the Saint John branch of the fish and game protective association has been endeavouring for a long time to have opened1 to enable the salmon to get upstream, but so far no arrangement has been entered into to permit that to be done. I should like to bring that dam, which obstructs the fish from getting up the river, to the minister's attention. There was another dam in the province of New Brunswick about which I should like to ask the minister a question and about which complaints have been made by some associations in Chipman or in Queens or Sunbury county. I refer to the dam at Newcastle near Newcastle bridge. Have the conditions of that dam been examined' with a view to having a fishway put in it to enable the fish to get up the stream? I should appreciate it if the minister will give us a statement as to the conditions at that place.
There are one or two other questions I should like to ask the minister. A year or two ago the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Fisheries issued an order preventing the sale of clams in certain areas along the shores of the bay of Fundy, in Saint John and in Charlotte county. I protested at the time. I had some correspondence with both departments about that order. I knew of no person who had suffered from eating these clams. I ate them regularly myself. However, the order was made. What steps are being taken to ascertain what causes the toxic condition in these clams? Has the biological branch of the minister's department or of any other department of government made a study of the matter for the purpose of ascertaining what causes the toxic condition? Certain areas which were closed have been opened at differ-
Supply-F isheries

ent times. This evening the minister kindly furnished me with a statement of the dates when certain areas which have been closed were opened, but certain areas are still closed. It has been a cause of great loss to the people who made a living digging these clams and selling them, and I think it is important for us to see that steps are taken, if they have not already been taken, to ascertain what has caused the toxic condition in these clams. So far as I know, there is no difference in these clams today, compared with what they were twenty or thirty years ago. However, if there is a difference, a thorough investigation should be made to findl out what causes that toxic condition.
There is one other matter to which I would refer. I would draw the minister's attention to these figures with regard to the lobster catch in the state of Maine. In 1939, 7,570,800 pounds of lobster were caught in the waters of Maine. In 1913, that had increased to 11,468,025 pounds. In 1944, there was a further increase to 13,300,000 pounds and, in 1945, another increase to 19,130,000 pounds. While the total catch of lobsters in Canada in 1939 was 31,466,000 pounds, in 1943 it was 30,000,000 pounds. It had dropped, and in 1944 it was
33,350,000	pounds. There had been a slight increase over a period of five years, but if you go back over a longer period of time you will find that there has been little variation in the figures. There has been no increase and, in some years, a decrease.
What I should like the minister to ask his officials is this. Will they explain why there has been such a large increase in the lobster catch in the state of Maine, a steady increase in the amount of lobsters caught in Maine, while in the whole of Canada, which is really the Atlantic coast, the lobster catch has remained stationary or has decreased?
Can it be said that the fact that in Maine they have established lobster hatcheries has nothing to do with the results shown by these figures? I should also like to ask the officials this question. If, as some of the officials state in their report, these lobster hatcheries do not produce results, why was it that only last year the state of Massachusetts, after, I presume, a most careful investigation, buiK a fish hatchery?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Was it a hatchery or a rearing pond?


Douglas King Hazen: I understand that it was a hatchery. As I read the dispatch, it was a hatchery. There must be some reason why the lobster fisheries along the Maine coast have increased. In six years they have more than doubled, while our lobster fisheries remain

stationary. There must be a reason for that. If it is not due to the hatcheries it must be due to something else, and we should discover why it is that our lobster fisheries remain stationary or only hold their own, while under the method they have adopted in Maine, their lobster fisheries have increased to such a great extent.
I will not delay the committee. There are one or two other matters I wish to speak about, but these are essential points I wanted to bring to the minister's attention, and I hope that in the course of his estimates he will give us as complete an answer as he can.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: In contributing to this discussion I wish to thank the minister for the courteous way in which he meets the fishermen on the Pacific coast. It does [DOT] not go unnoticed by them, nor does the courtesy of his officials. It is not often that I rise to compliment a minister of the government, but in this case I believe it is his due.
I know I am taking my life in my hands in rising at this time because the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will be right on my heels. However I will do the best I can.
There are two points I would raise at this time. First, I would ask the minister to press upon the British Columbia government the need of a loan board for the fishermen. In the debate in the provincial legislature the Minister of Finance, Mr. Anscomb, turned it down on the ground that it would interfere with dominion-provincial relations. How this could possibly be so, I do not know, inasmuch as they have a loan board on the east coast. This is becoming absolutely necessary on the west coast because during the fishing season in area 2, many of the boats just made two trips. Some of the luckier ones made three, their boats are equipped to fish in area 2, and they are quite suitable for that purpose, but are not large enough to fish in area 3 continuously. If a loan board were established a greater proportion of the Canadian fleet would be enabled to compete in area 3. At the present time, to a large extent, it is a private hunting ground for Americans with their modern equipment.
I should like to see this loan board put through so that we could maintain our independently owned fleet on the Pacific coast, and this has particular reference of course to halibut. I should not like to see the fishing fleet fall back into large company-owned boats because these men do appreciate their freedom.
Another point I wish to bring up is the question of the fisheries prices support board. I should like to mention some of the fears that are bothering the men on the coast at the

Supply-Fisheries
present time. There is an embargo on the export of salmon, frozen and fresh. There is a premium price in the United States. The independently owned fleet sell their own fish through their own cooperative and are mainly interested in frozen and fresh fish, and they would like to enjoy that premium market which now exists in the United States.
It was pointed out to me that in certain cases on the east coast the fishermen of Gaspe are exporting their Gaspe salmon to the United States and enjoying that high price and at the same time eating British Columbia salmon.


An hon. MEMBER:: Better food.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Yes. It may be better food, but let us not take it out on the west coast fishermen. In the past, certain laws have been put through that have been a detriment to west coast fishermen. First, during the war they had their income tax ten per cent deducted at the source. Dogfish livers also were up against the embargo, inasmuch as certain amounts were put into chicken feeds for Canadian use, whereas east coast cod livers had the right of the export market. We do not wish 'to see that condition arise owing to the setting up of this board, which is essentially a good piece of legislation; but it could be detrimental to the west coast fishermen, and they are rather sceptical of it in many cases, inasmuch as the prices support board will apply only to cod, which is a small item, taken in general, on the Pacific coast. So that in the condition in which we find ourselves in this country, being short of United States dollars, we could very well allow these fishermen to export their salmon and enjoy the premium price. At the same time it would bring in United States dollars to this country. I am sure that the members from British Columbia, such as the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, could enjoy eating goldeye or east coast cod.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Never.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: They could sacrifice their ability to consume high quality fish in the meantime so that the fishermen could enjoy those high prices. I outline this programme to the minister because I have no doubt it will become a burning issue in the not far distant future.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Far be it from me to throw any rocks at the hon. member for Skeena. I want to congratulate him on what is probably the most reasonable speech I ever heard him make in the house.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Just one of the last twenty.


John Lambert Gibson: With
respect to Gaspe salmon enjoying the privilege of export to the United States, I wish to point out that it is comparable with our own spring salmon which we market fresh. I am sure the minister will tell him that if they w'ish this privilege, all they have to do is ask for a permit and they will receive it; and they can export all the spring salmon they have. There has been quite a high level of speeches in the house tonight. I am sure the minister has received some valuable suggestions. I, too, wish to congratulate him on the provision of this fund he was speaking of for relief purposes for European feeding. I do not want the committee to feel either that when the fish industry undertakes to deliver
88,000,000 worth of high-class fish products to the government, it is in any sense receiving a dole or subsidy. I think the government has looked around and has found no otheT source of high protein food available to it at the present time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Good fish produce brains.


John Lambert Gibson: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the reason we all have them in British Columbia.


John Lambert Gibson: On the
setting up of the fisheries prices support board -and that, as I said, was a particularly good job-we are going to face a big problem. I should not like the board, or even members of parliament who are very often fond of talking the government out of money, ever to get the idea that this 825,000,000 is for the support of an industry which has not taken every means in its power to pull itself up by its own effort. We certainly do not want to use this money to create any surplus stocks of fish in this country. I just have the feeling that if certain fish is in surplus supply, the government should come to the conclusion that it would be an excellent plan for them to discontinue heavy fishing of that particular species.
It is getting late, and I sincerely trust that the minister will be able to get through with his estimates tonight; I will do everything I can to facilitate the progress. What I wished to place before the minister is the problem facing the pilchard industry on the west coast, in fish reduction, the making of meal and oil out of pilchards. That is the most hazardous business I know of in Canada. When I was first associated with it in 1926 there were twenty-six plants on the west coast, but through business failures and mortality in
52G0
Supply-Fisheries

the industry, they are now down to six operations. I might say that the industry is even more hazardous than the by-election, as far as I can see. It has always struck me that the fishing industry has never had from the government anything like the support the agricultural industry has had. Probably there are not enough members from the mari-times. I certainly do not begrudge the farmers any of the legislative measures they have been able to get through this house in order to support that great industry of theirs. However, as far as the pilchard industry is concerned, I feel that in the particular instance where the wartime prices and trade board has undertaken to place an embargo on the export of pilchard meal until we produce ten thousand tons-after that we are allowed to export fifty per cent-there is a measure of unfairness. I might point out that there is a difference in price of approximately $40 a ton in the United States, which is actually our traditional market, and the domestic price which we shall be able to receive. When you speak of ten thousand tons of pilchard meal- and I do not think the industry has any possibility this year of producing anything like that amount-it does seem to me that the minister-and 1 hesitate to advise him- ought to take a strong stand. When the wartime prices and trade board has undertaken to dictate to the fishing industry what they shall do in a matter of this kind, I feel that we are not being fairly treated. I would suggest to the minister that the industry be allowed to export fifty per cent of its production. I am quite sure that the Minister of Finance will support that measure because we would be able to get a large quantity of United States dollars in that way. I might also point out that if there is small production in the industry, that is certainly the time when we shall need higher prices; and, as the minister knows, there has been a substantial increase this year in the cost of production. I also think this is an appropriate time to call to the attention of the public generally in Canada that the production of fishmeal, rather than being a waste of a high-class fishery product, is actually an important contribution to our agricultural industry, because now we can produce far more beef and poultry by the mixtures of fishmeal with the ordinary grain feed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Through this $8,000,000
which is being spent, is the fisherman to be guaranteed the present price for his fish? Is that indicated in the agreement or whatever there is when you buy? At the present time I understand that the fisherman gets about two cents a pound.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: In the statement which I made the hon. member will note that in the purchase of $8 million worth of fish, prices will be paid which will be regarded as fair to the fishermen at this time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the fishermen working in lake Athabaska, Great Slave lake and Great Bear lake profit by the arrangement the minister has announced?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: What I am referring to there is this $8,000,000 of post-war UNRRA relief. Unfortunately that type of fish does not come from lake Athabaska or Great Slave lake.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where are we getting it from?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: It has to be of the salted or canned variety, and there is no salted or canned fish coming from lake Athabaska.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There has been quite a controversy across the country in regard to the use of luminous bait for fishing. I understand that comes under the minister's department. It is not provincial; it is federal. I just wondered if the minister had any remark to make with regard to that, because I know it has been taken up in all the provinces across the country, and they all disclaim any responsibility. They say it is purely federal.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: In reply to the hon. member may I say I will look into the matter. This is the first time it has been brought to my attention by anyone.
Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer some of the questions that have been asked. Certainly I shall be very brief, because I am most anxious to get as many of these items through as possible. First, I wish to thank the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg for the constructive suggestions he has made. All I can say at the moment is that, of course, they will receive careful consideration. In connection with his remarks concerning the conservation of fisheries on the high seas I would point out that sometime in August a meeting of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations is to be held at Geneva, Switzerland, at which it is hoped that conservation regions will be established or at least considered.
In reply to the question by the hon. member for Queens I would say that the possible or probable break-down-it is really only an approximate break-down'-of the $8,000,000 he mentioned is as follows: on the east coast, dried and salted fish, 10,000.000 pounds amounting to approximately $1,800,000; pickled fish. 40.000 barrels amounting to approximately $520,000; bloaters, 50,000 boxes

Supply-Fisheries
amounting to $100,000, and canned fish, 100,000 cases amounting to S900,000, making a total of
53.320.000	for the east coast. On the west coast the possible order is for canned herring up to
900.000	cases, which would amount to approximately $4,680,000. Of course these figures are only approximate and they may be varied as time goes on. The hon. member also asked for some comments regarding the existing lobster season on the Atlantic coast. I cannot give him any break-down or special information at the moment with regard to Prince Edward Island, since I did not anticipate that this question would be asked. The final figures are not yet available, since some seasons are still open in the maritime provinces, but it is estimated that the catch is down about thirty per cent and the value down about twenty-five per cent. It is suggested that this is due, first of all, to the unsuitable fishing conditions, and especially to the weather during the early spring season; also, of course, to the scarcity of lobsters; and the price is down because of the less favourable market conditions for both fresh and canned lobster as compared with the brisk markets we had in the past few years in that connection. I think the hon. member also asked whether anything would be done under the prices support act as far as lobsters were concerned. No definite, permanent policy has been announced as yet as far as the board is concerned, and all I can say at the moment is that for the time being it is not the intention of the department to recommend to the board that lobsters come under that act.
The hon. member for Gaspe offered some remarks and referred especially to the fact that the Quebec united fishermen were not represented on the fisheries research board. If it were possible to give them representation on that board I should be only too happy to do so, but unfortunately at the present time all the positions on the board are filled. There are three representatives from the province of Quebec, but they happen to be scientists from McGill university, the university of Montreal, and Laval university. It does happen that, as far as Quebec is concerned, there is no representative on the board of the industry, either cooperative or what one might call private enterprise.
The hon. member for St. John-Albert asked quite a long series of questions. I am afraid I shall not be able to answer them all this evening. As far as Atlantic salmon are concerned, however, I would point out that investigations have been carried on in the bay of Fundy area for the past three years. If the hon.
member will refer to the annual report of the fisheries research board for 1946, he will see in it some reference to this matter.
In regard to reports and investigations made with respect to certain dams on certain rivers I would advise the hon. member that a report was made in respect of the dam on the Great Salmon river. That report is in the department, and I shall be only too happy to let him have it. In addition, an engineering investigation is being made to devise ways and means of improving the situation there.
As .to the investigations mentioned in the press concerning the Nashwaak river, I would advise the hon. member that the water in that river is still too high to permit those investigations to be carried on. I believe the water is still nine or ten feet above the ordinary summer level.
As to the dam at Newcastle Bridge, I am afraid that- is something I shall have to look into; at the moment I cannot seem to remember it.
Then I should like to point out with regard to the regulations concerning clams in the bay of Fundy area that all we do in this connection is impose <the prohibition on the digging of clams after we have been so advised by the Department of National Health and Welfare. A careful investigation is being madie by the St. Andrew's biological station of the fisheries research board in conjunction with the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and every effort is being made to find a solution to this most difficult and unfortunate problem in that area.
In regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena, I wish to thank the hon. member for his compliments as far as I am concerned. I would point out that this question of an embargo or export control on raw salmon in British Columbia, frozen and fresh, is not new this year, but is the continuation of a policy which has been in existence for some years. Not only is there an embargo on the export of the raw salmon; there is also an embargo on the export of canned salmon. It is quite possible that certain persons would like to obtain the benefit of the higher prices in the United States market, just as I have no doubt persons engaged in agriculture would like the benefit of higher United States prices, but there are similar regulations against the export of certain agricultural products as well. However I believe the export of red spring salmon to the United States market will not be too difficult, and I understand that permits will be freely issued by the representatives of the
Supply-Fisheries

Department of Trade and Commerce. It is .ntended to have the whole policy as flexible as possible.
I do not think there is any need of going into these matters in greater detail at the moment. To revert to the remarks of the hon. member for St. John-Albert concerning lobster hatcheries and lobster rearing ponds, I know a report was made on this matter, of which report I think I sent the hon. member a copy. It dealt with the advisability of reestablishing either or both hatcheries and rearing ponds, but our scientists have not come to the conclusion that they have been of the great benefit so many people think they are in Maine and Massachusetts. I am frank to admit that I am insisting that the matter be further studied, because of the arguments which have been advanced over the years, and because the fact that these hatcheries and rearing ponds have been maintained in those states undoubtedly indicates that they must have made some contribution to an increase in the take of lobsters in those areas. At any rate I assure the hon. member, as I would also assure the hon. member for Charlotte if he were here, that the matter is still being carefully considered.


John Lambert Gibson: Before we pass this main item, may I say I was interested in the minister's figure of $4,680,000 with which he purchased 900,000 cases of fish on the Pacific coast. It works out at $5.20 a case. Is that the correct figure?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: It is only an approximation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
77. Building fishways and clearing rivers, $25,-
000.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: This item is much too low. The amount mentioned could be spent on any one of a dozen streams in British Columbia in connection with the clearance of obstructions. How much of this $25,000 is to be spent on the project which the minister and his department know is so dear to the hearts of the fishermen along the south coast of British Columbia, namely the building of the fishway dam at Saginaw lake.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I told my hon. friend some time ago that investigations are being made about this.


James Sinclair: They have not yet been completed?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
79. Fish culture, $306,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are the millponds in different parts of the maritime provinces, and

particularly Prince Edward Island, now being used as breeding ponds for fish, or as fish culture ponds? I know that in Prince Edward Island several of these old mill dams and millponds have gone out of use as mill property, and the government took over some of them for purposes of reconstruction, with a view to making them ponds for fish culture and fish breeding.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I am told that we are working out a joint scheme with the Prince Edward Island government; that we are cooperating with them and using the properties for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
80. Oyster culture, $37,580.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the revenue from royalties and from leases in the maritimes? What is the value in dollars and cents of oysters imported from the United States into Canada? What amounts of oysters, either dried or in barrels, are imported from other places?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The revenue to December 31, 1946, was $8,235.23 as compared with $6,116.53 for the fiscal year 1945-46, or a gain of approximately $2,100. I have no figures with respect to importations of oysters from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada-
87. Operation and maintenance, $789,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I note that $407,000 is for temporary wages and salaries and only $86,000 for permanent. Why is there so much for temporary assistance?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Employees of the research board are not regarded as civil servants, and are taken on as temporary employees.


Mr. HODGSON:: Does the fisheries research board or the federal department contribute in any way toward research with respect to the freshwater fisheries on the great lakes? I know it is mainly under provincial jurisdiction. Is there any federal contribution at all?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: In so far as the great lakes are concerned, and the inland fisheries of Ontario, the fisheries research board has not been making any studies in those waters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
85. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission to overcome obstructions to the ascent of sockeye salmon at Hell's Gate canyon and for investigating and overcoming obstructions to such salmon at other points on the Fraser river watershed (revote), $300,000.

Questions
John Ritchie MacNicol: This refers to a large sum of money which, I know, is to be put to good use by the international board for the conservation of fisheries in connection with the Pacific coast salmon industry. The minister heard the hon. member for New Westminster, perhaps the best-posted member in the house on fisheries problems, and his statements respecting the effect of dams on the Columbia river. Was the hon. member's statement correct with respect to preventing the salmon coming up the Columbia river into British Columbia?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: What the hon. member was referring to actually occurred many years ago, before my time in the department. I did not know until I heard about it this evening, to be perfectly frank.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are two very large dams not far south of the boundary. One at Grand Coulee is a dam 550 feet high, and then there is another dam almost as high, fifty miles down the river. The hon. member's statement sounded serious to me, if the whole of the Columbia river in British Columbia is no longer to be the spawning ground for salmon. It will certainly have a marked effect on the salmon industry of British Columbia.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Both the dams on the Columbia river are in the United States. I am sorry I cannot give more information.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand that the salmon do not any longer ascend the Columbia river into British Columbia?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
87. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing, and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 8 and 19, 1942, $400,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: On item 87-


Howard Charles Green: Eleven o'clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Call it eleven o'clock. I did not receive an answer to my question. It is incredible that the Columbia river is no longer a salmon spawning river in British Columbia.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: My information is that the Columbia river never did produce salmon commercially for Canadian interests. I do not know very much about it, to be perfectly frank.


James Sinclair: And it never did.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, July 9, 1947