Restricting Objectors' Activities
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THERE have been many criticisms of Section 11, Subsection 2, of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, mainly on the grounds that it contains little which qualifies the rights of objectors to applications for A and B licences.
Until now, apparently, it has not been realized that such a qualification should have been incorporated in this part of the Act, and a promise to make an amendment which would have had this effect was given definitely by the Minister of Transport during the proceedings when the Bill was before the Standing Committee.
The whole of this matter is dealt with elsewhere in this issue, where it is shown conclusively that many of the troubles which A and B licensees are experiencing to-day, through the almost inevitable objection from one or more of the railways and other interests, would have been averted if the Bill had been amended at the time in a manner which would have given effect to the Minister's promise.
It was the intention of certain critics of the Bill to limit objectors to those persons or concerns a.etuahy providing suitable facilities in the areas in which the applicants proposed to operate. To meet these criticisms Mr. Stanley (who was then Minister of Transport) agreed to accept an amendment which would allow objection to be raised • only if this were the case, but the final amendment made entirely failed to put into effect the meaning of the Minister's words. It enabled objectors to bolster up their cases with extraneous material and thus prove a continual menace to the haulier., forcing him to be represented in the case of almost every application made by him, and putting him to heavy expense. A typical instance of what is occurring in the Traffic Courts is related in the article to which we have referred. The application of a haulage contractor was objected to by three railway companies, none of which operated in the district to which he had to carry ; nevertheless, the objection was heard on the ground that suitable facilities existed. Had the clause in question been amended as it should have been, such groundless and vindictive objections would be rendered impossible.
The most amazing feature of the whole matter is that this vital point should have been overlooked for so long by those most concerned. Even now, the 'discovery has not been made by a lawyer, although we have taken legal advice to confirm the accuracy of the statements made.
The injustice thus perpetrated should be removed immediately, otherwise the present Government will suffer under a stigma which rightly belongs to those responsible for the passing of the Act.