April 21, 1947

PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FLEMING:

I take it that this order is to have only temporary effect. Could the subject matter of this order not have been properly included in the government employees compensation bill which was recently before the house? The effect of this order is to provide that the employees of three government corporations, the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, the Wartime Food Corporation and the Canadian Wool Board, are to be deemed to be employees of His Majesty within the meaning and for the purposes of the Government Employees Compensation Act. Since this order is presumably to have a limited effect in point of time, could its subject matter not have been properly dealt with within the terms of the legislation recently before the house rather than carrying this order on for a temporary period?

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER:

If the hon. gentleman will remember, there was a provision in the government employees compensation bill for the inclusion, by order in council, of any other corporations which desired to be covered by the act. This had already been done in certain cases. I have not read the whole of this order but I presume, from what I have already heard, that the object of this order is to cover a case such as that.

Emergency Powers

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FLEMING:

I am indebted to the minister for his explanation. This order, P.C. 34/4433, was passed on June 10, 1944. It has the effect of bringing the employees of these three corporations within the terms of the Government Employees Compensation Act. What is the purpose of carrying on this order in council under the authority of Bill No. 104 when, under the authority of the new bill to which the Minister of Transport has just referred, an order in council could be passed under the terms of the Government Employees Compensation Act? This order was passed away back in 1944 without relation at all to the bill recently piloted through the house by the Minister of Transport.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER:

I would think that what the hon. gentleman says is so; but these three corporations, if they have not already covered themselves anid their employees by their own act are covered by this order and they were covered from 1944 until this day. If this order were not allowed to go through, their employees would not be covered unless a separate order in council were passed under the Government Employees Compensation Act. I would think this would be the better way to cover the employees of these three corporations.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FLEMING:

With respect, I submit that it would be preferable to cover them under the Government Employees Compensation Act, making provision for the passing thereunder of an order in council to bring within its terms employees of these three corporations referred to in P.C. 34/4433. I would think that would be preferable.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER:

I agree that that is the proper procedure for those corporations which are not already covered, but these are covered.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FLEMING:

They are covered under the terms of an order in council which is to have a limited duration. That is my point. The whole basis on which the committee is dealing with the present bill is that the orders in council enumerated therein are to have limited duration. If the minister will indicate to the committee that it is the government's intention to pass an order in council under the Government Employees Compensation Act bringing the employees of these three state corporations within the terms of that act by order in council, this order in council in the consolidation can be dispensed with just as soon as the other order in council is passed. If there has not been time to do that the minister might indicate to the committee that this order is only to fill the gap until an order in council can be passed under the amended Government Employees Compensation Act.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

That bill is not through the senate yet, is it? We shall have to assume that it will go through. I think we could do it the way the hon. gentleman suggests, but I do not see any particular reason why we should do it one way rather than another. If we knew the bill was through we could pass an order in council under that act and) it would last as long as those temporary bodies last. This order will last for only one year, and then an order in council will have to be passed. But we have not got the other legislation through yet.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FLEMING:

I want to be sure that we are not arguing at cross-purposes. Do I understand the Minister of Justice to agree that P.C. 34/4433 will remain in force only until there has been time for the government to pass the necessary order in council under the new Government Employees Compensation Act to replace P.C. 34/4433 on page 45 of the consolidation?

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

There is no objection and no advantage either way. If the hon. member would like us to revoke this order in council and pass a new one when we get the other legislation through, we shall do so.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

May I suggest that the minister give further consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member for Eglinton. There might be some virtue, in reducing the number of orders in council from 57 to 56.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

Mr. Chairman, what about the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? This was one of the orders he wanted to freeze. Does he want to yield?

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. KNOWLES:

I was thinking about that.

I would point out to the minister that the time when it might be desirable to replace this order would probably be within a month or so; parliament would be sitting and the minister could ask parliament for its consent.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

I would not want to bother with two addresses by both houses.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. KNOWLES:

It could be done in that way, but I am perfectly willing to yield this order. It is not in the class with the others under the wartime prices and trade board section.

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

Let it stand until tomorrow.

P.C. 34/4433 stands.

Progress reported.

It being three minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Inquiries of the Ministry

Tuesday, April 22, 1947

Topic:   UTISE) COITION
Permalink

April 21, 1947