Mr. COLDWELL:

As a matter of fact there is great controversy in Great Britain in regard to this matter, and the point of view expressed by the minister in this house in April is very much the point of view held, by a large number of people in Great Britain. I have no doubt that even if people do succeed in setting up privately owned airways in this country and elsewhere it will be only a short time before governments will be compelled to take them over and operate them as great public transportation systems, so that in order to avoid the difficulties which otherwise are bound to arise in the future let us establish now our own publicly owned and publicly operated airways system.

I just want to repeat in conclusion that I wish there were a labour code in this bill.

Mr. HOWE:

In regard to what my hon. friend says about a labour code being put in the bill, each country has its own method of handling labour matters. It has not been the practice in Canadian legislation to enact labour codes in bills general in character. For instance, we have no labour code in the Railway Act or in the Transport Act. We have a labour code in this country but it is a separate enactment. I do not think the railroad employees have ever been handicapped because there was no specific labour code in the Railway Act. The railway employees are highly unionized and have been for a great many years. Their labour relations with their employers are perhaps a model for other industries. Similarly the air lines have a collective bargaining agreement with their pilots. All the commercial pilots, I believe, are members of the pilots' association, and the relations between the pilots' association and their employers are happy. The pilots' association has recourse, as all organized labour has, to the duly constituted authorities. In my opinion the addition of a labour code to this bill would neither strengthen the position of the employees nor improve the bill.

Mr. REID:

Mr. Chairman, with a great deal of what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said I am in hearty accord1, but, after all, there are in this bill certain principles which the members should consider seriously before the bill is passed. My own view regarding the centralization of power at Ottawa is the same as I have expressed on many occasions. Despite the fact that the minister says that under this bill no private company will be debarred from entering into business within a province I cannot help thinking that once the bill becomes operative and the board is set up, it will be given a great deal of power and authority.

We speak of international flying between one country and another. That is quite desirable, but do not let us overlook the fact that under this bill we are putting into the hands of three men the power of making rules and regulations affecting every province. Has it been decided whether the dominion government has power over the air over the provinces? So far as I know, that has not yet been decided. Under this bill the dominion government is to have the say as to what company or individual will be allowed to fly within a province. I think the committee should realize the import of a question of that kind before it passes this measure. Has the dominion government complete control over the air?

Suppose that a man in New Westminster wanted to inaugurate a flight from that city to Victoria or to the northern part of British Columbia. Under this bill he would have to apply to the board at Ottawa. As I said in a speech made in the house not long ago, we from British Columbia have had painful experiences in coming to Ottawa to appear before boards. The provinces are handing over power to the dominion government. We must bear in mind that a lot of the power of the provinces has been filched from them during this war, and I am just wondering if that power is to go back to the provinces. During the last war many of the powers which were filched from the provinces were retained at Ottawa, and I think we had better be careful before giving these powers away to the dominion government.

I am particularly interested in the question of whether the dominion has the right to regulate or prevent the setting up of air lines within a province. We know that in so far as railroad transportation is concerned a railroad may be started within a province, although there have been instances where the dominion, perhaps to get some right on behalf of

Aeronautics Act

another railroad, has passed an act of parliament designating such provincial railroad to be for the good of Canada. That is my first question.

The explanatory notes contain the following:

The bill will add a new section to the Aeronautics Act dealing with the powers and duties of the air transport board. The Department of Transport will continue to administer those portions of the Aeronautics Act which deal with civil aviation and do not come within the scope of the board.

What is the scope of the board? I thought this bill was to give the board all power and authority, but apparently there are certain powers left out. They are going to split the power. The Minister of Transport is to have certain powers and the board will have certain powers. That is my second question.

My third question is this: Who is to administer this legislation, the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of Transport? When I have had answers to these three questions I may have something more to say.

Mr. HOWE:

There is no question about jurisdiction over the air. A reference was made, I believe in 1929, to the privy council, in connection with the Aeronautics Act, and it was ruled that the dominion government has complete jurisdiction over the Aeronautics Act and over railways generally. The hon. member asked, who is to administer this legislation? I have explained that on many occasions. This legislation properly belongs under the Department of Transport, but for purposes associated with the war it has been temporarily transferred to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Munitions and Supply under the Transfer of Duties Act, The transfer is temporary and the administration of the measure will be returned to the Department of Transport in the not too distant future.

All civil aviation comes within the scope of the board. Part II comes within the scope of the board; it will be administered by the new board, while certain parts of the bill remain under the direct jurisdiction of the minister.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

I am interested in feeder lines. The city of Peterborough has tried to get an airport but so far we have been unsuccessful. The country around that city is rolling and it is hard to put in an airfield. However, it can be done and I understand that plans are being made to construct an airport after the war. The presi-

[Mr. Howe.J

dent of the Toronto transportation commission sent me a letter which I should like to read to the committee. It reads:

June 12, 1944.

Forwarded herewith is copy of a letter which I have written under date of the 9th instant to the Honourable C. D. Howe, Minister of Munitions and Supply, with reference to the air transport bill just introduced in parliament, and its possible effect on the helicopter services which its commission hopes to operate after the war, through its subsidiary, Gray Coach Lines, Limited.

As your constituency is served either directly or indirectly by Gray Coach Lines routes, I thought the foregoing would be of interest to you.

It would be a wonderful thing if we could have a helicopter service to that district. The railway service into our city at the present time is absolutely terrible. If you want to come to Ottawa you must leave at twenty minutes to twelve noon or at 1.45 a.m. To return to Peterborough from Ottawa you must leave Ottawa at 9.20 in the morning to arrive at Peterborough at 5.15 in the afternoon or at 11 p.m. to arrive at Peterborough at 5 p.m., provided that the trains are on time. The letter from the Toronto transportation commission to the Minister of Munitions and Supply is dated June 9, 1944, and reads:

The commission and its subsidiary, Gray Coach Lines, Limited, are owned by the people of lorouto and in addition to operating practically all the local transportation in and about the city they own and operate the largest interurban motor coach operation in Canada.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the helicopter will shortly become a practical instrument for local air passenger transportation. It is also obvious that existing air passenger travel is not suitable for or equipped to supply local passenger demands. Indeed, the trend is the reverse, its goal being longer trips at faster speeds. Unless completely unforeseen developments arise, this involves longer runways and the maintenance of airports a substantial distance from the centre of the cities served. Obviously this situation makes no appeal to local passenger demand, nor is it likely that it would be commercially feasible for an air line to mix local passengers with its long distance passengers, even if it were willing to accept them and detract from the advantages of its service by making the local stops required.

It therefore follows that the helicopter and the aeroplane will not compete but will serve a totally different constituency. As far as the helicopter is concerned its constituency is almost exactly coterminous with that of the existing motor coach, but its advent will give motor coach patrons a choice of modes of travel and in many cases a quicker, more convenient, and possibly equally inexpensive service.

The motor coach industry knows local passenger travel needs and desires. It has all the local branches, ticket agencies, garages, repair shops and personnel ready to hand. The public will be best served by the coordination of this

Aeronautics Act

new travel agency with the motor coach, and this consideration must surely be the decisive one.

It seems to this commission that the air transport bill just introduced in parliament will, if press reports be accurate, prevent the use of the helicopter by the motor coach industry. This may mean the denial of this new method of public transportation to the people of Canada. It certainly will mean a postponement of its introduction in Canada and a costly and unnecessary duplication of function, which duplication, in the last analysis, is always paid for by the users of the service.

It is also important that Canada shall not lag behind the United States in its acceptance of this new mode of travel and what is planned in the United States is best exemplified by the extract from "Aviation News" which we are taking the liberty of enclosing.

This commission has on leave of absence many mechanics now engaged in the repair,- maintenance and servicing of aircraft operated by the naval, military and air forces, and who will return to their employment after the termination of hostilities. There are also on leave of absence many employees in the flying services of the armed forces of Canada and allied nations, many of whom, upon their return from service, can be qualified to direct, dispatch, navigate, pilot and operate the aircraft which it is proposed to operate.

The commission, therefore, respectfully submits that the bill in question is too broad in its scope and should be amended to allow for the normal and usual development of this new system of transportation which has such promise of usefulness to the citizens of Canada.

This submission is premised upon the theory that jurisdiction over this new form of travel resides in the dominion. This may be open to some question, as helicopters were not considered in the reference to the courts on aeronautics.

We are taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to the local members of parliament.

Yours faithfully,

Wm. C. McBrien, Chairman.

The extract from Aviation News under date of May 29, 1944, is as follows:

Greyhound Plans Helicopter Feeders

Post-war plans of the bus industry "to establish a non-subsidized, multi-scheduled helicopter-bus air service operating between bus stations in the downtown sections of approximately 1,000 cities and towns" were announced by Arthur Middleton Hill, President, Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, before the Institute of Transportation in New York.

Four hundred transportation executives attended the institute, held May 23-24, under sponsorship of the schools of law and commerce of New York university and the Transportation Association of America.

( The proposed helicopter service, Hill said, "results from a large demand for air service between 50 and 250 miles which, in volume, is greater than all of the present air and bus travel combined."

He said the helicopters would have approximately the carrying capacity of a small bus, and cost to the traveller would be "no greater than the operation of his private automobile".

He did not touch on the question of when such helicopters might be available but said: "Leaders of the bus industry who have conferred

with aircraft manufacturers licensed to build helicopters, and have witnessed demonstrations, are fully convinced that these aircraft are the means through which a post-war coordination of bus and air transportation will become a reality."

The reason why I bring this up is that I feel, as I know a number of other hon. members do, that opportunity should be given to such companies as these to feed the transcontinental air lines. I hope the minister will not exclude these private corporations.

Mr. HOWE:

If I may at once answer this comment, I would say that the article read by my hon. friend is a perfect example of the need for taking care not to give out prematurely valuable public franchises. I point out to my hon. friend that the commercial helicopter is yet to be invented, and if my guess is accurate-and I have followed fairly closely the progress of the art-it will be some years before the invention is brought to the point where it can be used commercially. The government has had applications over the last two or three years from, with few exceptions, every bus line in Canada for franchises for helicopter operations between points served by bus systems. I suggest that these applications were probably made in good faith, but a less kindly person might suggest that they represent an attempt to prevent competition with surface transportation.

The position of the government is that if the helicopter has merit-and we hope it will have-it should be permitted to develop as an independent system of transportation and not be limited in its scope or confined in the area which is served by a form of surface transportation. It is with that thought in mind that this bill has been drawn, and the responsibility of the federal government for regulating the use of the airways will be exercised in the matter of the helicopter just as it is being exercised in the control of the aeroplane.

Mr. MacNICOL:

Would the present bill

permit or prevent the use of the helicopter?

Mr. HOWE:

It would make it very difficult for the helicopter to be owned by a bus line, or by any other form of surface transportation.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

I personally feel that towns and cities away from the main transcontinental lines should have some ways and means of getting down to the different points where these transport planes cross the continent. If you cut out these small companies or bus lines, what chance have these cities and towns? They have not any chance at all, because the minister knows

Aeronautics Act

that it will be years and years before the service will be furnished otherwise, and if the government try to do it they will in many cases lose money. These firms are willing to see if this form of transportation can be operated profitably; if it cannot, they are prepared to lose the money. That is the chance they take.

Mr. HOWE:

It is the opinion of the government, and my own opinion, that the development of the helicopter is much more likely to be sound and its use extended to give the service which my hon. friend desires, if franchises are not given out prematurely, and if its development is separated from the confines of surface transportation.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

Then should it not be put in this bill' that provision will be made when helicopters come into practical use? I might mention that it is some seven years ago since I had a trip in one of these gyroscope machines. It landed in a space not half the size of this chamber. I had a very nice ride, and I thought at that time, and I still think, it is a coming means of transportation.

Mr. HOWE:

The art of the gyroscope is

exactly where it was when my hon. friend took his ride.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

I

know, but the helicopter has gone ahead; there are now new patents on it, and I understand that some helicopters have been built in the United States.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Is jurisdiction over provincial aviation included in this bill? Is there jurisdiction over the helicopter lines W'hich would be in the province of Ontario?

Mr. HOWE:

The privy council has decided that the federal government has jurisdiction over the use of the air.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

In support of what the hon. member for Peterborough West has said, I would point out what happened in Toronto in connection with buses. It was up to the city, not because they wanted to do it, but because it was necessary to give service to the outlying districts, and if it had not been for the transportation commission we would not have had that service. We had many bus lines going into liquidation, and the people in the surrounding country insisted on the Toronto Transportation commission giving the service. They lost a lot of money when they started and it will be exactly the same in the helicopter business. How much will it cost to incorporate one of these small companies

the minister is talking about, the one running between Toronto and Peterborough? How many machines will they have; what will be the capital investment, and where will they get the money, with all the things that go with it, all the organization that is necessary, and so forth? To my mind this business of small companies is so much eyewash. The work cannot be done 'as efficiently as it could in some other way. If a big firm like the Toronto Transportation commission wishes to take it on, it should be allowed to do so because it has the organization.

Mr. STIRLING:

When the minister was

outlining the civil aviation policy some weeks ago he said, I remember, that it was not the intention of the government to entertain applications from those in another country who desire to set up a service in Canada unless the application came through the government of that country. I expected to find that in this bill but I do not find it. Where would such power be found, and is it still the intention of the government to follow that plan?

Mr. HOWE:

That arrangement is by international agreement. It has been functioning between Canada and the United States during the last several years. It is purely a bilateral agreement that may be varied by mutual arrangement, but it has no place in this bill. This bill deals with aviation within Canada.

Mr. STIRLING:

Is it the case that at the present time no application from an air-line company at present existent in the United States would be entertained by Canada?

Mr. HOWE:

That is correct.