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.
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.
Topic: AERONAUTICS ACT
Subtopic: AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO POWER OF MINISTER TO MAKE REGULATIONS, ETC.