June 17, 1936

LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):

I think perhaps I can answer the question just as well now as ask that it stand as a notice. My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice that he would ask the question, and I may tell him that the change was made with a view to giving the patrons of that subpost office improved service, including better accommodation and longer hours per day. The post office was formerly in a grocery store which closed at six o'clock in the evening and it has now been placed in a drug store that remains open until eleven.

SOCKEYE SALMON TREATY On the orders of the day:

Topic:   HAMILTON POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   DISMISSAL OF J. M. SEMMENS
Permalink
CCF

Charles Grant MacNeil

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):

May I ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) a question. What is the present status of the Fraser river sockeye salmon treaty, in view of the announcement in to-day's press of ratification in the United States senate?

Topic:   HAMILTON POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   DISMISSAL OF J. M. SEMMENS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I regret that the Minister of Fisheries is not in the house at the moment. Perhaps my hon. friend will allow the question to stand, to be answered to-morrow.

Topic:   HAMILTON POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   DISMISSAL OF J. M. SEMMENS
Permalink

REFERENCES TO SUPREME COURT

STATEMENT GIVING SUMMARY OF DECISIONS RENDERED


On the orders of the day:


LIB

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfor.t):

Has the Minister of Justice any idea when we may expect a report from the supreme court on certain legislation placed before it?

Topic:   REFERENCES TO SUPREME COURT
Subtopic:   STATEMENT GIVING SUMMARY OF DECISIONS RENDERED
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

I have just been handed a summary of the decisions that were given this afternoon in the supreme court. It is as follows:

1. Reference re section 498A of the criminal code.

The court is unanimously of the opinion that as to subsections (b) and (c) the enactment is not ultra vires.

As to subsection (a), in the opinion of the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Rinfret, Mr. Justice Davis and Mr. Justice Kerwin, the enactment is not ultra vires; in the opinion of Mr. Justice Cannon and Mr. Justice Crocket that subsection is ultra vires.

2. Reference re the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act.

Our answer is directed only to those sections of the act upon which we had the benefit of argument.

As to section 14, that section, in the unanimous opinion of the court, is ultra vires.

As to sections 16 and 17, these sections are, in the unanimous opinion of the court, not ultra vires.

As to section 20, that section, in the unanimous opinion of the court, is not ultra vires in so far as the enactments enumerated in section 2(h) may be intra vires.

As to sections 18 and 19 these sections, in the unanimous opinion of the court, are ultra vires.

As to sections 21 and 22, these sections (as applicable to the criminal offences created by such of the enactments enumerated in section 2(h) as may be intra vires), in the unanimous opinion of the court, are not ultra vires.

3. Reference re the Employment and Social Insurance Act.

Mr. Justice Rinfret, Mr. Justice Cannon, Mr. Justice Crocket and Mr. Justice Kerwin are of the opinion that the statute is ultra vires; the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Davis are of the opinion that the statute is intra vires.

4. Reference re the Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act; The Minimum Wages Act, and The Limitation of Hours of Work Act.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Davis and Mr. Justice Kerwin are of the opinion that (except as to section 6 of The Minimum Wages Act) the statutes are intra vires; Mr. Justice Rinfret, Mr. Justice Cannon and Mr. Justice Crocket are of the opinion that the statutes are ultra vires.

5. Reference re Natural Products Marketing Act and Amendment.

The statute, in the unanimous opinion of the court, is ultra vires.

6. Reference re the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. [DOT]

379S COMMONS

Bank of Canada-Mr. Woodsworth

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Rinfret, Mr. Justice Crocket, Mr. Justice Davis and Mr. Justice Kerwiu are of the opinion that the statute is intra vires; Mr. Justice Cannon is of the opinion that the statute, except _ section 17, is ultra vires and that section 17 is intra vires.

Topic:   REFERENCES TO SUPREME COURT
Subtopic:   STATEMENT GIVING SUMMARY OF DECISIONS RENDERED
Permalink
CCF

Abraham Albert Heaps

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):

Arising out of that question, will the Minister of Justice state before the house prorogues whether it is the intention of the government to appeal the decisions -of the court?

Topic:   REFERENCES TO SUPREME COURT
Subtopic:   STATEMENT GIVING SUMMARY OF DECISIONS RENDERED
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

If my hon. friend will restrain his eagerness, I think the first thing to do will be to read the reasons which have been given.

Mr. HEAPS; What I said was, would the minister be prepared to make a statement Defore the house prorogues.

Topic:   REFERENCES TO SUPREME COURT
Subtopic:   STATEMENT GIVING SUMMARY OF DECISIONS RENDERED
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I cannot 3ay until I have seen the reasons for the decision.

Topic:   REFERENCES TO SUPREME COURT
Subtopic:   STATEMENT GIVING SUMMARY OF DECISIONS RENDERED
Permalink

YIMY PILGRIMAGE


On the orders of the day. Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview); Two months ago I asked the government if they were prepared to consider sending all the returned soldier members of the House of Commons to the Vimy Ridge unveiling ceremony. The reply then given was that they would consider it. I should like to know whether they will favourably consider sending these returned men; there are not very many of them who could go. The Ontario legislature are sending all the soldiers in their house. We can afford to send a big delegation to the League of Nations; why not here?


LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

There are some further supplementary estimates to be introduced, which will1 include an item relative to the pilgrimage to Vimy. At that time the government may attempt to give an answer on this matter to my hon. friend.

Topic:   YIMY PILGRIMAGE
Permalink

BANK OF CANADA

MAJORITY CONTROL BY GOVERNMENT OF CAPITAL STOCK AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS


The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 16, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Dunning for the third reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the Bank of Canada Act. Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre); Yesterday the house spent the entire day in discussing what words should appear on the bank notes, or more properly speaking, what languages should appear on [Mr. McLean.1 the bank notes. It seems to me there are other aspects of this legislation that are of immensely greater importance to the people of Canada, and which we are in danger of overlooking almost entirely. For some years we in our group have urged a government owned and controlled central bank; indeed we have gone so far as to urge the nationalization of our entire banking system. I admit frankly that unless the monetary policy is changed, government control of the central bank would not bring the desired results. I admit further that under this or any other government dominated by capitalist ideals no fundamental changes are likely. But I would urge that government control is a step at least in the right direction, and again, that a central bank controlled by the government would be necessary in order to carry out the policies which we in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation advocate. It is not my purpose to-day to make any extended speech. Our position has been stated on the resolution and in the committee. May I summarize what we have tried to say? We believe that this central bank as constituted cannot perform the functions which a central bank should perform. We believe that this legislation is a surrendering of sovereignty in the monetary field. Whether the parliament of Canada ever had that sovereignty is, perhaps, a matter to be discussed; but in any case we have in the central bank a more powerful instrument than w-e have ever had before, and as we see it, this instrument is being-given over into private hands and Canada cannot be sovereign in that monetary field under the existing arrangement. Again, this legislation grants special1 privileges and powers to a group of shareholders who constituted a very small proportion of the citizens of Canada. Further, this legislation does not, as we see it, implement the promises made by the Liberals during the election. Yesterday some of the Liberal members claimed that they had a mandate with regard to what language should be placed on government bills. I cannot see that they had any mandate with regard to that matter, .because it was not generally discussed at the election, but I think they did have a mandate to carry out certain financial or monetary reforms. Undoubtedly all over the country many Liberals said that if their party were returned to power we shoulcj have a national central bank. I do not want to go over the field again. I want just to put that on record. In my judgment the general belief was that if the Liberals were returned Bank nj Canada-Mr. Woodsworth to power we would have a nationally owned and controlled central bank. I do not believe this legislation gives us that. So far there has not been an opportunity formally to place our position on record or to ascertain what support it has in this house. I attempted during the resolution stage to move an amendment, but it was ruled out of order. Possibly I could have moved on the second reading a resolution similar to that which I propose to move to-day. As a matter of fact the Speaker passed so quickly over the second reading that, although I was in the house and paying attention to the proceedings, I had not the opportunity to move my resolution. So I take this occasion to place our position on record. As it has become almost the practice since the Liberals have been in power with such a large majority to challenge, as being out of order practically any motion that is made-


?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   BANK OF CANADA
Subtopic:   MAJORITY CONTROL BY GOVERNMENT OF CAPITAL STOCK AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

-I take this opportunity of reading the rule in this regard. I quote from Beauchesne, page 217, section 755:

It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or; differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.

In my resolution I propose to express an opinion declaratory of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of this bill. I know this rule refers to the second reading-

Topic:   BANK OF CANADA
Subtopic:   MAJORITY CONTROL BY GOVERNMENT OF CAPITAL STOCK AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   BANK OF CANADA
Subtopic:   MAJORITY CONTROL BY GOVERNMENT OF CAPITAL STOCK AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Permalink

June 17, 1936