Mr. BROOKS:

Are munition workers included?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Yes.

Mr. STIRLING:

And the designation?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

If they are designated they would be included.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

In discussing this section in committee on Friday it was suggested that paragraph (b) of subsection 1 thereof was hardly wide enough to allow for the provision of care, treatment and training of a person in his own home.

I appreciate this suggestion and I feel that it has considerable merit. Accordingly the following amendment is proposed. That this section be amended by striking out the words "other institution" where they occur in the third line thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the words "or elsewhere".

I have already given notice of my intention to move an amendment of this particular paragraph in other respects. Therefore the paragraph as proposed to be amended will read as follows:

Respecting the care, treatment or training to be furnished in any hospital, workshop, home, school or elsewhere, and providing for the care, treatment or training therein of persons entitled thereto under any statute or order of the governor in council administered by the minister.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That is in lieu of present paragraph (b) ?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

That is right.

Mr. MacNICOL:

On Friday last I made some observations in reference to paragraph (g), under the impression that if the minister had the power under the bill which I was given to understand he had, relief would be given to numbers of veterans who for one reason or another have not been granted pensions. I should like to know if the minister is going to have increased powers in that connection.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

When this subsection was drafted it was the intention that in special cases, such as widows'

Department of Veterans' Affairs

allowances, which are governed by special appropriations by parliament, the minister would have certain powers as a result of that action by this house. But the hon. member for Vancouver South pointed out, I think very properly, that this might lead to possible abuses; that the minister would be given powers to which really he was not entitled, because the pension commission is an independent body and I think should remain so. I do not believe any minister of pensions should have the power to award pensions; I say so very sincerely and very directly. So that after listening to the suggestions of the hon. member for Vancouver South, and after talking it over with my departmental officials, we are going to move to have that subsection deleted from the bill.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I think everyone will be in agreement with that declaration of policy by the minister, that no minister should have power to grant pensions. Not only is it in the interests of the minister's peace of mind, since it will relieve him of a tremendous burden that otherwise would be cast upon him, but I think it is in the interests of the whole spirit of our pension legislation.

What I rise to speak about and protest against is the growing practice of ministers, in bringing down new legislation, to take authority to legislate, because that is what they are doing. In the bill referring to the disposal of war assets-and I hope hon. members will consider this when we come to discuss that bill in committee-tremendous power is vested in the Minister of Munitions and Supply to do almost anything. He can override the corporation and the associated committee which is set up-

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

To which section is the hon. gentleman referring?

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I am

directing my remarks to section 7 of the bill; at the moment I am giving an illustration. That makes the minister a dictator. If hon. members will examine the aeronautics bill which is now before this house they will find that again the Minister of Munitions and Supply is arrogating to himself all the powers of a dictator, when as a matter of fact the whole subject matter of the regulations in connection with aeronautics ought to be vested in an independent board.

Having said that may I refer to section 7(1), which reads:

Subject to the approval of the governor in council-

-which of course is very largely a formality, since the minister makes the recommendation.

-the minister may make such regulations, from time to time, as he may deem necessary and advisable-

If the section were to stop there of course it would be impossible for parliament to delegate such power to a minister, and I am sure no minister would ask for it. In the succeeding subsections (a) to (1) both inclusive there is an attempt to limit the subject matter in connection with which the minister may make regulations. I invite hon. members to read carefully the provisions of those paragraphs. They will observe, I think, that they cover practically the whole gamut of the powers that are to come under this new department of veterans' affairs, save and except the awarding of pensions.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

They have been there for twenty years.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Well, its antiquity does not make it any better. This, Mr. Chairman, is just a repetition of what Lord Hewart many years ago eloquently described as "the new despotism," and this practice has gone unchallenged until now members of parliament are accustomed to having ministers bring down legislation of this kind, and to being told that because it had been done previously times without number, therefore it was all right. That doctrine does not appeal to me, and I do not think it should appeal to the membership of this house. It is a rule of law, of course, in delegating powers, especially in the municipal sphere, the municipalities being creatures of the provincial legislatures, that authority may be granted by the provincial legislatures to cities and incorporated towns to make by-laws and regulations respecting certain subject matters. If hon. gentlemen have had any experience in municipal law, and I presume there are members of the legal profession here who have had such experience, they will know that the courts always construe those delegated powers very strictly; that unless the thing was within the ambit of the delegated authority, it does not become legal. Many by-laws have been passed by municipal legislators under such delegated authority which have not stood the test of the courts. But I venture to suggest that there is no such restraining power on whoever may be minister under this bill. Who will come into court; what opportunity will there be in any given case to test the validity of the powers exercised by a minister under this delegated authority? There will be no one. In the first place, these regulations are usually applied to veterans-which, by the way, is not defined in the act, and before this bill passes I should like to know who is to be a veteran-and these men are in no position to

Department oj Veterans' Affairs

contest regulations made by the minister which might have detrimental effects upon their fortunes. Certainly the taxpayers of this country, who have to foot the bill, have no locus standi in the courts to contest the validity of any regulations the minister may make. The result would seem to be, and I think this is apparent, that within the ambit of section 7 of this bill the minister becomes a law unto himself, and he is passing legislation. In principle I condemn that practice. It ought never to be delegated by parliament, except in its most plain and administrative features.

Here the minister is granted authority. Authority is delegated to him to exercise not only administrative but also executive functions, and, I venture to say, judicial functions. Has the minister ever looked into that situation? Did his advisers, when they drew up this bill, have in mind the fact that once it passes parliament they are given full control over everything and can do about it as they please in the days to come, in respect of the great responsibilities of the situation which will be created after this bill becomes law? The well-being of numberless men is left to the tender care-I am willing to use that expression in its proper sense; I am not satirical when I use it-of the minister. That means it is left to his advisers.

I do not like this type of legislation at all. I do not think the country will like it when it is fully seized of its implications. And I do not think any administration ought to ask parliament for authority of this kind. It is on a par with government by order in council, which never sees the light of day until after its enactment into law under the War Measures Act.

The whole thing is bad in principle; it is wrong in practice, and it ought not to be followed out by parliament without at least a protest. That is what I am making to-day. I make that protest against the underlying principles and theories of this legislation. I hope I shall receive some support. I do not for one moment, of course, hope to change the minister's opinion. And yet I know that in his heart he will admit that the theories I am trying to advance are sound in law, in fact, and in principle.

Therefore I do protest as strongly as I know how against parliament's delegating to ministers, not merely the powers of administration-because I think they have to have those powers-but powers executive and judicial which should never be vested in an individual minister.

This is a repetition of what has gone on for more than twenty years, by all governments, and it is time to call a halt. I could illustrate by an analogous case I have in mind, going back many years ago to the time when the government of this country was operating Canadian government railways, among which was the old Intercolonial Railway. This was before the days of the board of railway commissioners, now known as the board of transport commissioners. A man who was opening up a new class of shipments- to be exact, the first movement of pulpwood from New Brunswick to the state of Maine- applied to the traffic manager of the Intercolonial railway to fix rates. The rate was high-even in those days it was so considered, despite the low level of wages, salaries and operating expenses. It was so high that having regard to the price of the commodity at its destination this would-be shipper could not see his way clear to move the goods. What did he do? He went to the minister of railways of that day, who happened to be a good personal as well as a good political friend. The minister of railways, under the authority vested in him under the old act, fixed a rate which was below the cost of operation to the railway. I give that only by way of illustration.

The minister is going very far in asking for the authority which would be vested in him under section 7. If the request were limited purely to administrative matters, I would not have so much objection to it. But I do object to giving the minister executive authority to legislate, and authority to exercise judicial functions.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I am really and truly amazed at the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

You are?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); Anyone in the committee would think that the Minister of Pensions and National Health was introducing something drastic, something new, something revolutionary, in this legislation. Except for the removal of restrictions in regard to persons who served in the great war which commenced in August, 1914, this provision is identical with the language which has been used in legislation in the last twenty-five years of parliament. It is identical with language which my hon. friend has supported time and again in the House of Commons and in committee.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I do not think I ever did.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); This legislation is not partisan legislation.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I know it is not.

Department oj Veterans' Affairs