I wish to point out that this section deals with two acts. While the first section, which is numbered as clause 1, deals with an amendment to subsection 2 of section 10 of the Railway Act, which has to do with the question of the appointment of a commissioner, the other two clauses have nothing whatever to do with the Railway Act. They amend the Exchequer Court Act. I suggest that they should be separated. One clause should be an amendment to subsection 2 of section 10 of the Railway Act, and the other clauses should be an amendment to section 6 of the Exchequer Court Act. If anyone wants to know what are the duties of this particular judge, I do not think he would ever find them out by looking at the Railway Act. He would look at the Exchequer Court Act to see what limitations were placed upon the powers of the four judges, one of whose powers is limited by the fact that he can hear only certain cases in the exchequer court. He can carry on in other cases, apparently, save as his duties are restricted. That is why I think the amendment should be made to the Exchequer Court Act.
On several occasions I had to look up certain matters when we were dealing with certain types of legislation, and from the index to the statutes I had a great deal of difficulty in finding what I wanted.
May I point out that some of the duties of the transport board are set forth in the Railway Act. Another act, passed in 1938, chapter 53, also deals with their powers. I must confess that during the recess I had a great deal of difficulty digging out their powers from the two acts. It may be that when the new revision of the statutes takes place the necessary changes will be made; but I suggest that in this, as in all other legislation, an effort should be made to enable a person to find the powers of this board when he looks for them.
Subsection 2a says that section 7 of the Exchequer Court Act shall not apply. That refers to the residence of the judge. Perhaps the minister will have something to say about section 6 of the Exchequer Court Act. That is one reason why all the powers of the exchequer court judges should be in one place. Section 6 of the Exchequer Court Act says:
A judge of the court shall not hold any other office of emolument, either under the government of Canada or under the government of any province of Canada.
That would seem to be in conflict with this proposed legislation which introduces an amendment to the Railway Act. Is it expected
Revised Statutes oj Canada
that the chief commissioner will carry on in the same way as the chief commissioner has done in the past? I feel that this legislation envisages his having some time to devote to exchequer court business. There are six members of the transport board. As the minister points out, their duties have not been so great in the recent past. Is it the intention to rearrange the duties of the chief commissioner? Will he deal only with certain important kinds of work of the board, or is that something which will be left to the board itself? Because some extra time will be at the disposal of the chief commissioner I do not imagine that he will spend all his time at this work. Does the same thing apply to the other members of the board? If so, the time may be fast approaching when there should be a certain overhauling of the transport board so that the time of the members will be fully occupied.
Topic: TRANSPORT BOARD
Subtopic: JUDGE OF EXCHEQUER COURT TO BE CHIEF COMMISSIONER