1950-05-25

[Stage Direction]
Fourth and fifth reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. Winkler.
The third report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as recorded at page 2803 of Hansard, the hon. member for Eglinton asked if items 267 and 268 in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, and relating to the international shortwave broadcasting station, would be referred to the special committee on radio broadcasting for study and report. This case is strictly comparable to that wherein certain votes for the Department of Transport were referred by the Minister of Transport to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
By leave of the house I therefore move:
That votes 267 and 268 of the main estimates for the year 1950-51 be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the special committee on radio broadcasting, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer certificates of the election and return of the following members, viz.:
Of Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough, for the electoral district of Hamilton West.
Of George H. Hees, Esquire, for the electoral district of Broadview.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Noseworthy be substituted for that of Mr. Maclnnis on the special joint committee on old age security.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On Tuesday the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) asked me about the appointment of the engineering board by the international joint commission. The board was appointed by the commission on April 7, 1948, with the following membership:
Canadian section:
Norman Marr, chief, water resources division, development services branch, Department of Resources and Development, Ottawa.
T. M. Patterson, engineer, water resources division, development services branch, Department of Resources and Development, Ottawa.
G. L. MacKenzie, chief engineer of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, Regina.
United States section:
J.	W. Dixon, of the United States bureau of reclamation, Washington.
Brigadier General J. S. Bragdon, assistant chief of engineers, corps of engineers, department of the army, Washington.
C.	G. Paulsen, chief hydraulic engineer, United States geological survey, department of the interior, Washington.
The engineering board appointed the following to conduct field operations and assist the board in its study and investigations: Canadian section:
G. N. Munro, assistant chief engineer, prairie farm rehabilitation administration, Regina.
D.	B. Gow, district engineer, water resources division, development services branch, department of resources and development, Regina.
D.	M. Stephens, deputy minister, department of mines and natural resources, Winnipeg.
E.	J. Scammell, chief engineer, water rights division, department of agriculture, Regina.
United States section:
K.	F. Vernon, United States bureau of reclamation, Billings, Montana.
Lieutenant Colonel E. J. Gallagher, district engineer, corps of engineers, department of the army, Fort Peck, Montana.
W. V. Taylor, United States representative, fish and wildlife service, Washington.
Henry H. C. Beckman, United States geological survey, Rolla, Missouri.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I understood the minister to say that there were some interim reports. I should like to know if they will be tabled.


Brooke Claxton: There have been four progress reports. As hon. members know, the practice of the international joint commission is to make only one final report containing recommendations to the two governments. That is their function, and then it is the responsibility

Manitoba Flood
of the two governments to decide whether or not they shall act on the report. So far it has always been possible for the two sections of the international joint commission to make the same report, and I think it is correct to say that the reports have always been acted upon by the two governments.
It is not the practice of the international joint commission to make available, either to the governments or to the public, working papers and material upon which the commission arrives at its decision and recommendations; therefore it has never been the practice to table reports of this kind, and I understand that that will not be done in this case.
Perhaps at this time I might also deal with the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) for the production of papers. The reference in this case was made by letter dated January 12, 1948. It is not usual for the governments to communicate with the commission, which is the instrument of both governments, after a reference has been made. But in this case the course was adopted, as has been reported already to the house, of communicating with the commission, and a letter was sent to the chairman of the Canadian section by myself as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs under date of May 18, 1950. The commission has no objection to tabling this correspondence in response to the hon. member's motion as it appears on the order paper.


Mr. Graydon:: I take it from what the Acting Minister of External Affairs has said about tabling this information that there will be no objection to one or more members of the international joint commission appearing before the special committee on external affairs?


Brooke Claxton: I can assure my hon. friend that his assumption is certainly not correct. In the view of those with whom I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter, it would be quite improper for any member of the international joint commission or one of its officials to appear before a committee of parliament to discuss a matter which is still in process of consideration. After the international joint commission has arrived at a decision and made its recommendations to the governments, the situation might be different; but until the commission, which is representative of both countries, has had an opportunity to consider all the information before it and arrive at a decision, it would not be proper for a member of the commission to appear before a committee of this house for the purpose of stating views and expressing opinions before even his col-
leagues on the other section, or perhaps on the Canadian section itself, had had an opportunity of considering the position.
I suggest that that would end the usefulness of the commission as an international organization which has been remarkably successful and which has presented an example to the whole world of the way in which two countries can co-operate. One of the secrets of its success has been the fact that it has been objectively representative of both countries, and that its recommendations have always been carried out.


Gordon Graydon: The estimates now being considered by the external affairs committee of the house deal with the salaries and other expenses of the members of the international joint commission.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: That is statutory.


Gordon Graydon: It may be statutory, but it is in the estimates. I say to the minister that if it is not proper for them to attend, then I do not think the house ought to give them any money until they do.


Brooke Claxton: I should think that the comment of the hon. member for Peel will be noted by the people of Canada and the United States as being a most unjustifiable comment on a great international organization.


Gordon Graydon: A great organization that will not appear before the public.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: In
view of the fact that the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs made reference to a motion which appears in my name on the order paper, I should like to say a word with regard to it. The motion reads:
For a copy of all correspondence since the 15th day of January, 1948, and to date, between the international joint commission and the government of Canada relative to suggestions and recommendations as to means or methods or public works to be undertaken to prevent a repetition of the flood on the Red river of 1948.
The other day the minister mentioned that there had been four interim reports. Surely those interim reports would be made to the government of Canada. We would not expect the commission to report to itself on a matter in respect of which the people of the Red valley wished action and the government asked for action.


Brooke Claxton: I think I made it perfectly clear that the interim reports were made to the international joint commission by the engineering board appointed by the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently no action was taken.


Mr. Knowles:: Just to have the matter clear-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask if it is the case that there has been no final report respecting the Red river situation?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the matter was referred to the international joint commission two years ago.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When there is a final report, will it be tabled?


Brooke Claxton: I should think that would be a matter for the attention and consideration of the government at that time.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table correspondence between the Minister of Finance and the Fraser valley flood rehabilitation commission.
(Translation):



SOUTHERN MANITOBA


Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the discussion on the flood, as reported on page 2818 of Hansard, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) made the following statement:
On the morning I arrived back I saw the St. Boniface radio station which had been moved to the top of a house and that station was carrying on as usual.
I must say that this statement is inaccurate, since during all the time the flood lasted, the St. Boniface radio station continued to operate from its centre-town studios.
(Text):



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


Robert Henry Winters: the first reading of Bill No. 235 (from the Senate), to amend the National Parks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the fust time.
Questions CUSTOMS ACT



AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO APPEALS TO TARIFF BOARD, ETC.

Robert Henry Winters: the first reading of Bill No. 237 (from the Senate), to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	Was any work done at the mouth of the river at Riviere-au-Renard, county of Gaspe, during the summer of 1949?
2.	If so, what work, and at what cost?
3.	Who was the foreman, and what salary did he receive?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Repairs and improvements to fishermen's wharf; (b) $21,415.13.
3.	(a) Salomon Bernier; (b) $8 a day.


* AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Mr. Wright:: 1.	What firms received contracts for aerial photography work in the three western provinces in 1949?
2.	What price was paid for the work done?
3.	Were these contracts let by tender?
4.	Have any contracts for aerial photography work been let in the province of Saskatchewan for 1930?
5.	If so, who are the contractors, and what is the price to be paid for this work?
6.	Were tenders called for these contracts?


Mr. Maybank:: 1. Survey Aircraft Limited, Vancouver- contract for approximately 12,212 square miles in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Arctic Air Lines Limited, Edmonton-contract for approximately 12,947 square miles in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Air Surveys Limited, Edmonton-contract for approximately 10,740 square miles in Saskatchewan.
5.	Survey Aircraft Limited, Vancouver; Arctic Air Lines Limited, $55,741.96; Air Surveys Limited, $48,067.87.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Survey Aircraft Limited, Vancouver, approximately $15,093.60.
Air Surveys Limited, Edmonton; approximately $61,221.60.
6.	Yes.
'See also page 4115.

Orders for Returns


SURVEYS
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	What plans, if any, have been made for the 1950 season for survey parties engaged in Newfoundland in (a) geological work; (b) geodetic work; (c) topographic work; (d) hydrographic work?
Where will such parties operate?


Mr. Maybank:: 1 and 2. Subject to possible minor changes, plans have been completed for the 1950 survey parties in Newfoundland. They are as follows:
(a)	Geological work-seven parties to operate in the following areas:
(1)	Harbour Grace; (2) Gull Pond; (3) Campbellton; (4) Labrador coast; (5) Quebec-Labrador iron region (three parties).
(b)	Geodetic work-four parties to operate in the following areas:
(1) South coast of island-triangulation;
(2)	St. John's to Port-aux-Basques-levelling;
(3)	Goose Bay-triangulation; (4) Quebec-Labrador boundary area-triangulation.
(c)	Topographic work-seven parties to operate in the following areas:
(1) Wesleyville to Peters Arm (two parties); (2) Avalon peninsula (two parties); (3) Dyke lake area (three parties).
(d) Hydrographic	work-four	Canadian
government ships and two chartered motor vessels will carry out hydrographic surveys in the following areas:
(1) St. John's harbour; (2) Wabana; (3) Hare Bay; (4) east coast of Labrador (three ships).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


CIVIC HOLIDAY


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has a decision yet been reached with respect to holidays to be observed by civil service and other government employees during the remainder of 1950?
2.	If so, what is such decision?
3.	Does such decision include a provision for civic holiday, wherever the same is observed in any particular locality, to be observed as a holiday by civil servants and other government employees in that locality?
4.	Does such decision include a provision which will ensure that the post office employees in the city of Winnipeg will be given a holiday with pay on civic holiday of this year?
5.	Is any decision, as noted above, for this year only, or will it apply to future years?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES


John George Diefenbaker: How many government employees or officials in each department were paid travelling expenses in
[Mr .Maybank.]
each of the fiscal years of 1948-49 and 1949-50 of (a) over $8,000; (b) between $5,000 and $8,000; (c) between $3,000 and $5,000;	(d) between $2,500 and
$3,000?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: That on Monday, May 29, 1950, and every Monday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the announcement made by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada regarding an increase in railway freight rates, and since it is expected that the minister's estimates will come up this afternoon, will he call item 524, administration, board of transport commissioners, so that the house may discuss this matter, which is of some urgency in many constituencies?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I should like to have the opportunity
of giving the question some consideration. When the preceding judgment was handed down I think it was the desire of the house that we set aside a time for such a discussion. Naturally I am anxious to get on with my estimates, but if it is the wish of the house that this be done, I can give the matter some thought while the discussion of the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act is taking place. Personally I would prefer to discuss the freight rates question at a later time.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to press it because of what was said before. I had considered raising the question today by moving the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. I thought I would give the minister the opportunity of allowing us to discuss it on his estimates, rather than initiate a separate debate. If a day is to be set aside, I believe that will be satisfactory, but I think it should be done soon, in view of the fact that the increase in freight rates affects many constituencies adversely indeed.


Lionel Chevrier: I feel that such a debate
will be a lengthy one, much lengthier than the usual discussions on estimates of the department. For that reason perhaps I might turn the question over in my mind until we reach the estimates of my department.



HON. LIAQUAT ALI KHAN   VISIT OF PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN-INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Is the
Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to tell the house today what the program will be on the occasion of the visit to Ottawa next week of the leader of one of the commonwealth countries, Hon. Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, it is understood that the Prime Minister of Pakistan will arrive from Boston at Rockcliffe airport, Ottawa, at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, May 30. He will be greeted by a general salute by the guard of honour, and at 12.30 will lay a wreath at the national war memorial. That evening he will be entertained by Their Excellencies. At 11.00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 31, he will confer with members of the cabinet. I am informed that the Prime Minister has already approached the Speaker of this house and the Speaker of the Senate for the purpose of arranging, if it meets the wishes of all hon. members, for the Prime Minister of Pakistan to address a joint meeting of both houses at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, May 31, in accordance with the practice under which prime ministers of commonwealth countries have been extended that invitation. There will be a government dinner that night.
On Friday', June 2, the Prime Minister of Pakistan will leave by air for Kingston, where he will be received by the national conference of Canadian universities and the members of the national defence college. That same day he will proceed by air to Toronto where he will visit the international trade fair. Later he will leave Toronto by automobile for Niagara Falls, where he will spend the night and stay until he leaves Canadian soil on Saturday afternoon.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you.



REPORTED TERMINATION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, in reference
The late Field Marshal Wavell to a radio announcement over the C.B.C. this morning to the effect that negotiations between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and representatives of the British government with regard to the marketing of wheat had terminated rather sooner than was expected. Is the acting minister in a position to give a report on the matter of the fixing of a price for the coming year?


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am not in a position to give any information, Mr. Speaker. No report has come back, and I do not expect that there will be a report until the minister, the deputy minister and the chairman of the wheat board return tomorrow.



THE LATE FIELD MARSHAL WAVELL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Before we proceed to the orders of the day I would deem it a privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I might make a reference to the passing of a great soldier, a wonderful administrator and a constructive statesman who was a personal acquaintance of mine. I refer, of course, to the late Field Marshal Wavell. He would not be known to many Canadian soldiers during the first world war, but between the first and second world wars his name became known to a great many Canadians in the different services, because he had prepared a textbook on the campaigns in the Near East which gave an outline of the type of operation in which Canadians were to take part in the second world war. In addition, his series of lectures on generals and generalship showed not only that he was preparing himself for high command but that he was indicating a way to leadership which was followed by a great many Canadians in the second world war.
I became acquainted with the late field marshal when he was in command of the second division at Aldershot during the thirties. There his original methods of training and instilling initiative into the British soldier were the forerunners of the battle drills which were later associated with Field Marshal Montgomery.
During the second world war, of course, he was in command in Africa and the Middle East. There, with very slender resources, he was able to make use of his great business capacity in organizing for victory in Africa in 1940. His supreme moment of trial, and I think the greatest triumph of his life, came when he was called upon to implement the decision of the allies to support Greece from

Aeronautics Act
the few resources he had available. His decision in that respect has been frequently criticized; but a given pledge was kept and a nation's honour saved, two matters which were of no small importance to a man of Earl Wavell's character.
I think every Canadian of Hellenic extraction will feel that he has lost a true friend in the passing of Field Marshal Wavell, and I am sure this house and everyone concerned extends deepest sympathy to Lady Wavell and her family.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, because I had already sent messages to Lady Wavell and to Mr. Shinwell, Secretary of State for War in the United Kingdom, it had not been my intention to make reference today to the death of this great soldier. However, I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes).
It was not my privilege to know Viscount Wavell through having served under or with him, as it was the privilege of the hon. member for Nanaimo, but I think we were fortunate in that it was possible for him to visit Canada last November in his capacity as honorary colonel of the Black Watch, Royal Highland Regiment of Montreal, and on that occasion he visited a number of our defence establishments, including the national defence college and Royal Military College. He showed himself to be an understanding leader as well as a great soldier, and when he died I am sure many of us had the feeling that we had lost a firm friend of our country and of our services.



AERONAUTICS ACT


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 153, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-"Minister" defined.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, after this bill was given second reading it was referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where we had an opportunity to go into the proposed changes in some detail. Today I should like to make a few remarks having to do particularly with the powers and authority of the air transport board.
The bill is divided into ten sections. The first three deal with the authority of the

Minister of Transport which are set out under the Aeronautics Act in part I. Then clauses 4 to 9 of the bill deal with the air transport board, which was set up under part II of the Aeronautics Act passed in 1944. The tenth section deals with part III of the act, which covers the publication of regulations, makes provision for the employment of staff, and contains various other general provisions of that kind.
Today my remarks have to do particularly with the air transport board. I should like to urge upon the minister and the house that the time has come to give the air transport board the authority it deserves. Instead of doing that, the bill we are considering takes away some of the board's authority. So far as I can ascertain from a study of the bill, there is no attempt whatever to strengthen it and put it on a basis similar to that of the board of transport commissioners.
I believe it would be worth while to refer the committee to a statement made by-


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is now dealing with the powers of the air transport board. We do not deal with that board until we get to section 4 of the bill. I was wondering if we could not confine the discussion to the relevant sections.
I understand that in committee of the whole discussion should be directed to the sections of the bill. The first part of the bill deals with ministerial powers, while the second part deals with the powers of the board.


Howard Charles Green: In the discussion of the first section of a bill there is always wide latitude given. Actually my remarks today apply to practically all the sections of the bill. I have to refer to the powers of the minister; therefore I really cannot make my presentation unless I am allowed to do it on the first section of the bill.


The Chairman:: I shall ask the hon. member to discuss generally the principle of the bill, and not refer to any particular section. Then, as each section is called, he may discuss it.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the hon. member not discuss this matter under the sections dealing with the air transport board?


Howard Charles Green: No; I prefer to do it now. I think I can do it better under this section.
When the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was introducing the amendments to the Aeronautics Act in 1944, which amendments provided for an air transport board, he had something to say about

Aeronautics Act
the functions of that board. His remarks may be found on page 3599 of Hansard for June 6, 1944. He said:
The effect of the amendments is to form a board of three, a chairman and two members, who will administer the Aeronautics Act, take over the duties now being performed by the board of transport commissioners in regulating civil aviation as well as the duty of assigning airworthiness certificates and of licensing aviation enterprises within Canada. In addition, the board will function to advise the government as to ways and means of advancing civil aviation. The board will take the initiative in laying out routes, within Canada and overseas, which promise possibilities of profitable operation and will guide the government in seeing that these routes are operated by Canadians who are capable of carrying out such undertakings.
The judicial functions of the board are not new, but the functions of the board as advisers to the government on aviation policy are new, and will, I think, be helpful in bringing about the rapid development of civil aviation, both internal and external.
Members will notice that at that time the minister, who was then minister of munitions and supply, attributed great importance to this air transport board. In the committee the other day we got a short statement from the chairman of the board indicating just what it is doing at the present time, six years after that statement. The statement of the chairman of the board will be found at page 243 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee. He was asked what the functions of the board now are, and this is his answer:
The board under the minister is responsible for the granting of licences or refusal of licences, as the case may be, to commercial air services.
Members will note those words, "under the minister". That is the first job of the board, and here is the second:
It is also responsible for general economic regulation and economic relationships between commercial air services-
Then, the third is:
-and for such general aviation matters as the minister wishes the board to report upon or offer advice upon.
The fourth and final job of the air transport board is indicated by the following statement of its chairman:
Apart from that I should also add it is responsible on behalf of the government for taking care of the policy matters in connection with our part in the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the Canadian representative on the council of ICAO is a member of the board's staff.
As hon. members know, the function of licensing commercial air services came under-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is not generally discussing the principle of the bill. He is
discussing a special matter which comes under a particular clause, and that cannot be done.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact this first clause deals with a definition of "minister", and because of that fact, quite apart from the rule of the house that we are allowed wide latitude in discussing the first section of a bill, I submit my remarks are in order. I am pointing out that the air transport board has too little power, and the minister too much; therefore my remarks come within the scope of this section.


Lionel Chevrier: I have to point out that we are dealing now with part I of the bill, while my hon. friend's discussion is directed exclusively to part II.


Howard Charles Green: No; my remarks cover the scope of the whole bill, and if you will allow me to proceed, Mr. Chairman, you will see that is the case.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt, but it seems to me that this speech should have been made either on second reading when we were discussing the principle of the bill, or on third reading. We are now in the committee of the whole. I do not want to prevent the member from discussing anything he wishes to bring up, but I think considerable latitude was allowed in dealing with the principle, and it would be helpful to the whole house if we could deal with the sections of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: It will not save the house five minutes. It will take extra time if members have to make six speeches instead of one. The minister has said I should have made this speech on second reading, but the basis of this speech is the evidence we obtained in committee after the bill was given second reading. There should be no such limitation as the minister is trying to put on me in this discussion. Mine is a general statement concerning the set-up of this act, and the division of powers as between the minister and the air transport board.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the bill deal with the powers of the minister, and, as I explained in opening, sections 4 to 9 deal with the air transport board. My remarks can properly be made only on this first section, because they cover the whole bill. I am entitled to make these remarks on the first section.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I am sorry, but since the remarks refer to particular matters, I believe they are out of order when made on the first section. A general discussion may be had on the first section, and particular matters may be discussed as each section is called.

Aeronautics Act


Howard Charles Green: This is a general discussion I am engaging in now.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Proceed, and I shall see.


Howard Charles Green: The air transport board, in
dealing with applications for licences, which is their first function, should be able to act as a judicial body, free and independent of interference of any kind by the minister or any other authority. That is the position of the board of transport commissioners when they deal with applications having to do with the railways of Canada or with shipping, or when they act under the other powers conferred upon them.
The Aeronautics Act provides that the air transport board, in issuing a licence, must be satisfied that the proposed service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity of Canada; in other words, in the Aeronautics Act they are given that test-the consideration must be the public convenience and necessity. Furthermore, in the amendments which were passed to the Aeronautics Act in 1945, the air transport board were given the power of a court; for example, they have powers to have their orders enforced in certain courts of the land; they have power to send for witnesses, and they have power to issue commissions to take evidence; they are given wide powers, just as though they were an independent court; but actually their position is not that at all.
In the committee we questioned the chairman of the air transport board about the powers of the board in issuing a licence, and about the control the Minister of Transport had or has over these applications. At page 244 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence we find the following:
Q. When you render a decision -
That is, on an application for a licence.
-is that published by yourselves and a licence issued, or do you merely recommend it to the minister?
A. The board's decision is signed by the board members and if it is an affirmative decision it is submitted to the minister for his approval; if he approves the decision he signs it and the board then issues a licence to the carrier. In the event of a denial of an application, that under the statute may be taken care of by the board itself without submission to the minister, but with the right of appeal on the part of the carrier to the minister.
Then I asked him this question:
Q. I see. So that if an application is granted you make a recommendation, and then that has to be approved by the Minister of Transport?
A. That is correct.
Q. And, subject to that approval, you issue the licence?
A. That is correct.
[The Chairman.]
Q. And if the application is denied there is no recommendation made by the board to the minister but the applicant has the right of appeal to the minister?
A. The applicant has the right of appeal to the minister.
Q. Is that appeal to the minister or to the cabinet?
A. To the minister.
There are hundreds of applications for these licences. Here we have the position that this air transport board, which was set up by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1944 with such a glowing description of the part it was to be allowed to play in aviation, has no power to issue a single licence without having the application referred to the Minister of Transport. The jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners is, of course, quite different. It is a judicial body; it makes its decision and the only appeal is to the governor in council. But this air transport board is handicapped in that,, in every case in which an application is granted, it can only recommend to the minister, and he has the final approval or rejection of that application.
That provision, Mr. Chairman, has two bad results. In the first place, it must of necessity weaken the air transport board, and anything that tends to weaken it is a bad thing. This air transport board should be made into a strong body. The second bad effect is that the Minister of Transport is given too much power. He is not in a position to know whether or not those applications should be granted. How on earth is it possible for him to judge the merits of hundreds of applications for licences? It simply is not possible for him to do that, and I do not believe he does it. I think he just takes the recommendation of the air transport board and approves of the granting of the licence. That very fact is clear proof that this power of the minister should be done away with and that the air transport board should have the final word as to whether or not an application for a licence is to be granted. There would have to be some appeal, of course; but if there is to be an appeal, then let that appeal be to the cabinet.
This power held by the Minister of Transport over the issuing of licences is a hangover from the days when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was administering the act. He likes to have powers of that kind right in his hands, and the air transport board was set up with that idea in mind; it was set up so that it could not make a move without coming to him. He had an arbitrary and dictatorial control over the air transport board. In my opinion the time

has come when that control should be done away with. There may have been some excuse for it during the war-


Mr. Mitchell:: My hon. friend is swallowing himself. What he wants is bigger and better bureaucracy.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think that remark has any connection with my speech; and I am not surprised that such is the case, considering the source from which it comes.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is mutual.


Howard Charles Green: I beg your pardon?


Humphrey Mitchell: I say that is mutual.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you very much. Then we are both happy. The Minister of Labour has the habit of coming into the house, when he has not heard the discussion and does not know what is going on, making some wisecrack with the look of a Solomon, and then going out. That is exactly what he has done here.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this to my hon. friend-


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor. Do you want to ask a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: I rise on a point of privilege. Let me say to my hon. friend that I spend as much time in this House of Commons as he does.


George James McIlraith: You put it to better use, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was going to come to that. I use it in a more intelligent way. Let us just keep the record straight; that is all.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know what that has to do with the debate. Now that the Minister of Labour has had his little say, perhaps we can get back to the Minister of Transport.
I was saying that this dictatorial power is a hangover from the days when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was the minister in charge, and that it should be wiped out. There is now no reason why the minister should have a veto over every decision made by the air transport board on an application for a licence.
The air transport board is working under another handicap. When the board was set up in 1944 a provision was written into the act to the effect that the board could not issue a licence to anyone in the transportation business without such applicant first obtaining the approval of the governor in council. That meant that the air transport board could not issue a licence to a shipping company to go into the air transport business, or to a trucking company. The restrictions covered all other forms of transportation business.
Aeronautics Act
The reason was that at that time the present Minister of Trade and Commerce had a battle on with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and had announced as his policy that they would have to divest themselves of Canadian Pacific Air Lines-and, incidentally, that the Canadian National Railways had to get rid of their interest in Trans-Canada Air Lines. That was the policy at the time the air transport board was set up in 1944.
However, the provision is still in the act. It is another hangover from those days when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was in charge. Government policy has now changed. The Canadian Pacific Railway have been allowed to carry on and greatly to extend Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Canadian National Railways have been allowed to retain their ownership of Trans-Canada Air Lines. But, while the policy has been changed, the air transport board still labours under these restrictions.
We asked the chairman of the board about it, and this is what he said as it is reported at page 272 of the proceedings of the committee:


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Green, I believe the original
statutory restriction in this regard appears because it was felt that some such precaution was required to ensure the fullest possible development of commercial aviation. The reason for that was that it might be possible for a surface carrier to acquire control of an air service which was competitive with it for the deliberate purpose of stifling the air service. That was the fundamental reasoning behind the original restriction, as I understand it, and I do not know that there is much more that I can offer in the way of explanation other than to say that there are alternative methods of taking care of that situation. One of them is the method which parliament took of writing this restriction into the act leaving a way open for exceptions where no harm was going to result. Alternatively-
And I draw attention to this alternative.
-it could be dealt with through the control of licensing but it seems to me that the alternative selected is not a matter for the board to decide but for the government and parliament to decide upon.
And the chairman of the board was quite right in taking that stand. In effect he said, "I cannot do anything about this; it is up to-the government". I do suggest the air transport board should not be asked to work under that further restriction.
Then a further restriction is placed on the board by the government. This is what I call the monopoly policy of the government, in so far as aviation is concerned. A discussion of this subject appears at page 251 of the proceedings of the committee, where I questioned Mr. Baldwin as follows;
Q. What is the policy of the board with regard to the control of competition? I understand that you are pretty strict about lines competing on routes.

Aeronautics Act
Does that mean that you decide that one line shall have a monopoly on a route; or, just what does it mean?
A. The policy of the government, as you will recollect, was laid down some time ago to the effect that not more than one "scheduled" air line, to make that distinction, should operate on any one route, and the board has operated within the framework of that general policy in that where we have found that public convenience and necessity require the provision of a scheduled air service only one operator is licensed to perform that service.
Then later on he referred to the non-sched-uled field in this way:
When you come to the non-scheduled field the policy is somewhat different. We use our discretion in granting to what we call class two routes which are services on an irregular basis following a regular route pattern. Normally speaking we have only had one carrier on a class two route for the simple reason that we have followed the philosophy which governed the decision regarding scheduled operators.


Lionel Chevrier: Would you read the next sentence, please?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.
The factor which governs in a situation of this kind is the potential traffic which exists in Canada, and generally it has not been sufficient to justify putting on more than one carrier; otherwise neither would have a chance to succeed.
The point I make is this: Surely if the board is competent, then it should be given full responsibility, without being hedged in by these different restrictions from the government. Furthermore, it has no control whatever over Trans-Canada Air Lines. That provision was set out in the amendment to the Aeronautics Act of 1944, and there is a further amendment in the present bill.
The chairman explained quite clearly just what the position of the board is in connection with Trans-Canada Air Lines. The questions and answers in this connection are found at page 252, as follows:
Q. What control does the board have over Trans-Canada Air Lines?
A. The board is required to grant licences to Trans-Canada Air Lines in accordance with contracts that may be approved between the government and Trans-Canada Air Lines. That having been done. Trans-Canada Air Lines comes within the general rate jurisdiction of the board; and as far as direct control in regard to their licensing goes we exercise no independent jurisdiction. We may be called upon to advise the government with regard to a proposed T.C.A. service, but once a contract is authorized by the government then we are required by statute to grant a licence.
Q. In effect then the operations of T.C.A. are outside of your scope and you have to issue permits for them to fly a route if they apply for it?
A. Except in so far as the period during which the route is being discussed in the first instance is concerned; that is, before the government reaches a decision to operate a certain route; and the practice is that the board is called upon to advise the government as to whether it is a route which the government should designate for operation by T.C.A.

Q. And the T.C.A. routes are designated by the government?
A. That is correct.
Q. And once that has been done the board has no jurisdiction?
A. The situation is virtually the same as when an international agreement authorizing routes is made. In the first instance our role is advisory and in negotiating, but once the decision is made by the government we carry it out.
Q. Which means that you really have no licensing authority in the international field, you act only in an advisory capacity?
A. That is correct, sir.
There again we have the situation where the board is not free to deal, on its merits, with an application by Trans-Canada Air Lines for a licence. They must accept the route dictated by the government. I believe the present Minister of Trade and Commerce said in one of the other committees of the house the other day that he is the man who decides what routes should be flown by T.C.A. So it is not even the Minister of Transport who has that degree of jurisdiction. Here we find an outside minister deciding on the routes and the air transport board really has no discretion or authority whatsoever. .
It will be noticed that the chairman said the same was true in connection with international air routes. In effect, the air transport board has no authority over international routes; and the bill before the committee today cuts down the statutory authority the board formerly had in that respect. I believe further that the air transport board will have practically no authority with regard to non-scheduled international services. The other day the minister did not set out government policy with regard to these services. He promised to give us order 15, I think it was, which sets out the powers.


Lionel Chevrier: I have it here.


Howard Charles Green: We have not received it as yet but I take it from the evidence given by Mr. Baldwin, chairman of the air transport board, that that board will have little authority with regard to international non-scheduled air services. Incidentally it was agreed that these services were becoming of greater importance all the time.
The board has no control whatsoever over private aircraft. I do not know whether it would be possible to give them some authority over private aircraft, but it seems to me-I am not speaking as an expert-that the air transport board should have some control over such aircraft.
That is just a summary of the handicaps under which the air transport board is working. I believe that hon. members generally would prefer to see this board given real authority so that it could carry on as the

present Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated in 1944. Then, the plan was that the air transport board would give leadership in promoting civil aviation in Canada. I do not believe that the board is in position to do that today because of the various restrictions I have mentioned. I do hope that the minister will not be too abrupt in turning down these suggestions or saying that the board has all the authority it needs.


Lionel Chevrier: He never is.


Howard Charles Green: No. I must admit that he is not as abrupt as some other ministers. These suggestions are placed before him and before the committee with great earnestness, believing that we could further the development of civil aviation in Canada if the air transport board was given additional authority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The remarks I wish to make I intended to defer until a later section of the bill is before us, but because of what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said perhaps I should say something at this point. I sympathize with the view of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the air transport board seems to be getting into a position where its functions are merely perfunctory. However, I must part company with the hon. member when he suggests that the air transport board somehow or other should be divorced completely from government direction and government policy.
My mind goes back to 1944 when this act in its present form was introduced. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and I were both here and we took part in the debate- on opposite sides. It seems to me that there are things that are natural monopolies, such as railroads, electrical services and pipe lines if you will. In certain cases it is not in the public interest to have two lines where one will do the job. In connection with public services, public utilities and natural monopolies of this kind, either there should be complete public ownership or the decision as to what is to take place should be a matter of government policy and regulation. I might quarrel with government policy, and I certainly do quarrel with government policy so far as aviation matters are concerned, especially the way in which the government has gone back on its announced policy, but I support the idea that government policy is necessary in arriving at basic decisions so far as civil aviation is concerned.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has referred to the basic government policy that was set up during the war years, and in particular with the passing of the Aeronautics Act in 1944. In fact, a year earlier it was made clear by the former prime minister, Mr. Aeronautics Act
Mackenzie King, that the main air lines in Canada were to be operated by the government-owned Trans-Canada Air Lines. It was indicated that the feeder lines and non-scheduled services would be open to private companies. It was also made clear that all international services connecting Canada with other countries were to be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines. While that particular part of government policy was not written into the statute, it was laid down clearly in a statement by the Prime Minister and confirmed from time to time.
I feel that that policy has been gone back on so far as services in Canada are concerned, notably in that Canadian Pacific Air Lines has been permitted to develop lines which certainly are not feeder lines. Their air line map today looks like a main-line operation. Another point in that policy, namely with respect to international air services, has been reversed by the government. I refer to the Pacific air services. Not only was it spelled out and stated clearly by the former prime minister that all international air services were to be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines, but when an agreement was entered into between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and Canada on the other for transpacific services, one of the terms was that so far as the Canadian part of the operation was concerned it would be carried on by the government-owned Trans-Canada Air Lines. The Minister of Transport will well remember the nuisance I was in the session of 1948.


Lionel Chevrier: I do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the minister was saying that I am always a nuisance.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the session of 1948 I tried to get out of the minister in every way known to me, by questions on the orders of the day, by raising it on going into supply, by questions on the minister's estimates and so on, whether or not there was anything in the widely circulating rumour that the government was going to turn over the Pacific service to Canadian Pacific Air Lines. The Minister of Transport was most adroit in his answers; they were answers that seemed to imply that there was nothing to the rumour, that I was all wrong. However, I remember that it was only a week or ten days after the session when I picked up a paper and lo and behold the Pacific service had been turned over by the government to Canadian Pacific Air Lines. It is that sort of thing that I

Aeronautics Act
quarrel with. I will stand by my basic contention that the policy respecting civil aviation, because it is a natural monopoly, has to be determined by the government. Nevertheless I feel it is unfortunate that the government should get hold of a good policy, announce it, lay it down clearly, and then for some reason or other-not explained-change it in various respects.
Another item of government policy-and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has already referred to this-relates to the announcement by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1944 when he was minister of munitions and supply to the effect that, commencing one year after the end of the war in Europe, all 'transportation companies operating ground services were to be asked to divest themselves of the ownership of air lines. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said, the purpose seemed to be to prevent the Canadian Pacific Railway from developing Canadian Pacific Air Lines into a large private system. The minister of munitions and supply, as he then was, made it clear to us that he had had a bit of a quarrel with the Canadian Pacific people, and that he also felt that mistakes had been made in the building of railways in this country which he did not want to see repeated so far as air lines were concerned. He felt it was unwise to allow a corporation such as the Canadian Pacific Railway to build up a huge air lines system.
This policy was not only announced by the then minister of munitions and supply but was also written into a statute, namely, the Aeronautics Act, chapter 28 of the statutes of 1944-45. We had a bitter debate over the policy. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Lake Centre and others of the Conservative party fought it for all they were worth. There was not much support for it even on the Liberal side. I think that the C.C.F. party probably gave more support to it than the Liberals but at any rate the Liberals voted for it and it was passed. It is spelled out in sections 12, 13 and 14 of the act. There was a decision of parliament to back up the announced policy of the government with respect to that phase of civil aviation.
Time went by, the war in Europe came to an end, and a year or so after I began to wonder when this policy was going to go into effect. I have the necessary data here and may refer to it later when we get to the section, but I remember very well asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce about It one day and he told me very blithely that the date in the act had been changed by

order in council. I was horrified at the thought that a statute had been changed by order in council, and I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it had been tabled. He said yes, that I did not know all the orders in council that were tabled and that I had missed that one. I certainly had. I was curious afterwards as to how a statute could be changed by order in council. Therefore I got in touch with the proper officials to try to get hold of the order in council and I soon found out that there was none.
Therefore I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce very tactfully in a day or two on the orders of the day if he could tell me the number and date of that order in council. His reply was that his officials had informed him there was no order in council, that it had been done by cabinet decision. We had quite a battle over it, if I may shorten the story, because some of us certainly did not think that cabinet decisions were the proper way to legislate. As a matter of fact we could not see how a statute could be changed by an order in council. Later on in the session the present Prime Minister, who was then minister of justice, admitted to me there had been some mistake about the whole matter, and that it was perfectly true that a statute could not be changed by order in council. In other words, the law still stood that surface transportation companies had to divest themselves of the ownership of air lines.
I kept wondering why this was not done, and in 1947 I learned by asking various questions how the government managed to get around the section of the act which they put in there over the bitter opposition of members of the Progressive Conservative party. I found out how they got around the section which was put in there to implement their own policy. They did so by relying on an escape clause in another section which gave the governor in council the power to issue licences to surface transportation companies in exceptional cases. I well remember the time when the Minister of Trade and Commerce told me that there was a block of 53 licences that had to be cancelled under the terms of section 14 of the act, which implemented the policy about which I am talking. All 53 were reissued under the escape or emergency clause in the act. Believe it or not, every case was an exceptional case.
That makes a farce of statute law, Mr. Chairman. It makes a farce of parliament to force it to put in the act a section which the official opposition did not want. I was in favour of it but a section of the opposition did

Aeronautics Act
not want it. A year or so later the government changed its mind mainly because the Minister of Trade and Commerce got on more friendly terms with the Canadian Pacific, and they just decided they were not going to obey the law as it was passed by parliament. We stand up from time to time and ask for certain changes or improvements in various matters and we are told time and time again that these things cannot be changed because they are statutory. We are told the voice of parliament has decided.
Let us understand what is happening. Parliament has reached the point where it decides, through the weight of the government majority, merely what the government wants to put on the statutes, and if the next day the government does not want to go ahead with what it has decided it gets around it in one way or another. When we reach that section of the act we will see that certain sections are now being repealed.


Major James William Coldwell: No wonder the Senate wants to reform the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My leader says it is no wonder the Senate wants to reform the House of Commons. There is one thing on which members of the House of Commons and of the Senate might get together. We might agree that the government needs to be reformed. I will not say anything further at this time. I wanted to make it clear that there are a number of ways in which government policy has been changed from time to time that I dislike intensely. I dislike it particularly when a clear-cut policy has been laid down that appears to be the policy for all time, and then is changed for reasons that are not made clear to us at all..
Even so I cannot agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in his suggestion that the air transport board should be an independent judicial body. I feel that matters relating to civil aviation are of such importance that they should be subject to government policy. After all, this is a field in which a great deal is at stake. Aviation does not only play an important part in the development of our country in transportation, communications and so on; it is also a field in which the protection of life and safety measures are of extreme importance. I am satisfied it is not a field in which there should be the kind of unrestricted competition that some of our friends to the right would like to have. When you go in for that sort of thing you decrease the safety factor as competing lines try to get ahead of one another. I am all for aviation being a matter of government policy but I want government policy to be the right one. When the government has achieved the right policy I want them to stick with it and not
flout it in contempt of parliament, as has been the case from time to time, these past four or five years.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not making any reply to the points I raised?


Lionel Chevrier: I have covered most of the matters referred to by my hon. friend, and perhaps they could be dealt with more specifically as we come to the sections.


Howard Charles Green: Then will the minister explain the division of work as between the aviation branch of the Department of Transport and the air transport board? For instance, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just mentioned safety precautions. It is my understanding that the air transport board has nothing whatever to do with that matter; I believe it comes under a branch of the Department of Transport, though in 1944 the present Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the board would have the duty of assigning airworthiness certificates. As I read the provisions now, however, that work is done by the department, not by the board. It would be helpful if the minister would make clear the division of authority as between the department and the board.


Lionel Chevrier: Section 1 is a simple amendment changing the name of the Minister of National Defence for Air to that of the Minister of National Defence. It has nothing to do with the division of duties as between the board and the department. The statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra a moment ago, that airworthiness certificates were to have been issued by the air transport board, is erroneous. Those certificates are given by the officials of the Department of Transport, through the minister. The only purpose of this amendment is to change the designation minister of national defence for air, as that office no longer exists, to the Minister of National Defence, as the latter is the authority in respect of military airports. A division still exists in that certain airports which are military remain under the Department of National Defence. Over those airports the Department of Transport has no jurisdiction. That is the only reason for the amendment.


Howard Charles Green: The section provides:
. . . the Minister of Transport or such other minister as the governor in council may from time to time designate . . .
Apparently the Minister of Transport has some powers under this act, while others are not exercised by him but by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. Just how is it possible to divide the powers in that

Aeronautics Act
way? I find that the report of the Department of Transport lists the boards, commissions and government-owned companies coming under the minister. We have a group starting with the air transport board and ending with Trans-Canada Air Lines and Trans-Canada (Atlantic) Air Lines. Then in the list of acts administered by the Department of Transport I find the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act. In this bill there is reference to agreements made by the minister with Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the air transport board has to carry out whatever terms are contained in such agreements. Incidentally, in the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act the minister is defined as the Minister of Transport, yet apparently the Minister of Trade and Commerce has complete control over Trans-Canada Air Lines. Just how is it possible to make that division, when the act reads that it shall be the Minister of Transport or such other minister as the governor in council may designate? Surely if some other minister is to be designated under the act, that other minister should take over the whole act, instead of having only one or two sections.


Lionel Chevrier: I think we will get along much faster and much more satisfactorily if we deal with the sections as we go along. In the questions my hon. friend has put to me he has touched upon at least four sections to which we will come later on. Dealing with the first section which we are discussing at the moment, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has no authority thereunder. I said so when we were discussing the principle of the bill on second reading, and I repeat it now. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has jurisdiction over Trans-Canada Air Lines, by virtue of the transfer of duties act, but he has no jurisdiction in respect of ministerial powers contained in part I of the Aeronautics Act. Neither has he jurisdiction in regard to the powers of the air transport board, which are contained in part II. So, dealing briefly with the first question, under section 1 of this bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce has no authority or jurisdiction over civil air matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there any need to carry forward in this section the words "or such other minister as the governor in council may from time to time designate"? I ask the minister to think of this seriously and carefully. When this legislation was brought in, back in 1944, it was the desire and intention of the government that the minister to be designated would be the Minister of Trade and Commerce; hence these words were necessary at that time. At a later date, however-I forget just when it was, but around 1946 or 1947-the government decided

to transfer the administration of this act from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Minister of Transport. Most other acts do not contain phrases of this kind. There is a transfer of duties act which enables the government to make transfers that had not been anticipated, and it does seem to me, since other phrases or sections of this act are being cut out because their usefulness has ended, that the same is the case here and that the words I have indicated should be deleted. All we require is the provision:
In this part, "minister'' means the Minister of Transport, except that in any matter relating to defence, "minister" means the Minister of National Defence.


Lionel Chevrier: There is a very definite reason why those words should be retained. In the past the government has decided to assign responsibility for the Aeronautics Act to other ministers. My hon. friend was inadvertently in error a moment ago when he said these duties had been assigned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They were first assigned to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and later on to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.


Howard Charles Green: They were the same man.


Lionel Chevrier: And at a later date they were assigned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Howard Charles Green: Still the same man.


Lionel Chevrier: It has been indicated to me that they were not under this act assigned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but were returned to the Minister of Transport, where they were originally. The air services branch is one which it might be found advisable at some time or other to assign to a minister other than the Minister of Transport, and for that reason I think it is advisable to retain the provision.


Gordon Graydon: It seems to me that if the minister were sitting on this side of the house, as perhaps he will be before long-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not see any sign of it.


Gordon Graydon: I did not want to start an
argument. If he were on this side I think he would be the first to try to smoke out the government on the question of why the Minister of Transport does not handle all the transport end of the government enterprises. That is what the public find very confusing. As the minister said a few moments ago, first it was in the hands of the minister of munitions and supply, then the minister of reconstruction, and then the Minister of Trade and Commerce. To the public that might seem like quite a change

from time to time; but to us, who know that those portfolios have been held by the one man who is now the Minister of Trade and Commerce, it is not so convincing an argument. I should like to ask the minister why it is that he has not jurisdiction over all transportation affairs?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is that the
Minister of Transport has jurisdiction over all matters concerning aviation under the Aeronautics Act, save and except the subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways, T.C.A.


Gordon Graydon: Why have you not got that?


Lionel Chevrier: The government has decided, as I explained the other evening, that that should be in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. While I am dealing with that matter, I might refer to one of the points the member for Vancouver-Quadra has brought up. He says that the air transport board should be an independent body, and should have far more power than it has.


Howard Charles Green: In its judicial functions.


Lionel Chevrier: He says the minister has too much power in a judicial capacity. The other evening the leader of the opposition said the minister did not have enough power, and should have under his jurisdiction T.C.A., which is the same argument the member for Peel is making. The minister cannot have too much power and not enough at the same time. It is either one thing or the other. In answer to the question, I say that the government has decided that Trans-Canada Air Lines should be responsible to another minister.


Gordon Graydon: That is just drawing a red herring across the trail. It has nothing at all to do with the point I mentioned. I cannot see that it makes any difference, from the standpoint of the argument advanced by the member for Vancouver-Quadra, to the point I have been making. It seems to me the cabinet ought to tidy up its own household and put the affairs of transport under one minister. I cannot see why there should be a residue of the cabinet estate left in the hands of another minister. I should think the Minister of Transport-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: That is out of order.


Gordon Graydon: Surely, Mr. Chairman, we have not come to the position where we cannot discuss the cabinet.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as I am concerned the members can discuss anything, but I do wish they would keep to the section with which we are dealing. It provides for changing the designation minister of national defence for air to the Minister of National Defence.
Aeronautics Act


Gordon Graydon: Surely I am right on the beam so far as this section is concerned, because it says:
In this part, "minister" means the Minister of Transport or such other minister as the governor in council may from time to time designate . . .
I think we ought to have transport matters under the Minister of Transport, and that is all I shall say about it.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Transport has just given us a reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce should not have charge of a commercial air line, the Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways, and the Minister of Transport has charge of that railway. Why should he not, therefore, also have charge of Trans-Canada Air Lines? I am afraid the position is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will not give up Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the cabinet is afraid to make him do so.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend knew what the facts were, he would not make that statement. The position is far from that. The government has decided the Minister of Trade and Commerce shall have jurisdiction over Trans-Canada Air Lines. If the government decides otherwise, it will announce the policy.


Howard Charles Green: You mean when he decides otherwise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me the members on my right are confusing things here. This section does not deal with the question as to what minister has charge of Trans-Canada Air Lines; it deals with what minister has charge of the Aeronautics Act. My point is that the supervision of this act has now got to the right place, the Minister of Transport. Surely, it is not going to be turned over to the Minister of Public Works or any other minister.


Alphonse Fournier: You never know.


Gordon Graydon: Wait until the Minister of Trade and Commerce returns from England.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are no other ministers in the house at the moment to whom it could be turned over.


Alphonse Fournier: There are not many members in the house, either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are not many over there.


Alphonse Fournier: Nor are there many on your side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point is that the government has now brought the supervision of the act to the Minister of Transport where it belongs.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Aeronautics Act
On section 2-Duties of minister.
Howard Charles Green: The explanatory note says:
This amendment is intended:	To include the
increasingly important field of non-scheduled international air services.
In the committee the other day the minister was unable to give us a statement of government policy with regard to this particular service. Could he explain that policy to us today?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the section
with which we are dealing is section 2 (h) which gives the minister power to take such action as may be necessary to secure, by international regulation or otherwise, the rights of His Majesty in respect of his government of Canada in international air routes. It is now sought to change those words "in international air routes" to "in international air traffic" because it is a broader term and takes in more ground-perhaps I should say more air. .
The object, as is set out in the notes, is to include the increasingly important field of non-scheduled international air services. In giving his evidence before the committee the other day, the chairman of the air transport board explained that there was a policy governing that, but it was an interim policy. It was contained in a circular that had been given out to the various air carriers. I have that circular with me, and I shall be glad either to table it or to send it over to the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister not give us a summary of the policy? It was pointed out in the committee the other day that these services are becoming of great importance, because there are commercial planes flying over the boundary with private parties. For example, they are taking parties on fishing or hunting trips, or bringing over tourists. Apparently it is a development that has taken place within the last year or two. There is a great deal more of that kind of traffic each year, and members will see that it involves such questions as the game regulations. All sorts of difficulties crop up as a result of those services. I think it is of sufficient importance for the minister to give us a summary of government policy with regard to these non-scheduled international air services.


Lionel Chevrier: The matter to which my hon. friend refers now, particularly wildlife conservation, is covered by amendments on page 5, section 7. This amendment simply changes the words "international air route" to "international air traffic", because international flying now comprises a large volume of non-scheduled traffic which does not conform

with any route pattern such as it did under the former section. The change will mean that the minister will now have powers which will apply to all international air traffic, whereas before they only applied to certain routes on which there were prearranged schedules approved by the board.
I am informed there is a legal interpretation which has some bearing on the change. Lawyers seemed to feel that "scheduled route" did not cover as much as "scheduled traffic". Because of the rapid development of aviation, the words "air route" take in a far greater field.


Howard Charles Green: That is all very interesting, but it does not deal with the question I asked. The explanatory note of this particular subsection reads:
This amendment is intended: To include the increasingly important field of non-scheduled international air services.
It obviously does that because it changes the word "routes" to "traffic" so that the non-scheduled flights would now be included. At the conclusion of the sittings of the committee the other day the minister assured us that the government has a policy with respect to this particular kind of traffic. I should like to know what that policy is; or if the minister wants to place the statement on Hansard, that is quite satisfactory to me. I think the committee is entitled to some explanation of the policy.


Lionel Chevrier: I told my hon. friend that I would give him this circular, and I will do it now. I think there has been a misunderstanding as to what I said in the committee. There is a full discussion reported in the evidence. I think the evidence will bear out that my statement was to the effect that the policy concerning these non-scheduled international air services was not yet clarified, that there was not a fixed policy, but that there was an interim policy based on the advice given to the government, which was adopted and laid down by the air transport board by circular No. 15. It is fairly lengthy though, so I would rather give it to my hon. friend than read it. But here will be found the present position with regard to the international non-scheduled air services.


Howard Charles Green: Why not put it on Hansard?


Lionel Chevrier: If the committee has no
objection, I have none. .


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is it the pleasure of the committee that this document be put on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: The circular reads:



AIR TRANSPORT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Circular No. 15
Operation of commercial air services to and from
Canada by foreign air carriers other than agreed services on specified routes by designated air lines
The information to be furnished and the procedure to be followed by foreign air carriers who wish to operate commercial air services, to or from Canada, other than agreed air services operated on specified routes by designated air lines, is laid down in air transport board circular No. 14, which became effective May 15, 1949. This supplements the said circular and outlines the policy which is followed by the air transport board in dealing with applications for permit to operate commercial air services to and from Canada.
When the proposed movement is between Canada and a country with which Canada has a bilateral air agreement providing for agreed air services between the two countries-
(a)	The board believes that the appropriate designated air carriers of the two countries have primary rights to the carriage of traffic between those two countries and requires to be satisfied that one or other of such designated air carriers is not in a position to furnish the proposed transportation on a reasonable basis;
(b)	If the appropriate designated air carrier of one or other of the countries is not in a position to furnish the proposed transportation, the board prefers that the traffic be carried by some other air carrier of one of the two countries;
(c)	If the board is satisfied that one air carrier of one country or the other is unable to furnish the transportation on a reasonable basis; and if the board is satisfied that the transportation applied for would be in the public interest, then it is prepared to grant a permit to the air carrier of a third country;
(d)	Any large movement involving frequency, regularity or volume, is reviewed with care. When the applicant is a carrier of a third country, the board would refuse a permit unless satisfied that the traffic should be moved by air carrier of a third country and in such cases may require either association with an appropriate designated air line if any, or some other form of direct governmental sponsorship from one of the two countries involved;
(e)	In dealing with applications from foreign air carriers under the foregoing principles, the board takes into consideration primarily the position of the Canadian air carriers, assuming that the other country from, or to which the proposed movement is to take place, will protect the interests of its own carriers.
(f)	In all such cases the board reviews the proposed charges and conditions of carriage to make sure that they are just and reasonable.
When the proposed movement is between Canada and a country with which Canada has no bilateral agreement-
(a)	The board requires to be satisfied that it is in the public interest that the transportation be furnished by an air carrier other than the designated air carriers whose combined services connect Canada and that country.
(b)	If the board is so satisfied, preference would normally be given to carriage by either a Canadian carrier or a carrier of the country to or from which the traffic is moving. A reasonable liberal attitude is taken towards applications from the carriers of third countries for occasional flights. In the case of large or frequent movements however, the board
Aeronautics Act
takes the general attitude indicated in 2(d) above.
(c)	A rate review on the basis indicated in 2(f) above also takes place.
Air Transport Board
Gerald Morisset,
Secretary.
Ottawa, Ontario,
August 31, 1949.
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Powers of minister to make regulations with approval of governor in council.
Howard Charles Green: The explanatory note dealing with new clause (d) reads:
This amendment is intended: To mark clearly the application of the paragraph to the use and operation of aircraft as distinguished from the economic regulation of commercial air services.
That raises a question as to where the boundary is between the work done by the minister and his aviation branch and the work of the air transport board; because the air transport board deals with economic regulation of all commercial air services. A few minutes ago, when I asked the minister to explain just where the boundary was, he said he would wait until he got to a section of the bill; and I think this is the section on which that answer should be given.


Lionel Chevrier: A while ago the hon. member made the point that the air transport board did not possess sufficient power and authority, that it should have more power and authority, and that it should not be subject to the approval of the minister with regard to the granting of licences; and he argued in favour of a completely independent board, as did his leader the other evening, I think.


Howard Charles Green: That is dealing with the judicial functions.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There is a reason why that situation should be as it is, because the air transport board has to deal with a problem which is entirely different from that where there would be nothing but independent air carriers, as in the United States, for instance. In Canada the largest operator is a government-owned air line, and I think it would be improper for the board to have exclusive powers such as my hon. friend argues for with reference to a government-owned body such as T.C.A. In other words it is felt that the board should have powers to advise on routes concerning T.C.A., and powers to advise economically as it does, but tha't there should be a limitation, as is set out in the amendment, because of this special position in respect of T.C.A.
My hon. friend asks for a division of the powers as between the departmental officials

Aeronautics Act
and air transport board officials or as between the minister and the board. They are fairly clearly set out in part I as opposed to part II. In committee the other day I think I gave at some length the functions of the air transport board and the duties of the air transport board under the various sections. This section seeks to change the words:
The conditions under which aircraft may be used for carrying goods, mails and passengers, or for the operation of any commercial service whatsoever;
To:	.
The conditions under which aircraft may be used or operated; . . .
So that there will be a distinction between the powers of the department or the powers of the minister and those of the board. In the language used before, among the departmental officials there was some feeling that there was an impingement of the duties of the board, and the amendment is sought to clarify the duties as between the board and the department.


Howard Charles Green: When I was speaking on
section 1, I mentioned the government policy which restricts competition on these different routes. That apparently is underlying government policy not set out in any statute, order in council or directive but which, according to the chairman of the air transport board, is obviously considered by him to be binding upon the board. Can the minister give us any clarification of that particular policy and tell us whether or not there is any other policy of some kind which is not written into the statutes or not in an order in council but which, nevertheless, is recognized as government policy in the field of civil aviation?


Lionel Chevrier: In the committee the policy was gone into at some length. It is somewhat technical, and I do not know that I should like to give it again. It can be found in the evidence. But the board follows the government policy. That policy has been announced in the house here on more than one occasion.


Howard Charles Green: You are referring to the policy announced in 1944, are you?


Lionel Chevrier: I think it was 1943.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, 1943.


Lionel Chevrier: In 1943, dealing with domestic scheduled routes, and that not more than one carrier should operate on any one route. I think my predecessor did announce that at that time. The board follow that policy, of course. But more than that, the board are in agreement on that policy and believe that it is correct. Otherwise the board could, under its advisory powers, make recommendations to the contrary to the minister

who would take it up with his colleagues in the cabinet in order to ascertain whether the policy should remain as it is or be amended.


Howard Charles Green: Then on page 3, clause 6, we
find this provision:
Any regulation made under subsection one may authorize the minister to make orders or directions with respect to such matters coming within this section as the regulations may prescribe.
The explanatory note at the side is as follows:
Minister may carry out regulations by ministerial order or direction.
We went into that at length in committee, and I think it will be agreed that what is sought here is power for the minister to issue directives which will have the same force and effect as if they were regulations and, of course, would carry the same penalty.
Hon. members will find at page 3 of the bill a new provision for penalties, where it is indicated that the penalty may be $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment. That punishment is to apply to the directives issued by the minister, just as it applies to the regulations passed by the governor in council. I do not think that is giving the person who may be fined or put in jail a fair run for his money. I say that for these reasons:
Under part III of the Aeronautics Act all regulations have to be published in the Canada Gazette; furthermore they must be laid before the House of Commons within ten days after publication, if parliament is then sitting or, if parliament is not sitting, within ten days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof. This means that parliament took care to give the public a chance to know what the regulations are. That is as it should be, because it is a serious thing to put a man in jail for a year.
If the minister has to issue directives covering certain conditions which may arise, then there should be some different sort of punishment for breach of those directives, rather than making the culprit subject to fine up to $5,000, or to imprisonment for a year, or both fine and imprisonment. The minister is given wide powers to cancel or suspend licences. If these directives are issued and then are not followed, I believe it would be sufficient punishment to suspend a licence for a time, or even to cancel it. But, instead of that, a breach of these directives is made just as serious as a breach of the regulations; yet there is no provision for publicizing directives, and there is no way in which it can be made certain that the people in this business will know what directives have been issued.

For that reason I would urge that the minister make provision in the act whereby punishment for a breach of the directives shall not be the same as that for a breach of the regulations.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there any difference
between regulations, orders and directives?


Howard Charles Green: If this amendment is passed as it now stands there will be no difference in the punishment for a breach. The section indicates, as explained in the side note, that the minister may carry out regulations by ministerial order or direction. I think the proper procedure would be to issue a new regulation. It does not take long, because regulations could be passed by the cabinet within a matter of a few days. But this amendment goes further than that. He may issue a directive, then the day after this amendment is passed if that directive is not complied with the person guilty of the offence can be dragged into court and fined or imprisoned.


Major James William Coldwell: If that is so, it seems to me that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has raised an important point. I am not a lawyer and not given to interpreting some of these legal phrases; but I am just wondering about a provision whereby the minister is authorized to make orders and directions with respect to such matters as come within this section, as the regulations may provide, and then the further provision which states that: Every person who violates the provisions of a regulation is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both fine and imprisonment.
If the interpretation placed upon the section by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is correct, whereby the minister may issue a directive or order which would not be confirmed by an order in council, as a regulation would be, and to which no publicity is given, then it seems to me the hon. member is right in his criticism of this proposal. Would the minister given an explanation of it?


Gordon Graydon: If I may be permitted to make an observation on the same point, I suppose the minister and his officials have perhaps surrendered to one of the inevitable trends of human nature, that of trying to find an easier administrative way to handle the situation quickly, even though it may be at the expense of the public generally.
This situation takes us along the road of order-in-council government just another mile, it seems to me-only it takes us along the road not only in daylight, but another mile in the dark. I say that because if this amendment is accepted the minister may, if 55946-180
Aeronautics Act
he wishes, prosecute someone who has not even learned that he is violating the law, and has no way of finding out what law he is violating.


Lionel Chevrier: No, that is not so.


Gordon Graydon: As I read the section it is so.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Gordon Graydon: Unless one happens to be in the cabinet, one will not know what the law is-and there are not many in the cabinet, even though there are a number on the opposite side of the chamber who would like to find themselves there.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member be a little more serious.


Gordon Graydon: I am sorry that this section is not a little more serious, because the position the minister has taken today reflects a mentality, so far as the government is concerned, that is anything but serious when dealing with the ordinary public.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh no.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest that before this section is carried the committee should be told just where we are going. Not only are we travelling in the dark; we are going in the opposite direction to that which I think the public wants us to follow. The public does not want us to place more authority in the hands of the executive, but rather to bring the procedure of law-making back into the parliamentary system whereby the representatives of the people shall have some control over the laws the people must obey.
The minister should further consider whether in the final analysis he requires anything like this amount of power. This is adding more fads and frills to order-incouncil government that the public would not like to have-and I do not like it, either.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to say that perhaps if we were to get back to a somewhat calmer discussion of the section we would make greater headway. The questions asked were normal ones, and I should like to answer them to the satisfaction of the committee. I believe the committee is entitled to know just what the section means and how it will work, and I shall try to give that information.
Section 4 of the present act says that with the approval of the governor in council the minister may make orders and regulations with respect to licensing pilots, registration and identification of aircraft, stating conditions under which aircraft can be used for carrying goods, the conditions under which goods may be exported or imported, and the

Aeronautics Act
like. The moment those orders in council are passed they are gazetted and are open tor public inspection.
This section goes a step further, I must admit, and provides:
Any regulation made under subsection one may authorize the minister to make orders or directions with respect to such matters coming within this section as the regulations may prescribe.
The officials of the department think that that is necessary. I think the committee should know that there are times when because of emergency or urgency it is impossible to move quickly enough by means of an order in council. I could give some examples. An accident occurred to a Moth aircraft in which a passenger was killed and a pilot injured, as the result of the aircraft getting into a spin at low altitude because of jammed controls. The operators and pilots of this type of aircraft were cautioned to see, first, that the passenger's safety belt is fastened; second, that the control column and rudder connections are removed; and, third, that the control box cover is fastened in place. The circular is sent out making it mandatory that these things be done for the protection of the passenger flying in that type of aircraft. That is not done by order in council because it would take too long.


Howard Charles Green: How long would it take?


Lionel Chevrier: Anywhere from four days to two weeks or even longer depending upon the amount of work the government had at the time. There are a number of other examples I could give which might be more important than this one. There are thousands of circumstances in which it is important to issue orders and directives. If it were necessary to ask the minister to get an order in council and submit it to cabinet it would take a considerable amount of time.
Here is one having to do with the condition of the airstrips at Gander. During a certain period of the year when the frost comes out of the ground planes weighing above a certain tonnage may not land on the airstrips. The frost comes out of the ground quite suddenly and if it were necessary to get an order in council through before the directive or circular was issued, it would take too long. It is necessary that this be done by a directive or order.
Here is another case where it is provided that no person in an aircraft shall carry out acrobatic flying over any city or town or populous district. Second, shall not carry out any acrobatic flying or exhibition flying over any regatta, race meeting or meeting for public games or sports except when specially arranged for in writing by the promoters of

such regatta or meeting and authorized by the minister. Third, shall not carry out any flying which, by reason of low altitude or proximity to persons or dwellings, is dangerous to public safety.
Many accidents have taken place because of a breach of this order. This order has not the force of law; it has only the force of a circular.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems to me that in the cases cited, particularly this last one, it would be quite simple to have a regulation. I am not so sure about the one dealing with the frost at Gander or perhaps the danger disclosed in connection with flying in Moth aircraft, but in a case of wide application I cannot see the force of having an order rather than a regulation.


Lionel Chevrier: That may be so, but I am told that these orders and directives that are put out in circular form run into the hundreds. I have quite a number of them here and could go on and on. While the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra took exception in the committee the other day to this amendment, I think the feeling generally was that these orders and regulations were of such importance that they should be given the effect of law. It is not something new. If the committee is surprised at what appears to be the granting of powers that are said to be out of the ordinary, let me say that this is done under the Customs Act as well as under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. It is done in the United Kingdom where they have had far more experience than we. I can assure the committee that it is not a question of taking powers that seem to be irregular and out of the ordinary.
If it were possible to pass an order in council to cover each case, I think it should be done. But it cannot be done as it would be too cumbersome. For that reason the officers of the department have suggested that we should follow what has been done in the Customs Act and the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and give the force of law to orders and directives. There is no secrecy about these orders and regulations, and I hope the committee has not got that impression. They are circulated to all fliers and to all owners and operators of air lines because we want to give them as much publicity as possible. It is important that publicity be given to them; that they should not be kept hidden.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister sign these directives himself?


Lionel Chevrier: As it is now, I do not sign them; they are sent out as circulars. If this amendment passes, yes, I would sign them.


John George Diefenbaker: There will be none put out except as signed by the minister?


Lionel Chevrier: The minister or the deputy minister.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister. He is the one who takes the responsibility.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, they would be signed by the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand that so far these orders and directives do not have the force of law?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right, and they do not have to be obeyed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The department and the minister feel that they should be made obligatory by order in council?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I notice it is suggested that the penalty for infractions of these regulations be increased from $1,000 to $5,000. Is that because there has been too much disregard of some of these orders and regulations?


Lionel Chevrier: There are two reasons for increasing the penalty. First, it was thought that the penalties for infractions of sections under part I of the act should be the same as the penalties for infractions under part II. Another reason is that there have been some infractions, although I cannot say that they have been numerous, and it was thought desirable to have a higher penalty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister any information as to the number of infractions and what class of operator has been most guilty?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not that at hand, but I can get it.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that this is moving in a very dangerous direction. The minister has said that there are hundreds of directives. If they are to be issued in this easy way then several results will follow. One will be that practically everything will be done by directive. There will be no incentive to have regulations. It is so much easier simply to draw up an order and have the minister or deputy minister sign it, and that will be the normal course followed. I suggest it will mean a good many more directives than there would be if some restriction were placed on the power to issue orders of this kind.
Surely there should not be the same penalty for breach of a directive as there is for breach of a regulation. For example, if the section is passed in its present form, a person can be given the same punishment for breaking one of these ministerial directives as
55946-180i
Aeronautics Act
he would receive for operating a forty-passenger plane without a commercial licence. The penalty is exactly the same. In the standing committee we asked general counsel for the department whether or not it was the intention that there should be prosecutions under these directives. At page 262 of the proceedings of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, he said:
I think that would have to depend on the regulations themselves. And if the regulation said that certain directives of the minister had to be complied with, then I would think that non-compliance with the directives would involve a breach of the regulations which would result in a possible prosecution. It might come back to the regulations themselves and be treated as a breach of regulations.


Major James William Coldwell: That would have to be decided by the court, and would the court not take into consideration how serious the breach was?


Lionel Chevrier: Just as in any other summary procedure.


Howard Charles Green: If parliament passes this
section it will be making a breach of the directives as serious a matter as a breach of the regulations, and crown counsel will be within his rights to argue that before the judge. I suggest that the penalty for a breach of these directives should be different from the penalty for a breach of the regulations. For example, the minister already has power under the act to suspend a licence. If he finds any flier or firm committing a breach of the terms of a directive then he can meet that situation by suspending the licence. In fact that would probably be just as effective as if court action were taken. It is going very far for parliament to say that it will give the minister the authority to issue an order, a breach of which carries exactly the same penalty as a breach of the regulations which must be approved not by one minister or one deputy minister but by cabinet. Regulations have the judgment of other members of the cabinet, are then duly published, and people all over the country have some chance to know that there is such a regulation in force.
I do not think there can be any justification for putting a ministerial directive on the same basis as a regulation passed by order in council. If the amendment is passed in its present form that is exactly what parliament is doing.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member suggests that perhaps we would be better off by suspending the licence. I think we would be far worse off if we were to suspend the licence. We have given this matter very careful consideration. I can imagine what would happen if, because of a breach of these orders, the licence was suspended.

Aeronautics Act
Immediately there would be a great cry, "We did not get a chance to defend ourselves before the licence was taken from us". When there are automobile accidents on highways drivers' licences are not suspended without other things being done first. First of all a charge of criminal negligence, speeding or something else, is laid in a police court. If the magistrate so wishes he may, over and above fining the individual or imposing a prison term, suspend his licence. We can also do that, but I think it would be a mistake to suspend the licence without other action being first taken. It would be going much further than we would sometimes wish to go.
The other point raised was as to placing a directive, so far as fine or imprisonment is concerned, on the same basis as a regulation. The fact is that some of the orders and directives made under order in council are far more important, and the breach thereof is far more serious, than some of the regulations made under order in council. That is the reason why it has been found necessary to do this, and it seems to me. that it is the proper thing to do under the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the minister with some interest when he said that the same provision was in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and in the Customs Act. Would he mention the sections of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Customs Act to which he made reference, and would he also read in full the sections to which he refers?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not have them before
me but I am informed, so that there will be no doubt about my sincerity of purpose-


John George Diefenbaker: I know that.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed by the
Department of Justice that similar provisions are contained in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and other statutes whereby orders and directives are made under authorized regulations. I cannot point to the section but if I got the act I presume I could. I am informed on good authority that such is the case.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says that it takes from four days to two weeks to pass an order in council. I think that is rather longer than it takes.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member wants to put words in my mouth.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Lionel Chevrier: If I said that, perhaps I did not use the correct language. It does not take from four days to two weeks to pass an order in council. It takes a very short time to pass an order in council, but it takes from four days to two weeks before an order in council can be considered. It has to be prepared, it has to be brought before the subcommittee of cabinet dealing with it. There might not be time at the particular meeting dealing with orders in council to consider all of them, and it is held over for another meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the average number dealt with per day?


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a question of per day; it is a question of per meeting. It might be 5,000. I am advised on some occasions there have been as many as 5,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is even worse than I thought it was. Certainly it shows the extent to which orders in council, including of course treasury orders, are passed. I have been trying to help the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say that my reference was to 5,000 a year.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course it is a great many more than 5,000 a year. As a matter of fact it must run to five times 5,000 at the very least. I have not the latest figures but I am very much interested in the rather easy manner in which the minister brushes aside all objections raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. He gave certain examples where haste was necessary. One example was low flying. Surely that must be an offence now under the regulations. That example did not appeal as a basis for having laws made by officials of the department. This looks like a short cut suggested by officials in order to get things done without having laws made, either by order in council or through parliament.
To say that the penalty is the same in a directive as in a regulation constitutes a serious derogation of legislative authority. It means that two or three officials of the department can simply make out such a directive as appeals to them at the moment, hand it to the minister and say, "We need action on this immediately." This is not going to apply retroactively; therefore I see no reason for this haste. This is not done in the United Kingdom. Only the other day I was reading a debate that took place in the House of Lords, and this is one thing that is simply not done. Within the last ten days, speaking in the House of Lords, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood used these words:
The growing power of the cabinet is a danger to the democratic constitution of the country.

He was referring to the power of the cabinet to issue orders in council. This amendment places authority over the liberty of the subject in the hands of officials, who may decide that they are in a rush for action and issue a directive to meet their own desires thus penalizing the individual. Viscount Simon dealt with the matter also, and used these words:
The rule of law has largely ceased to protect citizens of this country over a wide range of rights and liabilities.
That is just what these orders and directives would do. This amendment will give an official in this department power to say to one person, "I issue a directive making it an offence in your case punishable by a heavy fine, whereas it does not apply to another person." This denies the rule of law and equality as between individuals, and I am surprised that the minister presses this amendment so assiduously. After all, he has tremendous powers under section 4, providing for almost every eventuality, certainly everything contemplated by the minister at the time the act was passed. There would be no abnegation of authority if the minister were to withdraw this amendment. When I first heard my hon. friend and colleague dealing with the matter I could not conceive that the minister had gone so far. Surely this power is not needed. He mentioned as an example the frost going out in Gander airport. Well, I would imagine the frost goes out there at about the same time each year. That may be an unusual case, but surely one unusual case does not justify parliament absolutely abdicating its legislative authority and putting in the hands of one official power over the liberty of the subject. This.is a request on the part of the minister to put officialdom in a position where, if they see something wrong, even if it is but a peccadillo, they may decide to issue a directive and impose punishment by means of a fine not exceeding $5,000 or one year in jail.
Punishment like that should not be within the discretion of an official in the department. Coming back to my main objection, apart from those raised by my hon. friend, this places the minister or his officials in a position where they can discriminate, where they can continue to deny the application of the rule of law, where they can pass laws to meet peculiar situations and make individuals liable to the penalties set out. I suggest to the minister that, in the interests of the preservation of the rights of the individual against unjust or tyrannical directives, this amendment should be withdrawn.
Aeronautics Act
As a matter of fact it is interesting to note that in the explanations the reason for asking for this amendment is this:
To provide for proper enforcement of detailed safety procedures requiring frequent change . . .
In other words we may have one law today and another tomorrow, not based upon the considered judgment of the minister but upon the caprice of the moment. Tremendous improvements have been made within the last two years in this country in connection with order in council government. The Prime Minister has gone so far as to have orders in council regularly tabled, and legislation now before parliament will increase the opportunity of the individual to ascertain what is the law. Having this in mind, this section is actually a retrograde step. Such authority should not be in the hands of officials who at a given moment may be antagonized by the attitude of one person and who, without intending to do so, still have power to discriminate.
Knowing the minister as I do I feel sure that on reconsideration he will withdraw this amendment. He has very wide powers already under section 4. This amendment will simply give him and his officials carte blanche to do as they please in individual cases, regardless of what may be the application of the law in general cases.


Major James William Coldwell: If the hon. member for Lake Centre is right of course this amendment would be wholly bad. But is it true to say that a directive may be issued discriminating against one individual, more or less at the caprice of some official? Is it not a fact, or am I wrong, that an order or directive so issued would have general application, and not application to only a particular individual at a particular time?


Lionel Chevrier: If I may answer that question now, it would have general application. It would be issued as a circular to the pilot, the owner and the operator.


Major James William Coldwell: A little earlier the matter of low flying was mentioned, and no doubt other orders and directives of a similar nature have been issued. I can see that it might happen that such orders or directives must be issued within a few hours, if there is an emergency; but when that happens should they not be subsequently issued as regulations, with the authority of an order in council, if as the minister says they are sufficiently important that they should have general application? It seems to me that while there may be occasions when something unforeseen may happen and it is necessary to issue an immediate order or directive, that immediate order or directive issued

Aeronautics Act
because of the necessity of the moment should, if it is to have general application thereafter, be the subject of a regulation issued in the usual way by order in council and published. As I said earlier when I first drew attention to this, to my mind the section is worded in such a way that it is difficult to understand just what the implication is, because it speaks of the violation of the provisions of a regulation, not an order or directive. There is confusion, I believe, in the manner in which it is worded.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member suggests that in important instances, such as those that were mentioned earlier in the discussion, the orders and directives should be tabled or made the subject of a regulation at a later date. I can see some merit in that, and I would not have any objection, if it were the wish of the committee, that all orders and directives be tabled so that the house would know what was in them.


Major James William Coldwell: That was not my only point. If they are of general interest, then it seems to me they should cease to be mere orders and directives, and should become regulations in the same sense as other regulations, with the authority of the government through order in council. That is the point I am making; not necessarily tabling them but converting them, if they are of general importance, into proper regulations with the authority of order in council.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the minister is not going to do anything about changing this section, and that means the responsibility rests with him. As has been pointed out by other speakers, this section is not drafted properly. I think there are different ways in which it could be corrected, but the minister has not yet-


Major James William Coldwell: How does the hon. member suggest it should be remedied?


Howard Charles Green: The member for Rosetown-Biggar made one suggestion.


Lionel Chevrier: He suggested it should be withdrawn.


Howard Charles Green: The member for Rosetown-Biggar made one suggestion, that if there were need for regulations to be passed on short notice or for some action to be taken quickly, then a directive should be issued, and the directive should be made a regulation within a set period. Such a procedure would eliminate my main objection. There are different ways in which the evil in this proposed amendment could be dealt with. Another way would be to provide for a penalty which is not so severe.

In view of the fact the minister is not accepting any of these suggestions, and apparently wants to push this section through in its present form, I move, Mr. Chairman, that clause 6 of section 3 of the bill be deleted.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I gave earlier, and because of the discussion which took place in committee on this matter at some length, I would have to oppose the amendment of the member.


Solon Earl Low: Would the minister reconsider the whole situation in the light of what has been said this afternoon, and perhaps allow the section to stand?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I am not prepared to reconsider it because I was asked to do that when the bill was before the committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines. I gave the matter careful consideration, and came back and gave the reasons why I thought it was necessary that orders and directives be made.


Major James William Coldwell: Apparently the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra agrees with the suggestion I made, that if orders or directives have general application and are of sufficient importance, then they should be made regulations by order in council. It seems to me that if the minister agrees to that he removes the objection the member for Vancouver-Quadra has, and that I feel has some validity. I do not want, Mr. Chairman, to deny the minister the right, in an emergency, to issue an order or directive temporarily, so long as it is regularized afterwards, if it is of general application.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not deal with that point for the reason that, if that were consented to, then it would defeat the purpose of the amendment entirely. Who is going to decide how important these directives are? The hon. member may feel they were all important, and that being so orders in council by way of regulation would have to be passed to cover them all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One order in council could cover fifty directives. There is one point about the wording of these sections about which I am still not clear. I wish the minister would follow what I am trying to say, and I should also like the member for Lake Centre to follow it, to see if we can get this thing sorted out.
Subsection 2, starting at line 5 on page 3, says:
Any regulation made under subsection one may authorize the minister to make orders or directions . . .

Now, subsection 1 gives the governor in council the power to make regulations respecting air navigation. Subsection 3, starting at line 11 on page 3, says:
Every person who violates the provisions of a regulation is guilty of an offence . . .
Supposing a regulation is passed by order in council giving the minister power to make certain directives. If I violate that regulation, it is clear I am guilty of an offence, but when the minister, under that regulation, isues an order or directive and I violate that order or directive, have I violated the regulation?


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose that is a question of law, but certainly the order would have been violated. It is the object of this amendment to penalize, by way of a fine or imprisonment, a person who has violated an order made under the regulation.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: These regulations are for the protection of life and property. Since I have lived beside a large airport for a good many years, it occurs to me that these regulations cannot be too strict. Quick decisions must be made, and authority must be given to the men at these airports to act quickly. Many accidents are caused by people who wilfully disobey regulations with respect to landing at airports on the northwest staging route. Our friends from the United States are sinners in that regard. They come in their private planes, and very often neglect to obey simple regulations which are set down for the protection of life. Without going into a legal quibble about language, it would seem to me that the stronger these regulations are made, and the more authority you give for the protection of human life, the better it will be for everyone concerned.
This is not a matter of riding a bicycle on the street, or something of that sort. When a passenger plane, possibly carrying fifty passengers, comes in for a landing, and there are some small craft flying about, and not obeying the regulations, somebody has got to act quickly. The penalty should be increased rather than decreased.


Major James William Coldwell: We are not discussing the regulations, Mr. Chairman. This is a matter of an order or directive issued under a regulation. I hesitate to deny to the minister the power that is asked for, because I can see that in the interests of safety and so on it may be necessary to issue an order. I can see that immediately. But once an order is issued which has a general application and is found to be essential to the safety of the travelling public, I am wondering if that
Aeronautics Act
should not be regularized by order in council and made a regulation instead of an order or directive. That is the point that I have in mind, and just that one point. I do not feel that I would be justified in denying the power that is asked for, but I would like the safeguard.


Lionel Chevrier: Once again, Mr. Chairman,
in answer to that I cannot say any more than I have already said.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the minister understands what I mean.


Lionel Chevrier: I fully understand, and I appreciate the point. I think that is the only point that has been made in the discussion, and it has been made by more than one member; that is the point as to the section making the same penalty applicable to violators of the order or directive as is applicable to violators of the regulation. It may well be that there should be a difference between the penalties in those two cases. After having listened to the points that were made, I think perhaps there is something in the argument. But I think it would be a mistake to wipe out the whole clause. My hon. friend shakes his head. I know that he is not asking for that and neither did the leader of the Social Credit party ask for that; but that has been asked for-


Howard Charles Green: I said if you are willing to amend it that will be perfectly all right.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me go on. After listening to the discussion I think perhaps there is a reason for differentiating between violation of a regulation and violation of a directive or order, by way of a variation in the punishment and penalty; and I would be prepared to accept an amendment. In fact, I am prepared to move one which would leave the penalty for the infraction of the order or regulation as it is now, and is as follows:
Amend subclause (7) of clause 3 of Bill 153 by adding the following as subsection (4):
4. Every person who violates an order or direction of the minister made under a regulation is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both fine and imprisonment.
I would ask my colleague to make this motion accordingly.


Brooke Claxton: I move accordingly.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to withdraw his own amendment, in view of the amendment suggested by the minister?


Howard Charles Green: Even at that, I am much against this business of issuing directives. I would,

Aeronautics Act
however, be willing to withdraw my amendment, provided that this amendment to the next clause is put forward by the government.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes. The Minister of National Defence moves accordingly.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Green) withdrawn.
Amendment (Mr. Claxton) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Regulations.


Howard Charles Green: I wonder if we could call it six o'clock and let this section be taken up after the supper recess?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-René Beaudoin: The house in committee on Bill No. 153.


James Arthur Ross: On a matter of privilege, I did not check very closely the Hansard report of my speech yesterday, and at page 2808, in the 16th line, it reads, "As I listened to him over the air." It should read, "As I listened to the report over the air."
I, along with others, did hear this news report over a Winnipeg station the morning of May 18, attributing to the mayor of Winnipeg the statement charging the premier of Manitoba with criminal neglect.
Also in this afternoon's Ottawa Journal is the report of a denial by Mayor Garnet Coulter. I should like to read it:
Mayor Garnet Coulter last night denied "very firmly that he had ever accused Premier Douglas Campbell of maladministration in the Manitoba flood crisis.
He was replying to a statement made in the House of Commons by J. A. Ross (P.C.-Souris). Mr. Ross said he had heard the Winnipeg mayor charge in a radio broadcast that the premier had been "guilty of criminal negligence" in his handling of the situation.
"In one of the meetings of the city's flood-control committee," Mayor Coulter said, "there was somewhat harsh criticism of Premier Campbell, but not by me.
"It is possible that some such expression (as that referred to by Mr. Ross) was used."
I checked the Winnipeg Tribune of May 17, and found that the deputy mayor, Alderman C. E. Simonite, is reported on the front page, in heavy type, as having made that statement.

I accept the denial of Mayor Garnet Coulter, and I wish to apologize and make amends to him.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We were discussing section 6.


Howard Charles Green: What change is there in this section with regard to tolls?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend, I understand, is dealing with section 6(g). The only change in section 6(g) is the addition of the word "toll" after the word "tariff." This is a change in phraseology. It was felt that because the word "toll" covered a wider field than "tariff" it should be inserted. It is also felt that a tariff is a document including charges filed with the board, whereas a toll is a specific charge.


Howard Charles Green: I had reference more particularly to the new paragraph (gg).


Lionel Chevrier: This change is for the same reason as those in sections 2(4) and 4(1). It is to give to the board jurisdiction over tolls outside the territorial jurisdiction of Canada. I think the note opposite section 2(4) would give an exact explanation of this amendment. As the act stands today there is no jurisdiction to cover tolls outside Canada, and because of commitments made by ICAO it is felt there should be jurisdiction in that respect.


Howard Charles Green: There is a provision being written into section 12 of the act the effect of which would be to give the board power to exempt international routes. If they are exempt from the control of the board, then why does the board retain any jurisdiction over the tolls?


Lionel Chevrier: May we discuss that when we reach section 12; we are still on section 6. That discussion would be more applicable under section 7. Could we have section 6 passed?


Howard Charles Green: No; this paragraph (gg) apparently gives power with respect to tolls on international routes. Yet, as I understand it, the board is going to divest itself of any control over international routes.


Lionel Chevrier: No, not as to tolls or tariffs; but it may grant a licence under section 12, for public convenience and necessity.


Howard Charles Green: It will be in a position of having some control over tolls and tariffs, whereas it may not have over the routes flown?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, full economic control over tolls, but not over routes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 7-Exception.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Section 7 in this bill is the one which makes whatever changes are proposed in section 12 of the act. So far as I can determine, no change has been made in any prior amending act and no change is now contemplated with respect to section 12(2). Is it because section 12(2) stands?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that that underlines the farce of this whole business. Let me read section 12(2)-and I do that because we are now dealing with section 12:
No such licence shall be issued in respect of a commercial air service, owned, leased, controlled or operated by any person who is engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward by means other than aircraft unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
That section did not appear in the Aeronautics Act until after the policy announced by the then minister of munitions and supply in 1944 to the effect that, commencing one year after the end of the war in Europe, railway and surface transportation companies would no longer be entitled to operate air lines. To get the full effect of it one has to look at section 14; however, we shall come to that later.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask my hon. friend this question. He is the expert on the rules of the house, for his party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just ask the question.


Lionel Chevrier: Section 12(2) is not being amended in any way and is not before the committee. Therefore I do not think it can be discussed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the amending of section 12 of the act is now before the committee, and I submit it is in order to discuss the section being amended.


Lionel Chevrier: It is in order to discuss the subsection being amended. There are eleven or twelve subsections in section 12. At the moment we are dealing with subsection 3A, which is being amended. We are not dealing with subsection 2, because it is not being touched. Therefore I do not think it can be discussed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when the minister tries to stop me from discussing this matter now I would tell him that I can come back to it when we get to the section which seeks the repeal of sections 13 and 14. I would remind the minister that, in part, they deal with the same question. Since it is his intention later on to repeal section 14, why does he not at the same time repeal section 12(2)? To leave on the statute books a subsection that says no surface trans-55946-181
Aeronautics Act
portation company is to operate an air line, except under the most exceptional circumstances, is surely making a joke of statute law. That represents the policy as announced by the minister of munitions and supply in 1944. However, that has been changed, and it has not been carried out at all. Why does that subsection stay on the statute books?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the section carry?


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to answer the question?


Lionel Chevrier: The matter is not before the committee, but since it has been raised earlier by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, perhaps I could say a word about it-although the discussion is entirely out of order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the discussion is out of order I cannot permit it. Let us settle this question. If it is in order, let us have it; but if it is not in order, I cannot permit it.


Gordon Graydon: The committee could give consent.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It we have unanimous consent we can discuss matters which are not now before the committee. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We do not have unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, I think you should consider this matter carefully. This clause in the bill before us amends several parts of section 12 of the act. There is a certain relationship between them. I submit that for the Minister of Transport to hide behind the contention he is putting forward now is simply not being fair with; the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to allow the hon. member to say that I am hiding behind anything. The hon. member should not use that expression as he knows better than that. I am not trying to hide behind anything. It was raised before and I am willing to deal with it now, but I do not want to be faced now, and again when my estimates are up later, with the statement that I consented to a discussion of a matter than was out of order. If there is going to be a twenty or thirty minute debate on a subject that is not even before the committee, then it is only with the consent of the committee I shall speak now. However, it would be on the distinct understanding that we do not get into a lengthy debate and that I will not be told that this having been out of order anybody else can bring up other matters and perhaps have an

Aeronautics Act
extended debate on them. If the committee feels that the matter should be dealt with I am ready to consider it. I was starting out to say a moment ago that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raised this question originally on second reading and then again in the committee. There is some reference to it in the evidence. I do not see anything abnormal about subsection 2 as it now stands. If my hon. friend places a different interpretation upon it than I do then perhaps he and I have not the same view of the meaning of words.
This subsection reads:
No such licence shall be issued ill respect of a commercial air service, owned, leased, controlled or operated by any person who is engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward by means other than aircraft unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
As has already been placed on Hansard, the meaning of that subsection is that no licence shall be issued to a surface carrier, a trucking company or a shipping company unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued. There has been a departure from that statutory prescription by means of government policy announced, I think, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and perhaps by the Prime Minister, which permitted both the T.C.A. and the C.P.A., as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said this afternoon, ostensibly to operate in the face of that subsection. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra argued that as this subsection serves no useful purpose it should be taken out altogether. I said to him in committee that I would consider it. I told him at the time that I had no views one way or another but I was anxious to hear the views of others. Certain views were expressed in committee.
Since that time I have been able to discuss the matter with some of my colleagues. There was not a complete discussion at a meeting of cabinet because I have not had that opportunity, but I have spoken to some of my colleagues and the feeling is that the section should remain as it is because no harm is done. Since there has been a derogation from the general policy, the words "unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued" justify what has been done under government policy. The feeling was that because of that the subsection should remain as it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would this subsection ever have been put into the act if it had not been for the policy of the government as announced in 1944 that surface transportation companies were not to continue to operate air lines?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot answer that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister-


Lionel Chevrier: I would not know that. I would not be able to answer that because I had absolutely nothing to do with the drafting of the original act. Therefore I am not able to give my hon. friend an answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was a member of parliament, as I and others were, in 1944 when the whole question was before the house. It was certainly crystal clear then that the purpose of this subsection was to implement that policy of the government. I think'it is clear to anyone who looks at it. There cannot just be the casual interpretation that the minister places on the subsection. It was put in the act clearly for the purpose of implementing the policy as announced by the government at that time. Although I have not Hansard of that long debate before me at this moment I am sure that when that subsection was being discussed the minister of munitions and supply made it clear that that was in the act for the purpose of implementing that policy. In 1947 I asked the minister how the surface transportation companies were to be permitted to operate air lines beyond a year after the end of the war in Europe, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce told me that that was done by cancelling all the licences of these companies-there were fifty-three-and reissuing them under the terms of section 12, subsection 2.
I contend that that escape clause in subsection 2 is at variance with the purpose of the section in the original act. If the government has changed its policy, if it is no longer the intention of the government to deny to surface transportation companies the right to operate air lines, they should not leave this now meaningless subsection in the statute.


Howard Charles Green: Does not the minister think that having extra restrictions of this kind in the act may prevent transportation companies from entering the field of civil aviation? With that restriction in the act a company operating busses or a shipping company might not even consider establishing an air line. I am wondering whether it would not be wise to take the subsection out of the act unless it is government policy that there shall be extra restrictions in effect against any company in the transportation business.
If that is the policy of the government then I can see the value of this subsection, but the actions of the last two or three years would indicate that that is no longer the policy. Such being the case it does seem unwise to have a restrictive provision of this kind which certainly is not an inducement to transportation companies to enter the air business.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend asks if I do not think it is a deterrent. I do not think it is, any more than it was in the case of the subsidiaries of the railway companies, the T.C.A. and the C.P.A. A trucking company would more likely be interested in that field of transportation than a shipping company, and if it felt that it would like to operate an air service I think there is an "out" provided by the last part of the subsection which states:
-unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
I do not think that is a deterrent.


Howard Charles Green: Is it clear that government policy is to treat all applicants on the same basis whether or not they are transport companies?


Lionel Chevrier: I would think so.


Howard Charles Green: There are a couple of other questions I should like to ask about this section. The first has to do with the new 3A. Under that section the board can now exempt any scheduled commercial air service from its jurisdiction unless that air service operates wholly within Canada. When the bill was explained in the other place it was pointed out that the main purpose of this change was to make the provision such that international routes could be exempted from control by the board. That would appear to be the main purpose of the section. Apparently from now on the air transport board is to exercise no jurisdiction over international scheduled air routes. I should like the minister to explain why that step is being taken, and why the board is being deprived of this jurisdiction.


Lionel Chevrier: Because of international
agreement, because of bilateral agreement.


Howard Charles Green: Even though there is a bilateral agreement is it not necessary for somebody to check such routes and approve of them? I do not understand why the power to conduct such a check should be taken away.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not taken -away. The board still has the same duties and responsibilities with reference to air routes as they had before. I thought that had been explained by the chairman of the board in the standing committee. My understanding of the section is that all it does is to permit the board to exempt international air carriers from public convenience and necessity. They are still subject to the control of the board in so far as rates are concerned, and I presume the rates will be those which have been approved by international agreement.
55946-181^
Aeronautics Act


Howard Charles Green: But the routes will not be subject to any control by the board?


Lionel Chevrier: The routes will still be
subject to control. The only change that is being made is that it will no longer be necessary to consider public convenience and necessity in granting a licence for that sort of international route.


Howard Charles Green: The new subsection 5 is the one which gives power to the board to issue licences, and so on. Of course that is subject to the first subsection of section 12 of the act Which reads:
Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may issue to any person applying therefor a licence to operate a commercial air service.
The point I tried to make this afternoon was that a decision of the board in favour of granting an application should not be subject to veto by the minister. Is there any intention on the part of the government-


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, I cannot follow the hon. gentleman. Is he dealing with 12(5)?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Of course that is subject to the first subsection of section 12 reading:
Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may issue to any person applying therefor a licence to operate a commercial air service.
Therefore at the present time the board cannot issue a licence without having it approved by the minister. As I pointed out this afternoon, that takes away from the board any semblance of freedom in making decisions. Is there no intention on the part of the government to give the board full power to grant or reject licences, subject of course to an appeal? It seems ridiculous that when hundreds of applications for licences are being granted each one of them must be dealt with by the minister. I cannot understand why the board is not given that judicial power without a veto by the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the trend of thought of my hon. friend but if he will just look at 12(5) he will see it deals with an entirely different matter. Subsection 1 of section 12 states that the board with the approval of the minister may issue to any person applying therefor a licence to operate a commercial air service; but, under subsection 5 of section 12, in issuing any licence the board shall prescribe the routes, et cetera, as mentioned there. The amendment simply states:
In issuing any licence, the board may prescribe the routes which may be followed or the areas to be served and may attach to the licence such conditions as the board may consider necessary or desirable in the public interest, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the board may impose conditions respecting schedules, places of

Aeronautics Act
call, carriage oi passengers and freight, insurance, and, subject to the Post Office Act, the carriage of mail.
The amendment is introduced to change the accent to public interest rather than efficient operation. The board looked before to efficient operation, and now the accent is on public interest because there are a number of matters that have come to the attention of the board and the department that cannot be dealt with since they fall under another jurisdiction. The board feels that it may well be able to enter into certain negotiations with these other jurisdictions and in the public interest prescribe in the licences certain terms and conditions which will be of use.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the words "necessary or desirable in the public interest" are the same words which are found in the act setting up the board of transport commissioners. Looking at them as they appear in subsection 5, one would think that the air transport board is to be given power to decide on each application on the basis of whether or not it is in the public interest that the application should be granted. What I am complaining about is that behind all that there is still subsection 1 of the same-section which says that the board cannot issue any licence without the approval of the minister. I ask the minister whether there is no plan in the minds of the cabinet to do away with approval by the minister of each licence. It seems very unwise. The minister cannot possibly have all the facts because there are so many licences being granted. In addition the minister's power of veto cuts down the prestige and authority of the air transport board quite unnecessarily.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought I covered that point this afternoon when my hon. friend brought it up. All I can do is to repeat what I said then, namely, that there is a distinction to be made between the board of transport commissioners and the air transport board, between air carriers in Canada and air carriers in the United States. In the United States air carriers are nearly all private. By that I mean under private enterprise. In Canada there is one large government-owned corporation.


Howard Charles Green: But it does not come under this board.


Lionel Chevrier: It does with reference to routes. The chairman of the air transport board explained in committee that with respect to the consideration of routes into new countries it does come under the board.


Howard Charles Green: Purely as an advisory body.


Lionel Chevrier: Otherwise, too. In Canada the largest operator is the government-owned T.C.A., and for that reason it is felt that if the board were an independent body, without having to refer to the minister for approval, it would not be in the best interests.


Howard Charles Green: Then one other question on this section, having to do with the new subsection 6, which provides for the issuing of licences to Trans-Canada Air Lines. That subsection reads:
The board shall upon application grant to Trans-Canada Air Lines a licence to operate a commercial air service under such terms and subject to such conditions as will enable Trans-Canada Air Lines to perform any agreement made, under sections fifteen or twenty-five of The Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937, between the Minister of Transport and Trans-Canada Air Lines or between the Minister of Transport and any corporation created under section twenty of the said act.
The committee has been told that the Minister of Transport is not in charge of Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is in charge of T.C.A.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Yet this section provides that the agreement is to be between the Minister of Transport and Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Or between the Minister of Transport and a corporation created by Trans-Canada Air Lines, which I believe has power to set up other companies such as the line across the Atlantic.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, subsidiary companies.


Howard Charles Green: Is that section not wrong? The minister said this afternoon he was the only minister concerned with the Aeronautics Act. Here we have a clear case where the Minister of Trade and Commerce is right in the picture, because he is the man running Trans-Canada Air Lines and he is the man making these contracts with Trans-Canada Air Lines. Why not say that in the section, instead of saying the Minister of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the section is quite clear, and I believe all the statements I made this afternoon concerning the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce are accurate. The Trans-Canada Air Lines Act clearly states that "minister" means the Minister of Transport. That is why the words used here are "Minister of Transport." As I stated earlier, by virtue of the transfer of duties act Trans-Canada Air Lines have been brought under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

Trade and Commerce. So for the purposes of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act the minister responsible is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The agreement referred to herein is an agreement entered into between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Trans-Canada. It could not be otherwise and make sense.


Gordon Graydon: When is the Minister of Transport not the Minister of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I will let the opposition answer that question.


Howard Charles Green: I do suggest that the minister recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the Minister of Trade and Commerce stick to selling wheat, because here is ridiculous phraseology. It refers to an agreement between the Minister of Transport and Trans-Canada Air Lines, yet the Minister of Transport has just admitted that the contract will not be between himself and Trans-Canada Air Lines at all but will be made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It really is an absurd position, which I believe the people of this country are entitled to have remedied.


Mr. Mclvor:: I do not see why we should raise any objection to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If he is given a job to do by the government he will do it in a straightforward, honest, businesslike way. We should offer no apology or criticism along that line.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Repeal.
Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No doubt some of those who are shouting "carried" will think I am going to continue beating a dead horse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just wait and see whom I beat before you say "hear, hear." It does seem to me we should not repeal these two sections of the Aeronautics Act without a brief review of their history. They relate to the same question I was discussing a few moments ago, on section 7, when I raised the question as to why subsection 2 was being left in section 12 of the act. Let me read sections 13 and 14, which are now being repealed:
13.	The board shall review all licences respecting commercial air services issued under part III of The Transport Act, 1938, or under part VII of The Air Regulations, 1938, prior to and in force at the time of the coming into force of this part and may cancel or suspend any such licence as it sees fit.
14.	Every licence issued under part III of The Transport Act, 1938, or under part VII of the Air Regulations, 1938, prior to and in force at the
Aeronautics Act
time of the coming into force of this part shall be deemed to be a licence issued under section twelve of this act, but every such licence, if not cancelled or suspended by the board under section thirteen of this act, shall cease to be valid one year after termination, as fixed by order in council, of the war in Europe which commenced on the tenth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine.
I know we had an extended debate about the policy involved in section 14 when it was brought before us in 1944. I know that policy has been changed, that it has gone by the board; and I will admit that if the policy has gone by the board it is just as well to have it taken off the statute books. That was why I thought subsection 2 should go out of section 12 as well.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite these shouts of "carried" I want to protest as strongly as I can against the use of parliament and of statutes in this way. When section 14 was finally passed by parliament in 1944 we thought it meant what it said; that within one year after the end of the war in Europe, the date of that end to be determined by order in council, companies operating surface transportation systems would have to divest themselves of the ownership of air lines. When time went by and this was not done I asked the present Minister of Trade and Commerce about it. My questions can be found in Hansard for August 17, 1946. It will be remembered that the war in Europe ended in May, 1945, so more than a year had elapsed when I asked those questions. I asked the minister what had happened to this policy and why, since a year had elapsed, the railway companies were still operating their air lines. This was the minister's reply, at page 5002 of Hansard for that year:


Mr. Howe:: My hon. friend has given a correct
statement of the policy announced by the government in 1944. At the time I made the announcement I was very sure I was right. A good1 section of the house was very sure I was wrong, but that gave me no pause whatsoever. At that time the public was not getting the service to which I believed it was entitled, and I think the public in that area believed it too. Certainly the relations between the government and Canadian Pacific Air Lines were far from satisfactory, and there was no doubt at that time that the non-competitive position of Trans-Canada Air Lines was being challenged.
Legislation was passed, and the present technical position is that the mandatory date, which would be May, 1946, has been advanced one year under the Emergency Powers Act.


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


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

Aeronautics Act


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


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I never heard of that one.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was flying in your planes.
Those last references were to the fact that I was overseas at the time attending the sessions of the United Nations. As I thought that over, I was horrified at the implication that a clear-cut provision in this section 14 had been changed, so the minister said, by an order in council passed under the emergency powers act. I went to my office later, and I studied the act itself. I could see no provision in it for changing a section by order in council. I proceeded, therefore, to try to find that order in council. I had no success, so a few days later, on August 20 to be exact, I put a question to the minister of reconstruction, which appears on page 5077 of Hansard. It reads as follows:


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply with reference to an order in council to which he referred in the course of the debate on August 17. He indicated at that time that an order in council had been passed advancing the effective date contained in section 14 of the act to amend the Aeronautics Act. I have endeavoured to get a copy of the order in council from the privy council office, but they do not seem to be aware of the order to which the minister refers. Will he indicate the number and date of the order in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My legal department calls my attention to
the fact that there was no order in council.
In effect, he admitted that his statement of a few days before, that it was done by order in council, was in error. There are a few humorous interjections, and then I continue:


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was a cabinet decision arrived at on February 16 last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The cabinet decision was taken under what section of the act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the authority of the government. This was the decision:
At this point the present Minister of Trade and Commerce pulled a slip of paper out of his pocket, and read this:
The cabinet, after discussion, agreed that the time limit for separation of control of air services from that of railways be extended for another year, i.e., until two years after the end of the European war.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a question of privilege. The section of the act says that it must be done by the governor in council. There was no order in council, and therefore I suggest that the act has been violated.


Mr. MacKenzie:: It does not have to be under an order in council: the government decides in council.


Major James William Coldwell: Without the authority of parliament? May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction or the leader of the house, if either of these gentlemen means to imply that the government has authority to do what is not authorized by this house or by statute?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The government of the Dominion of Canada is a responsible body, responsible to parliament and responsible by answering questions on the floor of the house, and whether there is an order in council or not the government can take action and answer to parliament accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I indicated that later in the same session, on August 26, the present Prime Minister, who was then minister of justice, and I had an amicable discussion about this whole matter. He agreed that there had been some mistake, and it was quite clear that statutes could not be changed by order in council, or by a minute of cabinet or anything of that nature. What this whole business spells out clearly is a feeling on the part-I should not blame the present Minister of Transport, because he was not involved in this at all-of the right hon. gentleman who was the minister in charge of these matters at that time, that statutes are something to be passed when you need them for the convenience of the government; but they are something to be ignored, to be changed by order in council or by a minute of cabinet, when it is felt the government wants to change its policy.
It was a year later before I was able to get the information that the whole business was regularized, in the eyes of the government at any rate, by allowing all the licences then in effect, as provided in sections 13 and 14, to expire, and by reissuing the whole lot under the escape clause* in section 12, subsection 2. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that even though some might think this is flogging a dead horse now that the incident is all over, the government should be told again that this kind of irresponsible action, this sort of playing with statute law, is simply not good enough under our parliamentary system. It reminds me of our fight over the tabling of the McGregor report, and other instances of the government ignoring the law. Although the present minister is not involved in this-it was another minister who is not here-it does seem that this section 8 which wipes out the whole business should not be passed without the government being reminded that there is still such a thing as governmental responsibility to parliament, and there is still such a thing as the government being obligated to obey the laws that are placed upon the statute books.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Prosecution within twelve months.
Howard Charles Green: Section 10 contains an amendment to part III of the Aeronautics Act, and that is the part which provides for the

Supply-Transport
aeronautics all day, and the board is here. It is a small item, and it would obviate the necessity of having the officers come back again if the committee would be agreeable to that. We might pass that item and then go on to the one at which we left off the other evening.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Air transport board-i
523. Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $229,335.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the increase in this item? .


Lionel Chevrier: The main reason for the increase is the transfer of certain officials of the Canadian government who were being paid by the Department of External Affairs heretofore and who are now paid by the Department of Transport through vote 523.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister now the answers to the questions I asked him this afternoon about infractions of air regulations?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There are twenty-two persons or companies which were prosecuted in the last two and a half years and charged with thirty-six offences. The fines ranged from a minimum of $10 or ten days to a maximum of $2,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say what classes of operations were involved? Was Trans-Canada Air Lines or Canadian Pacific Air Lines involved?


Lionel Chevrier: No, not that class; mostly all small carriers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the nature of the violations?


Lionel Chevrier: Mostly operation of the
service without a valid commercial certificate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as the big companies are concerned, they do not cause any trouble at all?


Lionel Chevrier: Their record is clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
467. Nautical service administration, $194,262.
Howard Charles Green: This item was under discussion when the estimates were last up for consideration and it has to do with the nautical service administration. I wish to deal with it this evening because it includes a vote for the rehabilitation of merchant seamen. As you will remember, Mr. Chairman, we were on that particular subject on the previous occasion.

I cannot understand why these Canadian merchant navy veterans should be treated as though they did not serve honourably in the war; because in effect that is exactly what their treatment amounts to. One would think they took no part whatever in the victory in the recent war. It is true we find in this particular vote that there is the amount of $4,000 for campaign stars and $6,000 for war medals. It seems strange that while they get this recognition, while they can get medals from the Department of Transport, they cannot get the benefits which go to the men in the other fighting forces. Let us take, for example, the case of a young lad who contracted tuberculosis while serving in the merchant navy. He cannot get a pension. I have one case in my files here in which it was admitted by the pension commission that the disease arose out of service but-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would assist me. I see that in this vote 467 there is reference to vocational training, campaign stars and war medals, but I do not see how the hon. member can speak about the veterans of the merchant navy not getting pensions.


Howard Charles Green: I am going to point out, Mr. Chairman, that even in vocational training, they are not getting the same benefits as the other veterans can get; and I think it is in order to indicate to the committee and to the country that these men are not treated in the same way as the veterans of the other forces. As I was saying, it is almost impossible for them to qualify for pension. They cannot get-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. When the hon. member refers to pensions, and the qualifications these men may have, I suggest he is discussing a subject which might more properly be discussed when the estimates of the Minister of Veterans Affairs are before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: But not on these estimates, where the vote is for nautical service administration. He might make reference to vocational training and war medals as they affect merchant seamen.


Howard Charles Green: It goes further than that. The Department of Transport is the only department that can do anything for these men. They are the charge of that department. Even the vocational training cannot be given by the Department of Veterans Affairs unless the Department of Transport has first ruled that they are eligible.

publication of regulations as well as for laying them before parliament. This afternoon the minister agreed to an amendment with regard to directives which are to be issued by him, as distinct from regulations passed by order in council. I believe there should be some provision written into the act for the publication and filing of those directives. I presume such a section would have to be placed in part III of the act. I would ask the minister whether he has given any consideration to that, and if so whether he would be willing to provide for such notice being given of those directives. In fact, I believe it is really more important that there be some publication of these directives, because otherwise nobody is going to know what they are. Take the house, for example. Hon. members will have no way of knowing what directives have been issued; I do suggest that they should at least be filed in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: There are two considerations that enter into the picture here. First, I presume my hon. friend is also dealing with the report. He made some query about a report by the board.


Howard Charles Green: I asked if an annual report could be made by the board.


Lionel Chevrier: There are some difficulties in the way of preparing an annual report because of staff considerations and the like, but the board is now drafting one which I think should be tabled in due course. The last report was prepared in 1948, and since then none has been made. The board is of the opinion such a report should be written, in fact it is in hand now. In due course, that report will be tabled.
I did say this afternoon that these orders and directives might well be tabled. I have no objection to that. In fact, I think I could give the undertaking now that they would be tabled. But I do not think it is necessary to include a clause in the act covering that. I think there are other instances where documents are tabled on an understanding and the commitment given by the minister. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I now say that I will table the orders and directives under the section about which there was so much discussion this afternoon, and an annual report will be prepared in due course.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.	.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.
Aeronautics Act


Some hon. Members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Next sitting of the house. I understand that the second reading of this bill took place long ago, but it has only been reported today.


Alphonse Fournier: Under standing order 73, I think we are entitled to have third reading tonight. There is no amendment to the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes, there is.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, that is right; there was one.


Howard Charles Green: You had better sit down.


Alphonse Fournier: We have spent three days on this discussion. I would appeal to the house that we be allowed to get third reading of this bill tonight, unless there is some extraordinarily good reason to the contrary.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has already signified his willingness to have third reading tomorrow. There has been an amendment to the bill. I do not suppose there will be any discussion tomorrow, but something might crop up in the meantime. I do not know why the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) should try-


Alphonse Fournier: You cannot always have your own way.	.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know why the Minister of Public Works should be trying to get third reading through tonight.


Alphonse Fournier: You would if you ever tried to lead the house.


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: Is there any
purpose in not giving it third reading tonight?


Howard Charles Green: If some of these backbenchers would get up and say what they have to say, we could deal with them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Next sitting of the house.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee would consent to my calling item No. 523, because it has to do with the air transport .board. We have been discussing

Supply-Transport
it, no matter what their age may be. Actually it is very difficult for men who have followed the sea to obtain other work, particularly if they are forty years of age, or so. To give them vocational training would be a great help.
Then, another way in which the restrictions are too severe is that an applicant apparently must have signed a contract with a manning pool. I am told that in many cases young men were not allowed to sign manning pool contracts. If a young lad of seventeen or eighteen went into the merchant navy they would not sign him, because of his age. Yet now he finds that he cannot qualify for training because he did not sign a manning pool contract. Under the present regulations also he must prove that he was eligible for the special bonus which was paid to the men of the merchant navy. In some cases men served on Canadian ships who were not signed up under contract or who for one reason or another did not get that bonus and so cannot qualify for the training. I do not understand why the department is so strict in laying down the rules. It would seem to me that if a man served on a Canadian ship and was honourably discharged he should be eligible for vocational training, particularly in view of the fact that he gets practically no other benefits.
There is another reason why something should be done. Within the last few months there has been a drastic reduction in the number of available jobs on Canadian ships as a result of the policy of transferring ships to British registry. Many hundreds of men were put out of work. In announcing the new shipping policy toward the end of the last session the Prime Minister said that the provisions for training would be extended in order to help men who were bound to lose their jobs when the Canadian ships were transferred. Yet the extension under the regulations has not been sufficient to meet these cases and I urge upon the minister that such step be taken now; that we throw open vocational training to any men who served on Canadian ships during the war.
This is having a direct effect, not only upon the present but upon the future Canadian merchant marine. We have always been a maritime people but we cannot hope to have a merchant marine if we do not treat these men properly. There are men in all the seaports of Canada who have had experience on Canadian ships and who feel they have not received a fair deal. In my opinion they are quite right; I think they have had shabby treatment. It may be because there are so few of them, it may be because they are to be found largely in the seaports, or it may be because of the attitude taken by officials of the
[Mr. Green.1
Department of Transport. I sometimes won der whether they are not working under th old principle that the only way to get alon; with a sailor is to kick him around.
In my opinion this failure to give thesi merchant seamen adequate vocational traininj and other benefits is going to have a seriou effect on Canadian shipping in the future There is much talk these days of more trouble of another war. If by any sad chance then should be more fighting a Canadian merchan navy will be needed just as much as, ant perhaps more than, it was in the last war. Wi are not laying a very good foundation for < Canadian merchant navy by this niggardl; treatment of men who served in the merchan navy during the last war.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Can the minister give us : little more information on this subject of voca tional training? The vote is decreased fron $350,000 last year to $50,000 this year, and should like to know the reason. Can he tel us where the training is given, the number o: applicants who were trained and the numbe: rejected?


Lionel Chevrier: I put most of that informa tion on Hansard the other evening. I gavi the reason for the decrease by stating tha there was to be a supplementary estimate ii the neighbourhood of $150,000. I placed oi Hansard answers to the questions which m; hon. friend has asked.


Joseph William Noseworthy: At what centres is thi: training given?


Lionel Chevrier: The two orders in council an administered jointly by the Department o: Transport and the Department of Veteran: Affairs. The application is made to the Department of Transport and the administratior is under the Department of Veterans Affairs My understanding is that the vocational training is given in various schools across Canada but I am afraid I cannot state just where thej are located.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Can the minister give anj information with regard to the entrance requirements for this training?


Lionel Chevrier: It is set out in the orders ir council. A person is entitled to vocationa! training who signed a manning pool agreemen' or who received a war risk or special bonus


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am told by a numbe: of merchant seamen in Toronto that the centre there is the Ryerson Institute anc that the entrance requirements are such tha few merchant seamen can qualify for th< courses.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a question of ability to take the course, it is a question of i

In the report of the Department of Trans-iort for the year ended March 31, 1949, we ind the whole subject matter dealt with inder the heading, "Rehabilitation of Mer-hant Seamen"; when the estimates of he Department of Veterans Affairs are up
cannot proceed because I am told, "We iave nothing to do with this; you will have to ;o to the Department of Transport." I lelieve I am in the right spot now, because he minister in charge is before the com-nittee.
The Depuiy Chairman: I thank the hon. nember for his explanation; but I am won-lering if that does not become a matter of ;overnment policy which might better have ieen discussed under the first item for lepartmental administration.
I assure the hon. member it is difficult to Iraw the line, because there are many sub-ects hon. members may wish to bring in. 5ut according to the standing order, speeches n committee of supply must be strictly rele-rant to the item. If I permit the hon. mem-ler for Vancouver-Quadra to go beyond what s permitted under the item, then I shall iave to give the same freedom to other hon. nembers.
I remember that when the items were icfore the committee of supply on the last ccasion there was a general discussion with espect to merchant seamen, having particu-ar reference to the special headings set out n the details of item 467. I remember that he hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra spoke in that occasion, as did also the hon. member or Cape Breton South. But they did not go ny further than would have been covered iy the subheadings of vocational training and irar medals.
Tonight we did that again, quite properly. 5ut the minute the hon. member refers to heir qualifications for pensions, I am afraid Le is out of order because it would be com->letely extraneous to the subject matter iefore the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Then I shall deal with voca-ional training. I believe I can make my point n that, without touching the other matters, 'he point is that these men of the merchant avy are not receiving the same training enefits as are the men of the other forces, ly submission is that they should be treated i exactly the same way. It has been sur-rising to read some of the statements made y members of the cabinet about these men.
For example, in January of this year the linister of Veterans Affairs was out at the
Supply-Transport
coast and, when he was asked about these merchant navy veterans, he said this:
We have gone so far in the field of veterans affairs without friction between civilians-
Note that word "civilians".
-and members of the armed forces, that to give special benefits to special groups would kill something good.
In effect he was saying that merchant navy veterans were civilians, and was distinguishing them from the members of the other three armed forces. That stand is very different from the statement contained in the speech from the throne at the close of the war. In the speech from the throne on September 6, 1945, we find this:
We rejoice that our armed forces have achieved so much in helping to defend and liberate nations to whose past and present our own is so closely akin. Our country will ever remember with pride the heroic exploits of Canada's fighting men and merchant seamen.
That was the attitude in 1945. Statements to that effect had been made by the former prime minister and, I think, by most of the ministers of that time, including no doubt the present Minister of Transport. So my suggestion is that on this question of, let us say, vocational training, these men should be treated in exactly the same way as the members of the other forces.
I raise this matter now because the other night the minister said that there is to be a supplementary vote covering this rehabilitation. Therefore it is not too late for him to give consideration to widening the scope of this vocational ' training. I am afraid the difficulty is that the Department of Transport has been looking at this training only from the point of view of training men who are going to stay in the merchant navy.
At page 54 of the 1949 report we find this:
The Department of Transport was authorized to take the necessary steps to implement the recommendation-
That is, for training.
-in such a way as not to induce merchant seamen to abandon the sea as a means of livelihood.
That was the approach of the minister's advisers, as indicated in this report, namely, that the training was to be given only in such a way that it would not induce sailors to abandon the sea as a means of livelihood. The result was, of course, that the benefits were very seriously curtailed.
For example there is the restriction that a man over thirty years of age cannot qualify for this vocational training unless special provision is made for him. His case is to be the exception, rather than the rule. I do not think there should be any age limit. If these men can benefit by vocational training, then they should be allowed to have

merchant seaman having obtained either one or other of the bonuses I mentioned a moment ago. If he did not get one of those two bonuses he is not entitled to vocational training under the orders in council.


Howard Charles Green: What about the young men who were too young to sign manning pool contracts?


Lionel Chevrier: What about them?


Howard Charles Green: Why are they not allowed to take this training?


Lionel Chevrier: I presume it is because they were too young to sign an agreement when they entered the merchant navy. My information is that there were very few who were unable to sign manning pool agreements. I do not know the age limit when war was declared, but I presume it was the legal age limit of eighteen years. There would be many men under that age who would be turned away and my information is that most of them went to serve with foreign merchant marines.


Howard Charles Green: If a boy served on a Canadian ship even without signing a manning pool agreement, why should he not get the training?


Lionel Chevrier: The veterans affairs committee was charged with the responsibility of going into this whole matter two years ago. That committee made a number of recommendations and I believe that those concerning the merchant marine were approved by the government. The result of that approval was these two orders in council that have been referred to. My hon. friend asks why these men who were too young are not covered by the orders in council. I can give no other answer than that the veterans affairs committee received representations, heard evidence and brought down recommendations which the government accepted. Beyond that I do not think I can go.


Howard Charles Green: I do not believe the veterans affairs committee received full representations on this point.


Lionel Chevrier: They certainly brought in a full report.


Howard Charles Green: Even if they did, that was two or three years ago. Here we have the position that the responsibility is that of the Department of Transport. It had charge of all these men during the war years. I presume the department has a record of the men who served on Canadian ships whether or not they got a bonus. I suggest that if a man served on a Canadian ship he should at least be given an opportunity to take this training.
Supply-Transport What has his age got to do with it? A man who is thirty-five needs rehabilitation just as much as a younger man. Now that the minister has the information and is aware of the need for something to be done about it I urge upon him that further consideration be given to broadening the terms of the order in council.


Mr. Brooks:: With reference to the veterans affairs committee, I have not the report here but my recollection is that their recommendations were not all carried out by the department. We made a number of recommendations that received no consideration at all. I would not like the minister to be definite in saying that all the recommendations of the veterans affairs committee were carried out so far as the merchant marine is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not now and was not then a member of the veterans affairs committee but my officers inform me that all recommendations made concerning vocational training of merchant seamen were carried out.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We are both speaking without having the record here, but I am satisfied that the record will not bear out the minister's statement.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have a copy of a telegram sent to the minister on May 20, I believe, by the Canadian merchant navy veterans association in which they imply that many hundreds of veterans had no way of learning about the vocational training benefits that were offered, and had no opportunity to see the advertisements placed by the department to which the minister referred on May 11. Has the minister any statement to make?


Lionel Chevrier: That telegram is entirely inaccurate and erroneous. I replied that there was plenty of opportunity for publication. Publication was made in the house, over the radio, and in a number of notices and advertisements. The hon. member for Halifax demanded on more than one occasion that the time limit be extended. So did the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and other members of the house. They also asked for the extension of the age limit. There was plenty of publicity given to the matters referred to in that telegram.


Howard Charles Green: Is there to be any provision made for the men who have been losing their jobs as a result of the policy announced last December? I have a press dispatch dated December 10, 1949, which appeared in one of the Vancouver papers. The heading is:
Beached Seamen Offered Training for Other Jobs

Supply-Transport
The article reads in part:
Five thousand Canadian seamen left "on the beach" by the government's order cutting the merchant marine will get vocational training.
That was the news which went out across the country last December 10. So far as I can see, absolutely nothing has been done along that line.


Lionel Chevrier: We are just getting into the position that you tried to avoid, Mr. Chairman, by your direction at the outset of this discussion. I would think the time to discuss the question of the men whose employment on the sea may be affected would be when we come to the item for the maritime commission or the item of $3 million subsidy provided following the statement made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made a statement in December of last year in which he outlined the policy in respect of the transfer of ships, subsidies, and the like. That article certainly is not in accordance with the facts. Unfortunately some men will be put out of work. I will be able to deal with that when we come to it, but certainly the number is nowhere in the proximity of the figure given by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
468.	Marine service steamers, including icebreakers-maintenance, operation and repairs, $3,603,070.
Mr. McLure:: I should like to know how many icebreakers there are in this service, where they operate as icebreakers, and during the season when .there is no ice in what capacity they are employed.


Lionel Chevrier: There are three icebreakers under this item, the Lapointe, the McLean and the Lady Grey. A new ship, the C. D. Howe, is being provided and she will be used in the dual capacity of icebreaker and for the transport of supplies to the northern part of the country. The other ships mentioned break ice in the wintertime, and at other times carry supplies to the eastern and Arctic areas, and to the various lighthouses and lighthouse depots on the east coast.


Mr. Cardiff:: Will the minister tell the house the necessity for the increase of $502,000?


Lionel Chevrier: It is because of two new ships that are being brought into operation, the C. D. Howe, which I mentioned a moment ago) and the Edward Cornwallis. The Edward Cornwallis will operate from the Atlantic coast and the C. D. Howe from Quebec.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What company is building the C. D. Howel


Lionel Chevrier: The Davie Shipbuilding
Company.


Mr. Gibson:: Under this item I notice that the number of wireless operators has been increased from two to six. I am rather curious to know whether this indicates a change in policy on the part of the government as to the number of wireless operators that should be carried on our ships, and if the government is setting an example for other ship operators.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not say there is a change in policy. I think it is because of the new ships. With the construction of these vessels we intend to put into effect the most modern means of communication and transportation. That accounts for the increase in the number of operators.


John Lambert Gibson: These ships usually operate within a stone's throw of lighthouses, and most of the time they are close to radio stations. I would have thought you would be able to use ordinary radio telephone equipment.


Lionel Chevrier: The C. D. Howe and the McLean operate away up at Churchill and in the northeastern Arctic area, as will the Cornwallis.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I notice one detail in this item amounting to $1,163,626 involving 773 so-called temporary assistants for which no detail whatever is given. There is just the lump sum of over a million dollars. Is there any explanation?


Lionel Chevrier: This covers the personnel of the various ships.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
469.	Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $4,503,495.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What bonuses have been given to lighthouse keepers, over and above their contracts, to take care of the high cost of living?


Lionel Chevrier: I think there is a misapprehension. For the most part lighthouse keepers operate under the civil service commission, and from time to time they get statutory increases and reclassifications. They would not be entitled to a bonus as such.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
470.	Agencies-salaries and office expenses, $436,505.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: There is an increase of $65,091 in this item. Would the minister explain it?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There are 102 annual increases, that is statutory increases varying from $5 to $10 per month. Then there are 147 basic- salary increases, which amount to $26,000.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Was there an increase in personnel?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, because of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
471.	Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $5,000.
Mr. Fraser:: This item is said to be for the maintenance and repair of wharves, but the details show $1,500 for materials and supplies, $1,500 for travelling expenses and $2,000 for sundries. Where do the repairs come in?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a small item-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know it is, but I want to know why they have to travel so much without doing any repairs.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will permit I shall try to explain it. As the committee knows, the Department of Public Works is responsible for repairs to most of the wharves under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, but from time to time there are minor demands made by various 'bodies, organizations and groups; and before it can be determined whether or not the work should come under this vote a certain amount of travelling is necessary. That is the reason for the $1,500.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then what are the sundries?


Lionel Chevrier: That is to cover long distance telephone calls and snow clearing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do I understand that the work is looked after by public works, and you supply the material?


Lionel Chevrier: No, we do not supply the materials.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then what are these supplies for?


Lionel Chevrier: We do the work ourselves, in these small items.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then there are no salaries or wages involved?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How is the work done, then; by a miracle?


Lionel Chevrier: It is done by marine service employees, or other employees of the department. These are small repairs which amount to perhaps $50, $60 or $100.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport Marine service-
473. To provide for Canada's share of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol, $20,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What agency does the ice patrolling in the spring of the year? Is it the same one that is covered by this item for the North Atlantic ice patrol?


Lionel Chevrier: No, this is an entirely different matter. This is done by international agreement, among several countries, under the safety of life at sea convention which was signed in London in 1929 and re-negotiated in 1948. By virtue of that international agreement Canada is assessed a certain portion of the cost of patrolling the ice in the eastern area.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
475.	Life-saving service, including rewards for saving life, $137,490.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item in which there appears to have been a substantial reduction?


Lionel Chevrier: As the committee will remember, last year a relatively large amount was voted to cover the acquisition of four lifeboats, two on the east coast and two on the west coast. It has been found possible to acquire only one of those, and we have not proceeded with the other three because of the reference to an interdepartmental committee of the matter of air rescue operations. There was no use spending money until it was known what the decision would be in that regard, and that is why there is a reduction.


Howard Charles Green: What is the position now with respect to the air rescue reference?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I said the other day. Perhaps I should say that on two occasions I have had an opportunity of discussing the work of the committee with the chairman of the maritime commission, and I am hopeful that it will be possible to make an announcement soon.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any possibility of Canada establishing a coastguard service in the near future?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not like to answer that until I am in a position to deal fully with the report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
476.	To provide subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $65,000.
Mr. Fulton:: To what firms or persons are these moneys payable?


Lionel Chevrier: To the extent of $40,000 they are payable to the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company Limited, and to the

Supply-Transport
extent of $25,000 to Pacific Salvage Limited, to ensure that adequate facilities are provided both east and west in case of wrecks.


Howard Charles Green: Is that paid on the basis of the work they do, or is it an annual retainer?


Lionel Chevrier: It is an annual contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
478.	Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping, including grants as detailed in the estimates; and for repayment to a proper authority, or to the government of the United Kingdom, under section 296 of the Canada Shipping Act, of expenses incurred in respect of distressed seamen left behind out of Canada, including the repayment of excepted expenses, as defined in the said section, $138,809.
Mr. Lennard:: Would the minister explain this item?


Lionel Chevrier: This is for the following miscellaneous activities related to navigation and shipping: examination of candidates for masters' and mates' certificates; operation of navigation schools at Yarmouth, Halifax, Saint John and Quebec for training candidates for certificates of competency; investigations into marine casualties; registration of shipping; removal of obstructions to traffic in navigable waters; grants in aid to separately operated schools of navigation at Rimouski, Kingston and Vancouver.


Frank Exton Lennard: Do these examiners travel about, or do the examinations take place at certain definite points?


Lionel Chevrier: Both. Some examinations take place at the schools; others are conducted by examiners who travel from the office in Ottawa.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I notice that this item includes payments to the United Kingdom in connection with the repatriation of seamen to Canada, but I can find no reference to that in the details on page 295. Was any of this money spent for that purpose last year?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, money was spent to repatriate from the United Kingdom and other parts of the world seamen who were stranded or otherwise in difficulty.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Has the minister any details of the amount spent for that purpose?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry I do not have them available. I will see that my hon. friend gets them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: According to the details I notice that the item for sundries has increased by some $18,000. Could the minister explain the reason for that increase?


Lionel Chevrier: The increase in sundries is made up as follows: An additional amount provided in this item for the removal of

obstructions to navigation. The previous vote of $5,000 was not sufficient for even a minor job of this nature. That accounts for $17,000. Then, there is an additional amount to cover the payment of charges incurred on account of excepted expenses, those relating to deserted seamen, $1,900. This answers, in part, the question asked by the member for York South.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
479.	Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $394,280.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Has the minister taken into consideration the inspection under the new rules which will be in force within a short time on all steamships, or is this item similar to the one covering inspections made under the provisions before the new regulations came into effect?


Lionel Chevrier: This is the same vote as before, and covers the same personnel, the same administrative operation.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It does not anticipate what will have to be done in the next year to make these ships safe?


Lionel Chevrier: No. Well, we do not spend money to make ships safe. The government passes regulations and it is the company that is affected by the regulations that spends the money. My answer was therefore correct, but I thought I should add that explanation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is quite a heavy item of travelling expenses here, an increase of over $4,000. Could the minister explain the reason for that?


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will recall, it was said in the last two years, and rightly so, that there was not a sufficient number of steamship inspections. There were nine additional inspectors appointed, and that accounts for the increase in travelling expenses.


Howard Charles Green: There has been some talk during this session of adopting new regulations, for example with regard to the use of radio operators on ships. The minister has said that he would bring down amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. The session is now drawing to a close, and the house is starting morning sittings next week. I hope the minister can bring down those amendments fairly soon. Can he give us some indication as to when we may expect them?


Lionel Chevrier: I am as anxious as anyone to bring them down. I should point out to the house that it will be a rather lengthy bill, because it includes all the safety of life at sea conventions that were made at the conference in 1948. While it left my depart-

ment some time ago, it has to be approved by the Department of Justice. At this time the Department of Justice has a considerable number of bills, and other legislation that must be given consideration. I am hopeful that it will be possible to have it approved next week, but that does not mean it will be on the order paper next week. I hope it will be on the order paper early in June.


Howard Charles Green: Is it still the intention of the government to put through the amendments at this session?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is. I am most anxious to put them through.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
480.	Marine signal service, $158,643.
Frank Exton Lennard: I notice in this vote there is an item of $34,000 for telegrams, telephones and postage. This amount constitutes about one-flfth of the whole item. I believe that with the air mail service we have today the department could curtail some of these telegrams and telephone calls. I know it is handy when you have a telephone at your elbow to call Vancouver or Halifax, but under present circumstances I believe some of these expenditures could be drastically curtailed. The item seems to be the same as last year's, so could the minister tell me how much of the $34,000 was used last year?


Lionel Chevrier: All of it.


Frank Exton Lennard: I think that is an item that could be curtailed.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should say to the hon. member that this covers the rental of various lines. The marine signal service is a service which operates on the St. Lawrence and in other parts of Canada, and must report as many as eight, ten, twenty or twenty-five times a day the passage of ships at certain points. It is a service using facilities rented from the telephone company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
481.	River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital, $3,128,052.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This item appears every year, Mr. Chairman, as an expenditure of about $3 million. What class of dredging is being done-rock dredging or just mud digging? It seems to be a large item, and apparently the channel requires dredging every year.


Lionel Chevrier: This item covers a contract entered into between the government and Marine Industries Limited for the deepening and widening of the St. Lawrence ship channel, which extends from about forty miles below Quebec to the head of the Lachine
Supply-Transport
canal. It covers stone, gravel and the like. It is a contract which is now in its fourth year, and which provides for dredging to a certain depth, namely 35 feet, and the widening of the channel at certain portions, as well as provision for anchorage bases where ships can anchor at night and still be out of the channel.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is for one contractor?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: Who is the contractor?


Lionel Chevrier: Marine Industries Limited.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: What has been the total expenditure to date for dredging, deepening and widening the channel in the St. Lawrence?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I would have to get that information for the hon. member, if he will allow me. I have not got it here.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said that this covers a contract, but the contract only accounts for a portion of the item. Why is it necessary to have a staff of 125 to look after this contract?


Lionel Chevrier: It is necessary, under the terms of the contract, to see to it that this work is done. We have the staff to make sure that the terms of the contract are being carried out; it is being checked, audited and so forth.


Howard Charles Green: Are all the 125 people occupied in checking the contract?


Lionel Chevrier: They are on various ships. If my hon. friend had been down the St. Lawrence at this time of year, and more particularly in June and July, he would notice dredges extending from Montreal harbour right down to below Quebec. There are as many as five or six ships doing this work, and it is necessary to have a crew on each ship.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a contract with Marine Industries? The minister has said there is a contract with this company to do the dredging. Now, what work do the government officials do? Apparently there are 125 government officials, and the item is listed as covering contract dredging. What work do the 125 government officials do which makes up the balance of the item?


Lionel Chevrier: They prepare the plans and specifications, and tell these people what work they have to do; that is set out in the contract. Then, they supervise the work, and that includes the 125 men to whom my hon. friend refers.


Percy Chapman Black: Before this item passes, I should like to ask the minister the explanation of the note which appears on

Supply-Transport
page 297 of the estimates, "contract dredging -capital-$2,939,500." As I understand it, we are passing the annual appropriations for this service.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not understand that question.


Percy Chapman Black: On page 297 the minister will note in the details of this vote we are passing, "contract dredging-capital -$2,939,500." Then there is an item under it of maintenance, $300,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that is the cost of our own office, divided between capital and maintenance.


Percy Chapman Black: Are we voting now capital outlays on these annual estimates?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. We are voting an amount of $2,939,500 which is a payment that will be made to this company for the dredging of the channel.


Percy Chapman Black: Are we making any appropriations out of annual expenditures for dredging or is it all borrowed money?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a payment under a contract for dredging.


Percy Chapman Black: We borrow the money to pay for it?


Lionel Chevrier: No, we do not borrow the money.


Percy Chapman Black: It is under capital. As I understand capital, it is borrowed money; it is capital expenditures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the minister not give the wrong figure there?


Lionel Chevrier: It is to differentiate it between the amount paid the company and the other items that are set out in the details.


Howard Charles Green: It is rather hard to understand that explanation. In the details we find "contract dredging, capital, $2,939,500; maintenance, $300,000." If it is a contract to do this work, why should that payment be divided into capital and maintenance? Just what is the reason? That terminology does not seem to fit the actual situation.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I get the point now. The capital is divided in accordance with the work that is done along the channel. For instance, the $2,939,500 is made up of an item of $970,000 in the Montreal harbour; $10,000 at Longue Pointe; $166,000 at Pointe aux Trembles channel; $681,000 in lake St. Peter at Yamachiche bend; $37,000 at Cap de la Madeleine; $10,000 at Becancour;

$450,000 at Cap a la Roche; $5,000 at Ste. Croix; $609,000 at Brule Bank channel. That is a breakdown of the capital amount of money paid to the contractor for the work along the channel extending from Montreal to Quebec.


Howard Charles Green: Why is it called capital? Because apparently this money has to be spent every year. It certainly does not look like a capital item as we understand the word.


Lionel Chevrier: This is a five-year contract. This is work for one year only. According to the terms of the contract the work must be completed within a period of five years and they do about a fifth. They have the right to do a little more each year if they wish. The amount that they will do in 1950-51 is the amount as I have just read it.


Howard Charles Green: Next year they will do a different part of the river, is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: Next year they will do a different part of the river.


Howard Charles Green: What does this maintenance mean? There is $300,000 for maintenance. How does that enter into the picture?


Lionel Chevrier: That item is our own expenditure. It is to cover stone lifters and other ships of the Department of Transport that are used in conjunction with the operation and completion of this contract.


Howard Charles Green: So that, in addition to the contract, the government spends $300,000 for maintaining its own equipment, also engages 125 employees and then has other items such as board, $48,250; fuel, $66,000; materials and supplies, $32,000; repairs and upkeep of equipment, $70,000; and sundries, $11,463. Those are all government items over and above what is paid to this firm under the contract. Is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: The item of $2,939,500 is the item that I gave the breakdown for a moment ago. I am informed that the other items are expenditures of our own department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Expenditures of the minister's own department for doing what? From the estimates it looks as though they are expenditures in administering the expenditure of the $2,939,500 and the $300,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I indicated a moment ago that there was an engineering staff in the department that prepares the plans and specifications and that lays out each year the work that must be done under the contract; and the items are set out in the details.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister has mentioned several localities where dredging is being done. Is that all under one contract?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: It is all under one contract, the minister says. Were there different tenders called for this on a five-year undertaking or five-year contract?


Lionel Chevrier: There is just one tender called for, or rather there is just one contract. There were several tenders, if my recollection serves me aright, although it is four or five years ago now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the explanation of this item at the bottom of the detail:
Less: Amount chargeable to administration, maintenance and operation, $628,505.
How does that credit arise?


Lionel Chevrier: That is the amount that goes into the next vote: amount chargeable to administration, maintenance and operation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It goes into the vote next year, you mean?


Lionel Chevrier: No; into the next item, item 482.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
483. To provide towards the construction of an icebreaking vessel to meet the St. Lawrence and northern transportation requirements (estimated cost $5,000,000) capital (revote $400,000), $2,000,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Just where is this icebreaker being constructed and were tenders called? Are bigger and heavier icebreakers being built with the object in view of opening the channel of the St. Lawrence river earlier every spring? I understand that this was one of the purposes of building icebreakers, and I should like to hear from the minister whether that is correct or not.


Lionel Chevrier: As to the last question, it is rather difficult to answer it categorically or specifically, because it is the hope that the St. Lawrence will be opened up to navigation earlier each year, but that hope is not always met.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At that point may I ask the minister if he considers that this object is altogether fair to the maritime ports of Saint John and Halifax?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think that it is unfair to them. The icebreakers do a job not only with reference to the opening of the port but, as my friend knows, also one that has a great deal to do with avoiding flood conditions. Each year in the spring in the Laprairie basin on the south side of the river St. Lawrence in the Montreal area there is a backing of ice which causes a great deal of damage. Experience has taught us in the department that the more quickly we can get
Supply-Transport
the channel opened and break the ice, the less danger there is of a backing of water. Some two or three years ago serious damage was done to both sides of the Jacques Cartier bridge. Certainly it is not done with the object of hurting in any way the maritime ports. On the contrary, the national harbours board does everything in its power by way of making available additional facilities to assist the ports. The Department of Transport has provided a number of new ships. The Edward Cornwallis has been launched and is now in operation, and there is provision for other ships for the maritimes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But opening the port of Montreal and taking trade- away from the ports of Saint John and Halifax does not in any way help the maritime ports. I can understand the use of an icebreaker to do away with the condition the minister mentioned in connection with the flooding of the channel, and the danger from ice; but I do not follow his other argument.


Mr. Knighi:: I presume this is for the building of a new member in the icebreaker fleet. What is the definition of the term "northern" as it is found in the estimate?


Lionel Chevrier: The purpose of this icebreaker is to service the ports in the northeastern Arctic. It is to break the ice in the St. Lawrence, and from time to time replace the McLean in that area.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Since the minister has expressed the hope that the St. Lawrence river might be opened up, I was going to express the hope that the same thing might happen with the Hudson bay route. To what extent have icebreakers which have been used on the St. Lawrence gone into northern waters under their own steam for icebreaking purposes?


Lionel Chevrier: They are sent up north each year. The McLean makes an annual trip to the northeastern Arctic, and into Hudson bay to Churchill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know about the McLean.
Has any other ship gone up there in recent years?


Lionel Chevrier: The C. D. Howe will make a journey up there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will blast things out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will get rid of the ice, especially the thin ice.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister did not answer my question as to where this new icebreaker was being built, and also whether tenders were being called.


Lionel Chevrier: The Davie Shipbuilding Company.

Supply-Transport


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In Glasgow?


Lionel Chevrier: No, at Lauzon, Quebec.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that the new aluminum icebreaker?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Were tenders called for construction, and what were the amounts of those tenders.


Lionel Chevrier: No, tenders were not called for.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that considered good business?


Lionel Chevrier: I think it is, under the circumstances. Perhaps I could explain to the committee why that was done. The experience in the Department of Transport two years back was that when tenders were called some yards that were deserving of work were not able to get it because they were never the lowest tenderers. I do not wish to mention the names of any yards, but I know of one, which is very efficient, and to which many of the tenders were going.
Representations were made to us that that was not a fair method of procedure, and that if the Department of Transport and the government were going to build ships they should be divided as fairly as possible among the main yards. We acceded to that request and instructed the maritime commission to prepare a plan whereby the main shipyards of this country would be awarded contracts for the vessels required for the Department of Transport and other departments. By virtue of that policy I think a fair distribution has been made.
I have not the total items now, but I think I can give pretty substantial reasons for indicating why that was good policy.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then how did the department arrive at the amount that should be paid for the construction of these icebreakers and [DOT]other vessels, if no tenders are called?


Lionel Chevrier: The maritime commission and the department were given the responsibility of making estimates of the cost of the ship. In some cases the tenders were [DOT]called but not accepted; and in some cases contracts were granted on a cost-plus basis.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In this instance these ships were costing more money than they should; is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: No, they are not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This one ship may cost much more. You do not know whether it is higher or lower than it should be. It definitely must be more.


Lionel Chevrier: I am saying it is not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How do you know? You have no method of finding out.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I told the hon. member.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The commission does not know.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes, they do; and probably the hon. member would be one of the first to admit that, after a while, when we come to another item.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Which one?


Lionel Chevrier: We will see.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Tell me now.


Lionel Chevrier: The commission has a staff, and so has the Department of Transport.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are they naval engineers?


Lionel Chevrier: 3ome of them are. And they are able to establish the costs of the ships. Furthermore there is the auditing branch, treasury officers, not only in the Department of Transport, but in the Department of Finance, that supervises the operation of these contracts.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All they would do is this: when accounts would come to them they would check them and pass them. They would not check items to see whether purchases could be made cheaper somewhere else.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me that in his explanation the minister definitely said that certain shipyards-or that a certain shipyard -were getting the greater part of the work, because their tenders were consistently lower. He seemed to indicate that one shipyard was getting most of the work. Then representations were made that this was not fair, and it was as a result of those representations that the policy was instituted of dividing up the work among the various shipyards.
It seems to me that if that is the basis of the new policy-and I believe I have reproduced correctly what the minister said- then the only result can be that the cost of building these ships is going to be greater, because instead of tenders being given to the shipyard which consistently made the lowest tenders, they are given to other shipyards without calling for tenders at all. I do not believe any other conclusion can be drawn from the minister's explanation. While we are on this subject I suggest the minister should tell us who is building this particular ship, and how many naval architects there are on the maritime commission?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, just to recapitulate what I said: Early in 1949 the government reached the conclusion that, from the

national defence point of view, and following out the recommendation made in the report of the Canadian 'maritime commission, it was imperative to maintain in operation a nucleus of shipyards for construction purposes. It directed the maritime commission to determine, in so far as the government ship construction program was concerned, which yards* should be given the work, in order to help them maintain a minimum of employment in their yards.
My hon. friends often complain about the fact that certain shipyards do not get contracts. That complaint has been made in the House of Commons from time to time. The attempt here was to meet the request which had been made. As a result of this policy a number of necessary government ships are at the present time being built, the major orders being as follows: naval icebreaker, Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec; Department of Transport icebreaker, Davie Shipbuilding, Lauzon, Quebec.


Howard Charles Green: What are the figures?


Lionel Chevrier: I am now dealing with item 483. I can give further information when we come to the other vote. Item 483 makes provision for $5 million. Then, these further ships: three naval escort vessels, Vickers, Montreal; Burrards, Vancouver; and Halifax Shipyards, Halifax; two weather ships for the Department of Transport, Marine Industries Limited, Sorel; Gate vessel, George T. Davie, Levis, Quebec; four minesweepers, Saint John drydock, Davie shipbuilding, Port Arthur shipyard and Victoria machinery depot.
So far as the cost is concerned, before we build these ships we have the advice of independent naval architects. In the case of the ship we are discussing we had the advice of German and Milne who gave an estimate of what it would cost to build a ship. We proceeded on the same basis when we built the S.S. Abegweit. The Abegweit was built on a cost-plus basis, but before we decided to build it we obtained from the same firm of naval architects, German and Milne, an estimate of the cost. We are proceeding on the same basis in connection with item 483.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That does not tell us anything.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When was the contract let?


Lionel Chevrier: The contract has not been signed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a note in the item, "estimated cost, $5,000,000; capital revote, $400,000." In the details it is shown that under this item in 1949-50 the sum of $1 million was authorized. I was wondering how
Supply-Transport
this amount could get into the estimates last year and how there could be a revote such as is mentioned this year?


Lionel Chevrier: That was provided in the further supplementary estimates, 1949-50. It takes some time to prepare plans and specifications.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But $1 million, surely not?


Lionel Chevrier: This is an estimate, it is not a case of voting money that has been contracted for. In this case the total cost of the ship is estimated to be $5 million and we are putting in the estimates an item of $2 million. In last year's supplementary estimates we had an item of $1 million, but it was not possible to advance the progress of the plans and specifications sufficiently to enter into a contract. The same applies this year. The plans and specifications are in course of preparation but they are not sufficiently advanced to permit the signing of a contract. They will be during the course of the year and that is why the amount is in there.


Mr. Ferrie:: Will these new icebreakers be able to break ice in Hudson bay?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a difficult question to answer because it would depend a great deal on the thickness of the ice. In so far as the N. B. McLean is concerned, it has always been successful in getting to Churchill, sometimes under very adverse conditions, it having had some narrow escapes. This icebreaker will be more modern and I think should be stronger than the McLean.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: How will the new boat compare with the S.S. Abegweit? Will it be as powerful and will it do the same class of icebreaking?


Lionel Chevrier: No, she will not do the same class of icebreaking. This is not the same kind of ship. The Abegweit was built as a ferry boat to operate between Prince Edward Island and the mainland and to break ice at certain seasons of the year. This ship is not in the same class. It is not going to cost as much but I suppose it will be a more modern ship.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will she have a greater horsepower than the Abegweit?


Lionel Chevrier: She is to have 10,800 horsepower and may go to a maximum of 14,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand it, we authorized $1 million in last year's supplementary estimates, but this year we are being asked to authorize $2 million, of which $400,000 is a revote. That would indicate that we spent $600,000 of the money authorized last year.

Supply-Transport
If I am incorrect in my understanding I ask the minister to tell us what was spent last year.


Lionel Chevrier: We spent $40,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why is there only a revote of $400,000 of what was authorized last year? Why is not the revote $960,000?


Lionel Chevrier: I must confess that I cannot explain it. I am told that all we spent was $40,000, and that was spent in the preparation of plans and specifications.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: To what extent is the St. Lawrence season lengthened by the use of icebreakers?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that it is difficult to give an exact estimate. They do help to hasten the opening of navigation but the main purpose is to prevent flooding.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: At about what date in the spring would the need for icebreakers cease?


Lionel Chevrier: It varies from year to year. I think this year it was April 10; I have known it to be in March, and some years it is the end of April.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The fact that the St. Lawrence is open so much earlier than Churchill should make available to Churchill all the necessary icebreaking equipment when the season there is about to open.


Lionel Chevrier: To a large extent that is right, but one must keep in mind that a ship cannot get up to Churchill at all seasons in the year. If navigation is open here about April 10 I would think it would be difficult for the McLean or any other icebreaker to operate in the Hudson bay area at that time. If my hon. friend wants me to say that with the additional icebreakers more will be available for that area, I think the answer would be "yes."


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I suggest to the minister that they could go up there a little earlier than they have been going up.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why should they go up at all?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: They certainly could go up there in May or June.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think this item should stand. Going back to what the minister said a moment ago, we were told that only $40,000 was spent last year when we authorized $1 million. Instead of being told that the revote this year is $960,000, it is only $400,000. This year we are being asked to authorize $2 million and it does not seem possible to reconcile the explanations. Would it not be wiser to let this item stand until a full explanation can be given? If we are in fact

revoting $960,000 of what was authorized last year, not only should that be made known to the committee but it is possible that the $2 million we are being asked to authorize this year could be reduced accordingly. When the minister is dealing with that could he tell us when this contract will be signed and how long it is expected it will take to build this icebreaker?


Lionel Chevrier: In explanation of the first question asked, I am told that when these estimates now before us were prepared it was anticipated that expenditures last year would amount to $600,000 leaving a revote of $400,000 out of the $1 million voted last year. I think that covers the point. The type of contract covering this icebreaker has not yet been decided upon. Therefore I am not able to answer the question. I do not know whether it will be a management fee contract, a cost plus contract, or perhaps a firm price contract although I have some doubt that it will be. I am informed that the time it will take to build the ship will be roughly a year and a half to two years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Personally I am opposed to voting $2 million for a contract which is not yet signed. Not only has it not been signed but we have just been told that we do not know exactly what kind of contract we are going to have. Apparently it is quite a serious matter to decide just what the terms of the contract will be. It has been under negotiation for over a year now, and I would gather from what the minister has just said there are not any signs that it is nearing completion yet if all these other things remain to be decided. When our total expenditures are running so high I see no purpose in voting twice as much this year as we voted last year when we actually spent only $40,000 of what was voted. I do not see why the minister cannot get along with a million dollar vote this year.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend's argument is correct we will have to take out of the estimates at least five or six similar vessels. I am looking at the next page, not because I want to refer to it particularly, but there is an item to provide for the construction of an auto ferry between Yarmouth and a port in the New England states. When I made a statement in the house as to this project it received unanimous approval. That money is in the same position as item 483. The contract has not been let and the contract cannot be let for reasons that I will give when we come to the item. That applies to the weather ships and also to the ship on the east coast which are in these estimates. If my hon. friend's argument were to be followed we would never get anything done.

I am told the same thing applies to all these ships which I mentioned a moment ago. We want for the navy three naval escort vessels, a minesweeper and a gate vessel. We want a naval icebreaker for the navy, and if that argument were followed we would not get them at all.
Make no mistake about it, the Department of Finance gives all these things a pretty good check, and all departments get a pretty tough ride before treasury board when we ask for more than we are entitled to. The reason the amount is asked for is that it is anticipated that during the course of the year we will spend that money. We may not have to spend it. The reason we did not spend the $1 million we got last year was that the plans and specifications were not forthcoming nearly as quickly as we expected they would be, because of certain new technical developments in the field of icebreakers. I hope my hon. friend will not pursue his argument because it would cause some of his good friends on that side of the house to lose vessels which I am sure they would not want to lose, and which I am sure the people in those areas want to have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That argument does not follow at all. What I have said is that we are faced with a contract which is not even signed yet, and we are being asked to vote $2 million for it. No assurance is given that the money will be required this year. In the case of the other vessels, if we could be assured that there is a good chance the money will be required this year then we would be willing to vote it, but if the situation is the same as the minister has indicated with respect to this contract then I am not sure, although we all agree that the contracts should be let and construction should proceed, that we should be required to vote large sums of money in advance of the signing of the contracts or in advance of a reasonable prospect that the contracts will be signed.


Lionel Chevrier: I am giving my hon. friend that assurance now. For instance, with reference to the Yarmouth ferry, the maritime commission and others are working on the plans and specifications, and if we do not get the $1 million involved there, and the $2 million under the item now before the committee, I would be the first one to be criticized because we were not moving fast enough. If I followed the argument of my hon. friend, then when I came back next year I would be asked why we did not move more rapidly and I would have to say "Oh well, the hon. member for Kamloops said that since the contract was not
Supply-Transport
signed we should not have the money in the estimates." I do not want to be unfair or derogatory but the position is a ridiculous one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It certainly is, a revote of $400,000 and you tell us you only spent $40,000.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend understands me, the position taken by him is a ridiculous one. The proof of it is that work in this particular case has been started, and quite often contracts are not given prior to the voting of the money. I think that is a natural position to take.


Howard Charles Green: Why do they start work before a contract is signed? Does that not prejudice the making of a proper contract?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it does. They have a letter of intention to proceed. That practice is not uncommon.


Howard Charles Green: In what other departments of
the government is a practice of that kind followed?


Lionel Chevrier: By virtue of the statement I made and the policy I announced a moment ago, it is being followed in the case of all these ships.


Frank Exton Lennard: Do I understand as to this revote of $400,000 there was $550,000 paid out for construction that has taken place so far?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Frank Exton Lennard: I may be dense but I do not understand this revote of $400,000. You say there was only $40,000 spent for plans. I cannot get it through my head. I do not see why that is in there at all.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not prepare the estimates. The Department of Finance arranges them. The explanation I gave a moment ago to the hon. member for Kamloops was that when these estimates were prepared last year it was anticipated that the expenditures last year would amount to $600,000 leaving a revote of $400,000 out of the $1 million voted last year.


Frank Exton Lennard: But there was only $40,000 spent.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: When were the estimates prepared?


Lionel Chevrier: The main estimates were prepared in November, 1949.


Howard Charles Green: Because it would appear that the situation is that the completion of a contract has not been possible at as early a date as was expected by the department, and

Supply-Transport
therefore the amount of money is not required that it was thought would be required. Is that the position?


Lionel Chevrier: That happens from time to time.


Howard Charles Green: I can understand that but is the minister sure that in the present fiscal year he will require this $2 million?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I am.


Howard Charles Green: In order that the contract may be proceeded with.


Lionel Chevrier: As much as any person can be sure, I am.


Howard Charles Green: There is one thing about the whole picture that worries me quite a bit, and that is whether there is any method of keeping the price down to a fair figure. The minister will remember that during the war there was some provision-I am not sure whether or not it was in the contracts- whereby after ships had been built the department of munitions and supply went back and checked the costs very carefully, and I believe in many cases large amounts had to be paid back. The minister will know whether I am correct in that statement. Is a course of that kind to be followed here? I urge that some such plan be put into effect because otherwise these costs may just run wild. It seems to me where the government is letting these contracts without tenders there must be the most careful check, and also wide power to cut down the figure asked after the work has been done and it is possible to audit all the expenses. Is it the intention to have a contract of that type?


Lionel Chevrier: During the war-I am familiar with it because I had to make a special study of it-in the war expenditures committee we did examine various kinds of contracts. We came to the conclusion that fixed price contracts were of course the best; but we had to derogate from that practice on many occasions, and the next best was the cost plus percentage contract, the cost plus management fee contract, and various other kinds of bonuses added to the cost plus contract. During those days there was a renegotiation branch of the department of munitions and supply, which had auditors of its own together with those of treasury; and when it was discovered that costs were greater than they should be certain amounts of money were renegotiated. I am told that a similar procedure of renegotiation will be followed in all these contracts.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister the facilities in his department for carrying on renegotiations?


Lionel Chevrier: I am told that is to be done by the comptroller of the treasury.
[Mr. Green.1


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister power under existing legislation to enter into contracts of that kind? I doubt very much whether there is that power.


Lionel Chevrier: I am told that these contracts contain a clause which is equivalent to renegotiation. In other words if the costs are higher than they should have been, there will have to be a renegotiation or a repayment after audit.


Howard Charles Green: Has any consideration been given to following a tender system and then paying subsidies in order to help out the yard the government believes should have the work? The tender system would at least provide a check on the figures. The present arrangement appears to be a subsidy, in effect; that is what it amounts to. These firms which cannot build ships as cheaply as some other firms are getting the work at an increased price, so actually the government is paying a subsidy on at least some of these ships. Has any consideration been given to the use of tenders plus subsidies?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: Would anything of that kind be feasible?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that it would not be. I am told by one of the officers that the position then would be even worse than it is now.	.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister told the committee that he was being protected in letting these contracts without tenders through the estimates of firms of naval architects; and he mentioned one firm, German and Milne, who gave the department an estimate when the ferry Abegweit was under construction. Would the minister inform the committee what was the estimated cost of this boat, and what was the ultimate cost?


Lionel Chevrier: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
484.	To provide towards the construction of a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for service in the maritimes (estimated cost $1,500,000)-capital, $200,000.
Howard Charles Green: Is this the same sort of transaction?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it will be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the contract been let?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it has not. The plans are not completed. They are in the course of preparation, but are not finalized.


Howard Charles Green: Can the plans be completed, the contract let, and $200,000 worth of work done within the fiscal year?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, because it is a relatively small vessel. It is of the nature of the Edward Cornwallis, which took a year and a half to complete.


Howard Charles Green: What firm is going to do this job?


Lionel Chevrier: The contract has not been awarded.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not unusual that we should be asked to vote money before we even know whai firm is going to do the work?


Lionel Chevrier: That was the position in reference to the Cornwallis. We started by asking for $50,000 or $100,000 for plans and specifications, and this is $200,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
485.	To provide towards the construction of a service vessel for the eastern Arctic patrol (estimated cost $2,400,000)-capital (revote), $600,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: What are the particulars of
this item?


Lionel Chevrier: This is the C. D. Howe, which is now practically completed. This is to cover the balance of the payments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What firm built that boat?


Lionel Chevrier: The Davie Shipbuilding
Company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
486.	To provide towards the construction of an auto-ferry vessel for service between Yarmouth, N.S., and the New England states (estimated cost $3,000,000), subject to an agreement being entered into on the part of the province of Nova Scotia for a contribution, upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, up to 50 per cent of the cost of construction but not exceeding $1,500,000-capital, $1,000,000.
Percy Chapman Black: I should like the minister to make a statement with respect to
Supply-Transport
this item. This is the ferry being built to accommodate tourists between southern Nova Scotia and the state of Maine. I understand that fifty per cent of the cost is to be paid by the province of Nova Scotia. Would the minister make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: What was the question?


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to know from the minister what progress is being made in the construction of the ferry to serve tourist traffic between southern Nova Scotia and the state of Maine.


Lionel Chevrier: As announced to the house some time ago, the government decided to defray one-half the cost of construction of a ferry vessel between Yarmouth and a point in the state of Maine.


Percy Chapman Black: Has that point been decided yet?


Lionel Chevrier: I will come to that. Eastern Steamship Lines, which operated the service, indicated to the maritime commission last year that they would not operate it after this season. So, after consultation with the government of Nova Scotia it was decided that each government would defray one-half the cost of construction, and a committee was set up to deal with the project. That committee was composed of C.N.R. officials, transport officials, maritime commission men, and I think someone from finance, together with representatives of Nova Scotia. This committee has met on several occasions. It is they who will decide the nature and type of the vessel. I believe that has been pretty well decided; and they will also decide the port at which the ship will call on the American side. That is still under discussion.


Major James William Coldwell: Who will operate the ship?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways, I hope.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
487.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $64,000.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask how many private railway cars are involved in this expenditure. Is this to cover the repair or reconditioning or air-conditioning of one of the cars, which was not air-conditioned heretofore?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is not. This covers the cost of operation, maintenance, running repairs and general overhaul of five official railway cars, two of which are the cars of the governor general; one is the car of the Prime Minister; one the car which is assigned to

Supply-Transport
cabinet ministers and distinguished visitors; and No. 104, a car which has always been assigned to the Minister of Transport.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the car which was formerly used by Mr. Mackenzie King now air-conditioned?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not say. I know it has gone back to the railway. It was traded for another car, one of the five that are now in operation. [DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is No. 104 air-conditioned?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is. I do not use it
nearly as often as I should like.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
488.	Hudson Bay Railway-construction and improvements-capital. $35,000.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What is this expenditure for?


Lionel Chevrier: It is for capital expenses. Each year there are two votes concerning the Hudson Bay railway, one to cover capital expenditure and the other to cover the deficit of the railway. This covers: first, the construction of four new standard section houses between Amery and Churchill, $16,000; second, material, 40,000 rail anchors, $16,000; third, provision for contingencies, $2,000; fourth, engineering supervision, $1,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
489.	Hudson Bay Railway-to provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1951, not exceeding $400,000.
Mr. Helme:: I notice there is a reduction of $100,000 in this item over that of a year ago. We are all glad to see that reduction, although I do not know what brings it about. It may be due to better operation of the route during the last season, or it may be due to a more optimistic outlook for the handling of grain through the port in the coming year. Those of us who come from the west are looking forward to the day when an item such as this will not be necessary. I am sure we feel that if the fullest possible use could be made of the port this item would disappear from the estimates.
We have a very short season in that part of the country, but the season we do have is not being used to the fullest extent. The 1949 official season was about 65 days. During 20 of those days there was not a single ship in the harbour; for 27 days there was only one ship at a time, and for 18 there was more than one. If we are to have an economic use of this port, it is only reasonable that it be used to the fullest possible extent. We have the railway and the port facilities and I should like to see them used as much

as possible. It is my understanding that the men who are sent there to help in the operation of the facilities have to be paid whether or not they are working. Those of us who are from the west are greatly concerned about the Hudson bay route, and we look forward to seeing it used to the fullest possible extent.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister what use is to be made of the port this year? I saw a statement the other day by Mr. Dalgleish of the Dalgleish Lines to the effect that, while it was expected there would be more freight incoming this year, the difficulty was in getting cargoes for the outward bound ships. I quite agree with the member for Prince Albert, and the other members from the west, that we are all anxious to see proper use made of this port. The Hudson bay route association in western Canada has been doing everything in its power to get business for that port. It has never had a really thorough tryout, but many of us believe it is an economically feasible proposition from the point of view of the western grain producer, and particularly if the grain were there so that the ships could be loaded.
We need to encourage two-way traffic. While there has been a considerable increase in the amount of freight brought in, we do not want to see the outgoing ships without cargo, or ships not coming in, as is the case with the Dalgleish line who used that port for some years. Could the minister tell us something about the provisions for this year?


Lionel Chevrier: To deal first with the question of the hon. member for Prince Albert, the reason for the decrease in the deficit is an increase in the revenue. I am happy to say that business was much better than expected.
Dealing with the question of the member for Rosetown-Biggar I am unfortunately not able to tell him how much wheat will be moved out of Churchill. It is difficult to do that at this time. I can say though that in the last four years there has been a considerable increase. In 1946-47, the number of bushels moved was 1 million. It rose in the last fiscal year to 5,719,000 bushels. I hope the increase will continue this year.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister know what grain is in storage in the elevator ready for shipment?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not say, but I could get that information. I can deal with it when we come to the national harbours board item concerning the port of Churchill. It really is the item which concerns the elevator, not the railway.


Major James William Coldwell: All right.


Lionel Chevrier: It is true that the difficulty about Churchill is that there is outgoing cargo, but there is no incoming cargo.


Major James William Coldwell: It doubled last year.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but you will be interested in knowing that representations were made by the Hudson bay route association, which saw the Prime Minister and others quite recently. Because of the representations which were made by them, I made the announcement in the house which I think will be very helpful. I hope it will be possible, from time to time, [DOT] to assist this group, because I am sure the house would like to see more business directed through Churchill.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: While this route is being considered, I may say that I do not see any estimate covering the survey of the Lynn lake route for the Hudson Bay railway. Is anything being done about that this year?


Lionel Chevrier: No, this matter just deals with the operation of the Hudson Bay railway itself. Any item covering a branch line, if there is to be one, would be in a supplementary estimate.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with my colleagues of the various political parties from the west in saying that I am very pleased now at the increased amount of activity there seems to be about the port of Churchill.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You have some Liberal members down here now.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I may say to the hon. member, as this house and the minister well know, I have been talking about this thing for the last five years; that would be my answer.
There is no doubt that grain is beginning to move towards the port of Churchill-a great deal earlier this year than it has before. As a matter of fact, my own estimate is that it is about a month earlier. As I say, I have been making speeches on this subject at various times; in fact, I made one earlier this session. I do not want to repeat what I said before. I was interested in the minister's statement that the reason there was a lower deficit was that there was more revenue. I may point out the self-evident fact that if still more use is made of the port there will be a still smaller deficit; that is the thing for which we have been pleading for years. It has been proven, I believe, that 15 million bushels passing over that route would cancel out the deficit, and after that we might even expect a small amount of profit.
I should like to thank the minister for his support, and particularly for the support which the government has given and the assurances given to the delegation which 55946-182
Supply-Transport
came down here. I may say that a member of that delegation came from my own city of Saskatoon. I think it was Mr. Woodward who presented the case to the government and who was for many years editor of our local paper there. I think a tribute should be paid here, if it is paid to any man; if this port ever does fulfil the expectations which some of us have for it, I think it will be largely due to the efforts of Mr. Frank Eliason, the present secretary of the Hudson bay route association; he is a man who has served that association under its various names but always with the one purpose in mind, namely that our people of the prairie west should make more use of the port that they have at their own back door.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-	[DOT]
491. Strait of Canso-transportation improvements and facilities-capital (revote $200,000), $2,000,000.
Percy Chapman Black: Before this item carries I should like a statement up to date from the minister advising us just what progress has been made with respect to drawing up the plans of the Canso bridge and the letting of the tenders. The public in Nova Scotia have for years been anxious to secure this bridge and they have accepted the assurances from the minister and the government that progress was being made with this undertaking and that the contract would be called for early this year. This calling for contracts was delayed, and the explanation was given by the minister and the premier of Nova Scotia; and notwithstanding the disappointment over the delay, the public in Nova Scotia have accepted the statement of the minister but they would like to know that the project is being proceeded with at an early date.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the house when some weeks ago I made a statement concerning a new development that had taken place. It was owing to the fact that the original plans were based on a roadway of twenty-two feet, but when discussions were entered into between the government and the provinces with regard to the trans-Canada highway, it was decided that the minimum width of that highway should be twenty-four feet. Hence certain revisions had to be made on the Canso project. I saw Dr. Pratley quite recently; he is the engineer in charge. He was one of the members of the board who recommended the low level bridge, and he is our consulting engineer in connection with the project. He is the one who is preparing the plans and specifications. He

Supply-Transport
informed me that these plans and specifications are now almost complete. He has already entered into discussions with the engineers of the Canadian National Railways and of the province of Nova Scotia, and will continue those discussions. Those plans that are now in the course of preparation and almost complete must of course be approved by the engineers of the government of Nova Scotia, of the Canadian National Railways and the board of transport commissioners. I presume the plans will have to be in their hands for some time before they receive final approval. But just as soon as they have been approved by those three groups of engineers Dr. Pratley assures me that he will then be in a position to call for tenders.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister indicate more definitely when he expects that the tenders will be called for?


Lionel Chevrier: I would say about August; but that again, of course, is subject to the time that the engineers will want to give to the study of the plans. I make this additional point. This is a particularly difficult project. Hon. members will recall the difficulty that there was from the point of view of the board of engineers and the discussion that was held, my own officers being of a certain view and the board of engineers being of another view. I should not like to be tied down to August, although I hope it will be then.


Percy Chapman Black: I realize that it is a difficult undertaking and that we have reliable engineers dealing with it. In this connection I should like to ask the minister if any progress is being made in the construction of the approaches of the bridge on both sides, on the Nova Scotia side and on the Cape Breton Island side.


Lionel Chevrier: No. I do not think it would be wise to touch this until the plans and specifications have been approved by both groups of engineers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maritime Freight Rates Act-
494. Amount required to provide for payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1950-51 of the difference (estimated by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and certified by the said board to the Minister of Transport, as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (referred to in section 9 of the said act) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1950 under the tariffs approved by the following companies: Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway, including: Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company and New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company; Cumberland Railway and Coal Company; Dominion Atlantic Railway; Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company; Sydney and Louisburg Railway, $1,450,000.
Percy Chapman Black: Before these items on maritime freight rates carry, in view of the material increase in the freight rates which so greatly affect all the business and traffic in the maritimes it would seem to me that the increase in the estimates over the previous year will not be nearly enough to provide for the proportionate increase in the freight cost.


Lionel Chevrier: That will be covered by a supplementary item if there is reason for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
497.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on national transportation, $100,000.
Howard Charles Green: That provides for the costs of the royal commission on national transportation. Can the minister tell us how much has been spent on that commission up to the end of the last fiscal year and whether this vote of $100,000 will complete the expenditure?


Lionel Chevrier: $278,000. I am informed that this vote of $100,000 will meet the cost for the first three months of this fiscal year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it is expected that they will bring down their report about that time, is it?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I am afraid they will not. The forecast now is September or December.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-
498.	Air service administration, $203,890.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that we let this item stand, Mr. Chairman. It is eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall take up the third reading of the Aeronautics Act, then Bill No. 179, to amend the Research Council Act. Then we shall continue with the estimates of Transport. Then, if we conclude these estimates, we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that I was hoping that tomorrow we might go to item 524 of the transport estimates in order that there might be some discussion of freight rates in the house. That is what I asked on orders of the day this afternoon. The minister said that he would give it consideration. I should like to know whether it is possible that we might do that tomorrow, because I think this is a matter of some urgency. I think that the house should have an opportunity of discussing it and of expressing some opinion on a problem which is a grave one from the point of view of those of us who live on the

prairies, in the maritimes and in British Columbia.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there are about ten or twelve items still left unpassed before we get to the item of the board of transport commissioners.


Major James William Coldwell: The only thing is this. It would seem that we have been dealing with railways. This is a railway item, and the item that was to stand just now dealt with air service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are over twenty items.


Major James William Coldwell: There are over twenty items between.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Twenty-six items.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to get on with these items. Suppose we let the matter stand until six o'clock tomorrow and see what happens after that. Since my hon. friend spoke to me, others have said that while they are willing to have a debate on the decision of the board of transport commissioners as handed down today, they feel they should be given time to consider the effect of the decision, and that they would not have an opportunity of doing that if the debate were brought on tomorrow. I am in the hands of the house, ready to go on at three o'clock tomorrow. But I should like to go on until six o'clock with these estimates-


Major James William Coldwell: That would mean nine
o'clock tomorrow night, and it would give only two hours. I can understand that some hon. members might like to consider the report. But I do not like to see the House of Commons prevented from discussing this by, we will say, the fact that an appeal may be lodged-and undoubtedly if there is going to be an appeal it will be made within a few days.


Lionel Chevrier: The only appeal there can be is to the governor in council, and I think Mr. Speaker has already ruled that an appeal to the governor in council does not prevent the House of Commons from discussing the judgment.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, if that is so-


Lionel Chevrier: I am not quite sure about that; but that is my memory on the point. I believe that was the ruling by Mr. Speaker. The reason he prevented discussion before was that it was a review of the previous order. I certainly will not object to a discussion.	*


Major James William Coldwell: Then it is agreeable to the minister to go on after six o'clock tomorrow night? We could get along for a time.


Lionel Chevrier: I do think it would be better if it were set aside for another day.
Business of the House


Mr. Drew:: I know there are those who would like an opportunity to examine the decision of the board of transport commissioners. If this item could be stood over until, let us say, Monday afternoon, then those who wish to discuss the matter would know in advance that it is to be dealt with and would have had an opportunity to examine the findings of the board of transport commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: I am quite agreeable to any arrangement. I must point out however that next week I shall hardly be able to be here.
I have a commitment for the international trade fair on Monday; then ICAO sits on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I must be there. The earliest day for me next week would be Friday. That is the only day I would have available.


Mr. Johnston:: If the minister would just name a day, it would not matter which day. Let there be a day set aside for this. I would be agreeable to that, because I am interested in it. If the minister wishes to make it Thursday or Friday of next week, that would be all right.


Lionel Chevrier: Friday would be all right with me, if it would be agreeable to the house.


Major James William Coldwell: So long as we are not delaying it too long. That is the only point that worries me.


Charles Edward Johnston: Friday would be all right.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course, unless my estimates could be moved forward to the point where we would come to the item for the board of transport commissioners early tomorrow-under those circumstances it would be all right.


George Alexander Drew: I do suggest that this matter is of sufficient importance that it would be desirable if at all possible to let members have an opportunity of examining the findings before the discussion takes place.


Major James William Coldwell: So long as they do not delay too long, and the rates are put into effect, or something of that kind.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, let us say Friday.


Major James William Coldwell: They have to publish a tariff.


Lionel Chevrier: There is an allowance of fifteen days. It would be within the fifteen, days if we had it next Friday.


Major James William Coldwell: I would agree to next Friday.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, let us leave it at Friday, subject to an appeal for an earlier date being made, if something of an urgent nature comes up.


Major James William Coldwell: That is satisfactory.

Supply-Transport


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Marine service-
467.	Nautical service administration, $194,262.
468.	Marine service steamers, including icebreakers-maintenance, operation and repairs, $3,603,070.
469.	Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $4,503,495.
470. Agencies-salaries	and office expenses, $436,505.
471.	Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $5,000.
472.	To provide for breaking ice in Thunder bay, lake Superior, and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation, $30,000.
473.	To provide for Canada's share of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol, $20,000.
474.	Administration of pilotage, including authority for temporary recoverable advances; contributions, and the operation and maintenance as required, of necessary pilotage vessels in certain pilotage districts, $284,670.
475.	Life-saving service, including rewards for saving life, $137,490.
476.	To provide subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $65,000.
477.	Grants of $300 to each of the Royal Arthur Sailors' Institute at Port Arthur, Ontario and the Welland Canal Seamen's Institute, $600.
478.	Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping, including grants as detailed in the estimates; and for repayment to a proper authority or to the government of the United Kingdom, under section 296 of the Canada Shipping Act, of expenses incurred in respect of distressed seamen left behind *out of Canada, including the repayment of excepted expenses, as defined in the said section, $138,809.
479.	Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $394,280.
480.	Marine signal service, $158,643.
481.	River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital, $3,128,052.
482.	River St. Lawrence ship channel-operation and maintenance, $628,505.
483.	To provide towards the construction of an icebreaking vessel to meet the St. Lawrence and northern transportation requirements (estimated cost $5,000,000)-capital (revote $400,000), $2,000,000.
484.	To provide towards the construction of a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for service in the maritimes (estimated cost $1,500,000)-capital, $200,000.
485.	To provide towards the construction of a service vessel for the eastern arctic patrol (estimated cost $2,400,000)-capital (revote), $600,000.
486.	To provide towards the construction of an auto-ferry vessel for service between Yarmouth, N.S., and the New England states (estimated cost $3,000,000), subject to an agreement being entered into on the part of the province of Nova Scotia for a contribution, upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, up to 50 per cent of the cost of construction but not exceeding $1,500,000-capital, $1,000,000.
Railway service-
487.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $64,000.
488.	Hudson Bay Railway-construction and improvements-capital, $35,000.
489.	Hudson Bay Railway-to provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1951, not exceeding, $400,000.
490.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals -construction and improvement of terminal facilities-capital (revote $238,568), $354,000.
491.	Strait of Canso-transportation improvements and facilities-capital (revote $200,000), $2,000,000.
492.	Canadian government railways-enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, N.S. (estimated cost $2,000,000)-capital, $1,500,000.
Maritime Freight Rates Act-
493.	To hereby authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 195051 to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference (estimated by the Canadian National Railway Company and certified by the auditors of the said company to the Minister of Transport as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (upon the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1950 under the tariffs approved on the eastern lines (as referred to in section 2 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways, $5,869,000.
494.	Amount required to provide for payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1950-51 of the difference (estimated by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and certified by the said board to the Minister of Transport, as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (referred to in section 9 of the said act) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1950 under the tariffs approved by the following companies; Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway, including: Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company and New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company; Cumberland Railway and Coal Company; Dominion Atlantic Railway; Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company; Sydney and Louisburg Railway, $1,450,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
495.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots: Alphonse Asselin; Raoul Lachance, Adelard Delisle, George Larochelle, Wilhelm Langlols, Arthur Baquet, Auguste Santerre, Jules Lamarre, $2,400.
496.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1950, to March 31, 1951, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $15,500.
General-
1	497. To provide for the expenses of the royal
commission on national transportation, $100,000.
B-General-
Air transport board-
523. Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $229,335.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 26, 1950