Mr. ROBB:

I have no further explanation

to offer than that already given. This is to extend the time of election for another year. I brought in the bill at the request of representatives of the civil service. I admit they should have already elected whether they would come under this act or not, but perhaps it is not unreasonable to give them another year.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

What are the reasons

they advance? If the minister has none of his own, perhaps he would pass on their reasons.

Mr. MURDOCK:

Perhaps I might be allowed to give an illustration. Take the case of a man sixty or sixty-five years of age who will within a very short time be retired. He has paid into the retirement fund, under the previous regulations, a considerable amount of money, which he would be allowed to draw out in a lump sum on his retirement unless he elected to come under the new Superannuation Act. A number of them have not yet elected whether or not they will relinquish their grasp on. that lump sum they can withdraw under the old scheme and let it go into the new superannuation fund, as it would have to do if they elected to come under that scheme. Some of the employees in that class desire a little longer time in which to decide whether to draw out the amount to their credit in the retirement fund, or to relinquish that and take advantage of the benefits that would accrue to them under the Superannuation Act that was passed last year.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

This makes clear the

advantages of waiting, I know, but then a time limit has been fixed. Do they give any reason why they should have another year, and if so, what is the reason?

Mr. MURDOCK:

The only reason is the

uncertainty which some of them are in as to which course it would be advisable for them to take, whether to get their money in a lump sum, and in some cases it amounts to two or three thousand dollars, and be done with all superannuation schemes, or to come in under the new act. It is just a question of uncertainty in the minds of some of them as to which course they should take.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Catching the contagion

of the government, and falling into ways of procrastination.

Mr. SHAW:

I think also some question

has arisen as to the interpretation of various sections of the Superannuation Act. I know that in some civil service organizations with which I am familiar these questions have arisen, and they have asked for another year in which to elect, pending assurances as to the real interpretation of the act.

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

I would ask the

minister if this act would cover the cases of some seven or eight guards or more in the penitentiary who would have to pay into the superannuation fund a large sum of money in order to get the benefits of this act. The officials who have been there for twenty-odd years have not the amount of money that it is necessary to pay into the new superannuation fund in order to bring them under the

Superannuation Act

act. At the same time, they have laid up a gratuity in some cases of some two thousand dollars or more, which would come to them, in case of resignation from the service. Now these few officials would like some change in the Superannuation Act, so that instead of paying in the lump sum that is required to come in under the new act, they shall be credited with die amount that has accumulated to their credit after twenty-five or twenty-six years service. They are withheld from entering into the superanuuation scheme on account of the large amount of money, some $1,500, which they would have to pay in in a lump sum to come under the scheme. I would like to ask the minister in charge or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour if their case will be considered, and an amendment made to the act so as to permit of some change being made in their case.

Mr. ROBB:

This amendment does not

change their status in any way. It does not in any way change the Superannuation Act, except as to extending the time of election. I know there have been representations made to us from various sources to widen the act, but we have refused to meddle with it at all. We propose to let it have another year's operation.

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

Might I ask the

Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice to make some statement that the cases of these men will be considered? I think they will agree with me that it is impossible for these men to pay in that lump sum of money.

Mr. MURDOCK:

There are a considerable number of employees in the service in somewhat the same position. For instance, down at the Printing Bureau we have several hundred employees who are not now under this Superannuation Act that was passed last year, whereas they were under the Calder Act, which expired last year. That situation and a number of similar situations possibly should be dealt with by parliament at some time, but this amendment does not change the situation at all in relation to the employees my hon. friend speaks about, except to give them one year longer in order to elect which they shall do.

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

May I point out

that in the meantime these employees are taking great chances. There is a ease now, and it will come up in the supplementary estimates, of an employee with about twenty-six years' service who became sick. If he had been informed that he was going to die within a very short time, he could have resigned, but he died and he lost his $1,800. He was not

under the Superannuation Act. A number of these sad cases may arise, and I think the minister would be doing a very creditable thing if he would assure us that their case will receive immediate consideration. I shall have something further to say on this matter when the estimates come up.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I thought the government had abandoned this farce? What was the idea of taking it out of committee?

Mr. ROBB:

The idea was to proceed with other business and make some progress. If we make progress we shall go on with the bill. I intimated to the House yesterday that we had introduced it with good intentions but it did not receive the support we expected, and I say frankly now that I am not going to sit here all summer and discuss it.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I would not advise the

minister to do so. Does he consider it progress tb pass a bill like this? Take the one clause which provides that mortgages under this legislation shall take precedence over all taxes,-school taxes, municipal taxes, and every other lien and charge. Does the minister imagine that any municipality or province could possibly permit such a thing as that? Why, you could not conduct your school system under such circumstances. Even to-day there are many scores of school districts which cannot sustain themselves, and the fact that our soldier settlement lands that have fallen into the hands of the government are exempt has been a contributory cause.

I am not attributing any fault to the government in that respect because it is difficult to take the stand that these lands should be taxable. But for goodness' sake do not suggest that we go further. There is not the slightest chance in the world of any government permitting mortgages under this legislation to take precedence of school taxes. How could the school district ever protect itself against the mortgagor? How could it

Rural Credits

protect its security? Here they have a lien on land, a mortgage against it, with a mortgage sale proceeding started. How will they protect their lien? They have three or four hundred dollars in accrued taxes and they have no power to bid in the mortgage; and what is more, they never could provide the money if they had the power. That one clause therefore, to say nothing of other features of the bill, is fatal; it is only a mere fiasco for the government to bring a bill in this form.

Mr. SPENCER:

I would suggest, although I will not move, an amendment to subsection (1) to strike out in the twenty-eighth line the words " ahead of all other claims and encumbrances whatsoever". As the leader of the opposition says, this provision makes the bill useless, and I would advise the government to amend it. I will not offer it as an amendment because I know that if the government insists on carrying the bill as it is the amendment will only be defeated.