July 25, 1944 (19th Parliament, 5th Session)

IND

Frédéric Dorion

Independent

Mr. DORION (Translation):

I am only reading the bill and I submit that imagination has no part in that. I challenge any one to say that under subsection 2 of section 4 compulsory education is not imposed. I shall go farther. School attendance is made compulsory until the age of sixteen! What will happen in the province of Quebec, since under the compulsory education act of that province children must attend school only until the age of fourteen? The provincial act and this one will conflict. It is obvious that the provisions of subsection 2, section 4, of the bill is unconstitutional. That is not all. In section 6 of the same bill, provision is made for the establishment of a court of appeal:
If any person is dissatisfied with a decision as to his right to be paid an allowance or as to the amount of an allowance payable to him or as to any other matter arising under this act, he may appeal against such decision to a tribunal to be established and conducted in accordance with regulations, . . .
Now, in reference to the British North America Act-
Mr. ST. LAURENT (Translation): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will permit me. We are now debating the second reading and the principle involved, not the details. The points brought up by the hon. member are certainly debatable. Details will be examined when each section is submitted to the committee. Does not the hon. member think it would be more profitable to postpone the detailed discussion until the matter is referred to the committee of the house for consideration? I do not want to raise any objection, but the hon. member stated he agreed with the principle of the bill. He will be given all the latitude desired to make representations, which might prove very weighty, when the bill is discussed in detail. The hon. member admitted of his own accord that he did not consider the objections he is discussing at present would justify him in opposing the principle which is submitted to the house for second reading. Would it not be preferable to postpone this discussion until it is possible to arrive at a decision on the objections raised by the hon. member.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF CHILDREN UNDER SIXTEEN
Full View