May 26, 1950


Section agreed to. Sections 2 to 19 inclusive agreed to. Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


LIB

Matthew MacLean

Liberal

Mr. Matthew MacLean (for Mr. Winkler) moved

that the following bills be read the second time:

Bill No. 223, for the relief of Marilyn Ruth Cohen Novak.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 224, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Bernatchez Russell.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 225, for the relief of Winnifred Evelyn Thompson Clift.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 226, for the relief of Maida Maria Howard Martin.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 227, for the relief of June Hedy Leshynska Thompson.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 228, for the relief of Rosemary Smalley Carrier.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 229, for the relief of William Arthur Goodson.

Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 230, for the relief of Dorothy Melbourne Davis Wand.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 231, for the relief of Frank Lear Rogers.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 232, for the relief of Roma Leduc.

Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 233, for the relief of Edna Rosaline Casavant Dufresne.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 234, for the relief of Leo Berger. -Mr. Winkler.

Topic:   SASKATCHEWAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Topic:   SASKATCHEWAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Carried on division.

Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.

Topic:   SASKATCHEWAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Topic:   SASKATCHEWAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink

DIVORCE JURISDICTION

EXCHEQUER COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS ORIGINATING IN QUEBEC AND NEWFOUNDLAND

CCF

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

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

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved

the second reading of Bill No. 13, to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced Bill No. 13 because I believe it will meet the wishes of members of the House of Commons. Certainly hon. members will agree with me that there is a desire that something be done so that the practice we have followed tonight, as we have on a good many other occasions, of letting ourselves be turned into a divorce mill may be brought to an end. I want to say a few things about the measure. Before I do so I should like to point out that it should have the interest and support of those in the house who are opposed to

Divorce Jurisdiction

divorce and therefore must deplore the fact that they are parties to the divorces that go through parliament. I feel also it should have the support of those who, while just as much against divorce, recognize that there is such a thing and feel that it should be dealt with properly in the courts.

I want to point out that the bill does not change the grounds for divorce in any way whatsoever. There may be members of the house who will be disappointed that it does not do so but it is crystal clear from the way in which the bill is drafted, and certainly it is my intention not to change the grounds for divorce in any way so far as this bill is concerned. It does not establish divorce courts in the provinces of Quebec or Newfoundland. I mention those two provinces because the reason for the bill is that they now have no divorce courts, and that is why persons residing therein who wish to secure divorces have to come to parliament and get private acts such as we have put through by the score tonight.

As I have said, it is very clear that the bill does not establish divorce courts in those two provinces where we are led to believe the people do not want them. I would point out further that the bill does not make available to persons residing in Quebec or Newfoundland anything not now available to them. Persons in those provinces who feel that they must try to secure divorces can come to parliament and get them. It is being done every session. In fact I believe the numbers have reached about three or four hundred a year. When I introduce this bill providing another place, other than the other place, for these people to go it does not make available to them anything not now available. All the bill does is to transfer the hearing of divorce petitions, in the case of persons residing in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, from parliament to the exchequer court. In other words, it transfers it from one building to another, from the centre block to the building to the west where the exchequer court meets.

It is clear from the bill, and is set out in the explanatory note, that jurisdiction as to alimony, care of children and other matrimonial causes will remain in the provincial courts of the two provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. The terms of the bill of course will not appear on Hansard, but despite the fact that there are three sections, and that one of them is a bit lengthy, it boils down simply to this, that if this bill were passed it would give to the exchequer court jurisdiction to try divorce cases involving persons residing in the two provinces I have named. Hence the name of the bill is an act

to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce, and the short title would be the exchequer court divorce jurisdiction act.

I would also point out, as I have already done briefly, to those who feel that we should be making some progressive reform in divorce that the bill does not meet that desire at all. Nevertheless I feel such people should support the measure because they surely cannot be satisfied with what should be dealt with in a court being dealt with in the way it is in parliament. To those who are thoroughly and unalterably opposed to divorce, may I point out with the utmost of respect that nevertheless they are parties to divorces being granted. I noted the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) said, "on division" tonight when the house put through a group of divorce bills, but neither he nor other members who say they are unalterably opposed to such measures talked them out, which is a means they could employ if they are really opposed to them. They let them go through, and so long as we deal with divorce petitions from these two provinces in this parliament, so long as they are permitted to go through by the hundreds each year, it means that all of us in the House of Commons, no matter how much some members may shout "on division", are parties to scores and hundreds of divorces at a time.

It seems to me if that is the case it would be far better to regularize the whole procedure by having it done in a more appropriate place, namely, in a court of law. As hon. members know, this matter has been discussed a good many times in the house, and if there is a better suggestion I am quite ready to accept it in preference to this one. I think unless there is a better suggestion, and if hon. members are not prepared to agree to this proposal then we should not have any more complaints about our having to deal with divorces being put through in this House of Commons.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a rather unusual suggestion. One does not usually do this with his own bill, but I want to make it clear that I am trying to render something of a service, trying to meet what I think is a fairly evident wish on the part of hon. members. I know it is frequently said when a private member's public bill comes up that it is unfair to ask the house to make a decision on a matter of some importance within the space of the hour allotted to private and public bills. Many times it has been said that this is the sort of thing which should be discussed in committee. All right; I will not be disappointed at all if someone takes up the suggestion and moves an amendment to

the motion for second reading to the effect that this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. In fact if that suggestion does appeal to anyone, and if it looks as though an attempt is going to be made to talk out the bill, I have that amendment already typed out, ready for anyone to move as an amendment to my own bill.

I know if that amendment should be put and carried it would be the end of the bill for this session, because the negating of second reading kills the bill itself. The result would be that the subject matter of the bill, as distinct from the bill itself, would be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, which could then discuss the matter, hear witnesses if it wished, and report back to the house if it wished. At any rate that would be a means of getting a little more time than the one hour period, and would also be a means of getting the matter discussed freely and frankly without any question of whether or not the principle of a particular proposal is being supported.

I do not recall an hon. member of this house ever before suggesting that his own bill should be treated in that way. I know when that was done to one of my bills a few years ago I was quite annoyed. But the whole purpose of the present bill, obviously, is not to present any social or economic principle to which some of us may be closely attached. Rather it is to deal with one of the problems of our own House of Commons, one of the things I am sure have bothered all of us; and I would hope that in one way or the other either this proposal itself or the problem it seeks to solve might be considered earnestly and sincerely by the members of this house. I do hope the house will either consent to second reading and have the bill itself go to committee to be discussed or, if that is too much to ask at this stage of the game, I would be quite happy if someone were to move that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills for further study.

Topic:   DIVORCE JURISDICTION
Subtopic:   EXCHEQUER COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS ORIGINATING IN QUEBEC AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Kent

Liberal

Mr. W. R. Kent (Humber-St. George's):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the bill now before the house relating to the dissolution of the marriage of persons domiciled in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. This bill purports to extend the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada to entertain divorce suits and to grant divorces to persons domiciled in those two provinces.

As one of the elected representatives of the province of Newfoundland I wish to place on 55946-1844

Divorce Jurisdiction

record my attitude toward this bill. As hon. members know, this is the first parliament during which I have had the privilege of sitting in this house. I have heard the matter of divorce discussed on the presentation of divorce bills here. I am a member of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills to which divorce bills come after they are given second reading here, and I have given this problem a great deal of thought. I have no doubt the hon. member who introduced this bill did so with the sincere intention and honest endeavour to provide a means of dealing with the matter of divorce in the provinces concerned, in a manner he believes will be suitable and acceptable to all and which will take the place of the present procedure. For that he is entitled to full credit. However, I have to say that I cannot support this bill.

There were no divorce courts in Newfoundland and no divorce legislation prior to union with Canada, and there has been no change in that situation since union. In support of that statement I should like to refer to the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, and in particular to clause 18.

18. (1) Subject to these terms, all laws In force in Newfoundland at or immediately prior to the date of union shall continue therein as if the union had not been made, subject nevertheless to be repealed, abolished, or altered by the parliament of Canada or by the legislature of the province of Newfoundland according to the authority of the parliament or of the legislature under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, and all orders, rules and regulations made under any such laws shall likewise continue, subject to be revoked or amended by the body or person that made such orders, rules, or regulations or the body or person that has power to make such orders, rules or regulations after the date of union, according to their respective authority under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.

(2) Statutes of the parliament of Canada in force at the date of union, or any part thereof, shall come into force in the province of Newfoundland on a day or days to be fixed by act of parliament of Canada or by proclamation of the governor general in council issued from time to time, and any such proclamation may provide for the repeal of any of the laws of Newfoundland that

(a) are of general application;

(b) relate to the same subject matter as the statute or part thereof so proclaimed; and

(c) could be repealed by the parliament of Canada under paragraph one of this term.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in these terms, the parliament of Canada may with the consent of the legislature of the province of Newfoundland repeal any law in force in Newfoundland at the date of union.

(4) Except as otherwise provided by these terms, all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction and all legal commissions, powers, authorities, and functions, and all officers and functionaries, judicial, administrative, and ministerial, existing in Newfoundland at or immediately prior to the date of union, shall continue in the province of Newfoundland as if the union had not been made, until

Divorce Jurisdiction

altered, abolished, revoked, terminated, or dismissed by the appropriate authority under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.

That sets out the jurisdiction of the courts and laws in Newfoundland at the date of union. There has been no change in that situation, except that since Newfoundland entered confederation it would appear that persons in that province seeking divorce may do as those from Quebec have done; that is, proceed by way of petition and the enactment of a private act of the federal parliament. At present there are no divorce courts in Newfoundland, and I have heard of no intention or express desire of the people of Newfoundland to set any up. The bill before us proposes to change the situation, and virtually set up divorce courts or provide divorce jurisdiction before which persons seeking divorces in Quebec and Newfoundland could be heard. In my opinion this should not be done unless the people of those provinces desire it.

I know the hon. member in introducing this bill stated it did not establish divorce courts in Quebec or Newfoundland. My contention is to the contrary, and that it has the effect of virtually establishing divorce courts in those provinces. So far as I understand, and can ascertain, the exchequer court is a court that has power to sit on circuit. Section 34 of the Exchequer Court Act reads as follows: *

Subject to rules of court, any judge of the exchequer court may sit and act at any time and at any place in Canada for the transaction of the business of the exchequer court or any part thereof.

As I see it, therefore, when the Exchequer Court of Canada sits on circuit in Quebec or Newfoundland, it brings a divorce court into those provinces. In addition to that, we might well be passing an enactment not suitable to the provinces concerned. Newfoundland is new to confederation, and new to the idea of divorce law applicable to that province. I feel that I should not support any bill to set up divorce courts in Newfoundland, nor to make any change in the present situation, unless I am satisfied such a change would be suitable and acceptable to the people. I am not satisfied on this point so far. I believe the establishment of divorce courts is a matter for the provinces concerned to decide for themselves, and not for us.

Further, I am not satisfied that this bill is appropriate to the situation. The exchequer court is a court having special jurisdiction in causes involving crown matters relating to patents, trade-marks, copyrights, income tax appeals and other allied proceedings not in the same class as divorce actions. It seems to me, therefore, that the procedure set out in this bill is not the correct procedure to adopt.

In giving jurisdiction to the exchequer court, legal and practical difficulties might arise under the provisions contained in the Exchequer Court Act. Under this bill the care of the children and other matrimonial causes are left to the provincial courts. This involves an examination of the jurisdiction of provincial courts in order to be sure that it would be adequate to cover this very important consideration. It must be remembered that Newfoundland has no divorce courts, and that although certain jurisdiction resides in the Newfoundland courts in relation to such matters, I would require to be satisfied that the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland courts would be adequate in this respect.

For the reasons stated, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill and propose to vote against it.

Topic:   DIVORCE JURISDICTION
Subtopic:   EXCHEQUER COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS ORIGINATING IN QUEBEC AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
IND

Raoul Poulin

Independent

Mr. Haoul Poulin (Beauce):

As representative of a constituency located in one of the two provinces mentioned in the bill before the house, I feel it is my privilege to express my own views on the subject. I want to say that if a vote is called upon the bill, I shall vote against it. Since I desire to be as clear and precise as possible, I shall continue in my own language.

(Translation):

I can say without exaggeration, Mr. Speaker, that if the citizens of the province of Quebec were called upon to express themselves directly on the merits of Bill 13, an overwhelming majority would vote against it.

The people of Quebec are sincerely convinced that marriage is indissoluble. Therefore they have no use for courts of law that would dissolve marriage and grant divorces. This firm belief comes from two main sources: firstly, our code of civil law, and secondly the Catholic faith, which is our official religion.

(1) Section 185 of the civil code of the province of Quebec states that:

Marriage is dissolved only through the natural death of one of the partners: as long as both are living, it is indissoluble.

All hon. members must know that Quebec is still governed by the old French civil law, which of course has undergone some changes and amendments, but which formerly, at least, did not recognize divorce.

Until the Union Act of 1840, divorce was never recognized, de facto or de jure, by the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada.

In 1857, the imperial parliament in London passed a divorce act and Lord Stanley, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, pressed the Canadian government to vote similar

legislation. A proposal to set up a divorce court was even submitted to the Canadian parliament in June, 1858, but it was turned down.

In 1860, a new petition requesting enactment of divorce legislation was again submitted to the Canadian parliament but it was not approved. No other proposal of this kind was introduced during the whole of the Union regime in Canada. In other words, until confederation, in 1867, the parliament of Canada, which then included present day Ontario and Quebec, would not recognize the principle of divorce.

That, however, is not altogether correct since, under the Union regime, from 1840 to 1867, the parliament of Canada, without agreeing to put divorce legislation in the statutes, nonetheless approved four private bills granting divorce.

We come now to the constitution of 1867. There, for the first time, the principle of divorce was recognized. Section 91 of the British North America Act vested in the dominion parliament the exclusive right to legislate in the matter of marriage and divorce.

Whether we like it or not, and much as I regret to admit it, as far as divorce is concerned, it is strictly within the power of the parliament of Canada to legislate for Quebec and Newfoundland, as well as for any other province. It was thought for a time, particularly in the province of Quebec, that under section 129 of the Canadian constitution Quebec could be preserved from that extremely hazardous situation in respect of divorce and matrimony. However, section 91 inevitably reminds us of that sad situation.

Of course, all this was not agreed to without at least some protests from some of the Catholic religious leaders in Quebec. Such protests, however, were ignored.

There even was talk of a compromise said to have been reached at the time between certain representatives of the Quebec religious and civil authorities on the one hand, and the fathers of confederation on the other. It was suggested that the minority element and the Quebec Protestants would gain by this compromise.

Moreover, in 1888, the right of the federal parliament to enact divorce legislation took concrete form with the establishment of a senate committee which became, in effect, a real divorce court charged with hearing cases originating in Quebec and Ontario.

That is why today, although I oppose this bill with all the energy at my command, I feel the greatest forbearance towards those

Divorce Jurisdiction

who suggest a change in the practical application of a principle which, unfortunately, was given clear recognition at the time of confederation and which, in 1888, destroyed the indissolubility of Christian marriages in all Canadian provinces, Quebec included.

At the time, this parliament decided to retain the divorce laws in force before confederation. British Columbia, in 1858, had adopted the divorce law passed by the imperial parliament the previous year. In 1857 the maritime provinces already had their own laws. In 1886 and 1888 the federal parliament enacted two laws (49 Victoria, chapter 25 and 51 Victoria, chapter 33) whereby jurisdiction in divorce matters was handed to the superior courts of the three prairie provinces.

In 1930, through 20-21 George V, chapter 14, passed by the federal parliament, the province of Ontario was in turn invested with the right to have its divorce cases settled by its own supreme court.

Therefore only Quebec and Newfoundland are still left without any proper court to hear divorce cases.

Has the Canadian parliament the right to foist such a court upon them? I hesitate to venture an answer and I leave it to those members who are better qualified to defend a cause which, from a strictly legal point of view, seems to me already lost.

The explanatory note in the bill now before the house says that it "does not establish divorce courts in Quebec and Newfoundland". Very well; but I would very much like to know what practical or basic difference there is between establishing a divorce court in Quebec or for the province of Quebec. Will not husbands and wives be separated and homes destroyed just as before, with all the consequences we know.

If this Bill 13 were to be adopted, I would much rather see the present system maintained, though I detest it wholeheartedly, for it is both disgraceful and unsound. Disgraceful, because of the way the investigations are made; unsound, because of the waste of time it entails for officials who have so much else to do.

Besides, is it not strange that generally it is members from other provinces who strive to find ways and means of settling matrimonial disputes arising in the province of Quebec? It has been said that their aim is to take these matters out of the hands of the federal parliament. If the federal parliament

Divorce Jurisdiction

is annoyed with divorce petitions from the province of Quebec, all it has to do is to set them aside, to ignore them, and the province of Quebec will be satisfied!

If petitioners for special bills designed to make divorce easier had as much trouble getting a hearing before parliament as certain other petitioners whose requests are sometimes perfectly reasonable, there would soon be a marked drop in the number of Quebec people who would monopolize the valuable time and the sacred duties of the legislators in an attempt to have bills adopted that clash with our own civil code and the immutable principles of Catholic faith!

Although I fear that it might perhaps be difficult, from a strict constitutional point of view, to prevent the parliament of Canada from legislating for Quebec on divorce matters, I feel reassured when I appeal to the uprightness, the common sense, the intelligence and the good will of the members of this house.

I do not question in the least the intention of the mover of this bill. On the contrary, I believe he is sincere and anxious to solve a difficult problem in the most effective manner. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask him if he considers it wise to introduce a bill which is a direct attack upon the religious beliefs of the great majority of the people of Quebec. Those people believe in the teachings of Christ, who said and I quote from the gospel according to St. Mark:

What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.

We find a very similar statement in St. Matthew. Therefore, not only are we forbidden, as Catholics, to recognize divorce or the courts where divorce hearings are held, but as Catholics we are not allowed-at least it is my humble opinion-to share in the drafting or passage of bills that in fact institute divorce for persons joined in Catholic marriages.

For that reason, every time special legislation or private bills are introduced in connection with divorce I shall avail myself of our present privilege to oppose them, as the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) did a moment ago.

I do not see what use divorce or the alarmingly increasing number of divorced persons can be to Canada or the Canadian people. According to the saying, "As goes the

family, so goes the nation". The family is the basis, the bedrock of a nation.

In a booklet published in 1949 by the information branch of the United Nations Organization, I find a chapter which bears the title: "General Declaration of the Rights of Man." In paragraph 3 of section 16, the General Assembly states:

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and state.

Will anyone deny that divorce destroys home and family?

Think of the lot in store for the victims of their parents' divorce and separation. Think of those innocent beings who, too often, unfortunately, are in danger of becoming human derelicts. Remember that, far too frequently, we are, I am sorry to say, much more interested in dealing with the lot of divorced parents than with that of their children. Do not forget that, as it becomes increasingly easier to obtain a divorce, far too many married couples will not even think of setting up their home on the firm bases which are likely to make it a permanent institution. Yet we know that children are sometimes an obstacle in the way of an easy divorce and that, as a result, a great many married people prevent the child from taking its place in the home! When we reflect on all that, are we not justified in saying that divorce destroys the family and that it is a blight on the body of marital society?

It is not by laws or by divorce courts that threatened homes can be stabilized. It is not by weakening the ties of marriage that marriage will be strengthened. This principle is acknowledged today by most right-thinking sociologists. In the United States, "marriage clinics" have been created where an attempt is made, outside the courts of justice, to mend broken homes. That is, undoubtedly, a useful, though inadequate gesture. We need better remedies.

That is why in Quebec we have realized the seriousness of the situation-one would have to be blind to fail to see the danger that threatens Quebec-and have established during the last few years, not "marriage clinics" but "marriage preparation clinics".

They are meant to fully inform future wives and husbands of the greatness of marriage, about its sanctity, its importance to the couple's earthly and eternal happiness, to teach them the true ends of marriage, the permitted things and those which are forbidden.

This method, I hope, will restore unto marriage that Christian quality of everlastingness which it is in the process of losing.

I remember having heard last year a member of this house remark: "It is better to separate if you cannot go on living together." I should be tempted to answer that by the converse statement: "Better not to get married at all if it is only to be separated." That, Mr. Speaker, might be the crux of this whole matter. In certain quarters, even among certain members of the legal profession, it is suggested that we make divorce easier, for all kinds of reasons. The simplest reason, and that which requires no demonstration, is that it is hoped to have the largest number of divorces possible. If this theory of easier divorce gains favour, we will soon have a situation in which the first marriage will become, all too often unfortunately, a probationary period, a novitiate, a period of apprenticeship, a trial flight, a test through which one will try to find out if the partner with whom one is temporarily associated is capable of rendering all the services which will serve to satisfy one's narrow egotistical nature, without too much being expected in return; or else one shall try to find out how long the rose which has been picked will retain its scent, all the while seeking, in somebody else's garden, another flower with finer petals and sweeter scent, a flower in full bloom when the time comes to replace the one that has just withered!

Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec does not recognize divorce, it does not want it, it does not want a court to regulate it and it believes there is no need for the parliament of Canada, or for a court established by parliament, to waste their time in granting it favours which it does not want and for which it has no use.

For all those reasons, I shall vote against the bill.

Topic:   DIVORCE JURISDICTION
Subtopic:   EXCHEQUER COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS ORIGINATING IN QUEBEC AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
LIB

Fernand Viau

Liberal

Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface):

Mr. Speaker, I regret that very little time is left for me to-

(Text):

Topic:   DIVORCE JURISDICTION
Subtopic:   EXCHEQUER COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS ORIGINATING IN QUEBEC AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

Supply-Transport

Topic:   DIVORCE JURISDICTION
Subtopic:   EXCHEQUER COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS ORIGINATING IN QUEBEC AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT


Meteorological division- 512. Meteorological services, $4,958,450.


PC

Frank Exton Lennard

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lennard:

Is there any explanation of this item? I was not in the house at six o'clock. Was an explanation given?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

This is the ordinary meteorological services item for weather stations of the department.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

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

Mr. Wright:

Is all meteorological work in the different departments of the government done by the Department of Transport, or have the navy and the air force meteorological stations of their own?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

No; we do the work for the Department of National Defence.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Permalink
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brooks:

I notice on page 302 that in 1949-50 there were 49 meteorologists, grade 3. In 1950-51 there are 119. If you follow it through you find that in 1949-50 there were 9 assistants and this year there are 30. Another item shows 9 previously and 143 for this year. Why has there been such a change in the number?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Permalink

May 26, 1950