1914-03-23

POLLUTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS.

Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved:: That on the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the prevention of the pollution of navigable waters, the name of Mr. Steele be substituted for that of Mr. Wilson (Wentworth), the name of Mr. Edwards for that of Mr. McCoig, the name of Mr. Chabot for that of Mr. Sevigny, the name of Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) for that of Mr. Baker, the name of Mr. 
Stewart (Lunenburg) for that of Mr. Molloy, and the name of Mr. McCurdy for that of Mr. Boyer.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Does that alter the complexion of the committee?


John Douglas Hazen: No. It makes the committee exactly as it was last session. I named the committee as it was originally at the last session; and, after the committee was appointed, these changes were made to bring the committee into harmony with the committee of last session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 122, to amend the Government Railways Small Claims Act.
He said: There is an Act on the statute book under the provisions of which the Government Railways Managing Board is the defendant on any suit entered against the Intercolonial railway. This Bill is simply for the purpose of substituting the words ' General Manager of Government Railways ' for the words ' Government Railways Managing Board,' making the General Manager of Government Railways the defendant instead of the Government Railways Managing Board.
George Perry Graham: Is it a very good practice to make a general manager the defendant?


Mr. REID:: The Government Railways
Managing Board is not now in existence.


George Perry Graham: I know. If the Department of Justice thinks that the proper way to amend the Act, I have no objection to offer. The Ontario Legislature has refused to pass a Bill of this character with reference to small claims, and compels the claimants to sue the Crown, as was originally the course followed in the Dominion Parliament.	'


Mr. BORDEN:: I do not suppose it is
intended to call the defendant by name; he will be sued in his capacity as General Manager of the Intercolonial.


George Perry Graham: Representing the Crown?


Mr. MACDONALD:: It is a matter of procedure mostly.


Robert Laird Borden: Entirely. The Act at present on the statute book provides this inexpensive way of testing claims against the Intercolonial railway, which otherwise would have to go into the Exchequer Court.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Is it intended to
change?


Robert Laird Borden: No, there is no .change in the existing procedure except that, as a matter of form, the words, 'general manager of the Intercolonial railway' are substituted for the words 'Government Railways Managing Board.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, .and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. KYTE:: I desire to call the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) to a despatch which appeared in the Montreal Star of Friday last, as follows:
The Yorkshire Post says the Hon. 'Colonel Sam. Hughes has informed the Orange organizations that the Canadian Government propose to take no action to prevent the departure of the first contingent of one thousand picked Canadian Orangemen who are coming to Belfast in May next.
.	Windermere.
I would ask the Prime Minister if he knows of any information being sent out by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) in regard to this matter?


Robert Laird Borden: In reply to the hon. gentleman, I may say the Minister of Miilitia and Defence has been indisposed for several days. I think he will be out to-morrow. Inquiring as to his health, 1 had a message from him to the effect that no communication of the kind referred to had bean sent by him.



THE RELEASE OF GERALMIO FAZZARI.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: I desire to ask a
question with regard to information that appeared in the Montreal papers on Saturday. This is to the effect that the Italian, Fazzard, who was pardoned, had been given by the Government a free passage to return to his home village in Italy. I would like to know if there is any truth in that statement?


Mr. DOHERTY:: If such a thing were done, I fancy it would be done by the Immigration Department. The man was pardoned, and I do not see how deportation could have been authorized in view of his pardon. However, I will inquire if anything has been done in this matter.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. EMMERSON:: I desire to call the attention of the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) to a return which he laid on the table at a former sitting having reference to the tenders received for coal for the Intercolonial railway. The department answers to the effect that certain Nova Scotia oo,al companies could not supply the coal, and refers as evidence to the fact of certain communications which passed between the department and these companies, but copies of these communications are entirely absent. I am soTry to have to complain so frequently of returns from the Department of Railways, but certainly this is a very glaring lack, because no information is given that is at all authoritive.
(Mr. J. D. REID: I have several times impressed upon the deputy minister that he must see that returns are complete before they are sent over here. I did not look over this one myself. I will draw his attention to what the hon. member has stated, and have the papers here at the earliest possible moment.



REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE.

Robert Laird Borden: I desire to lay on the
table a memorandum giving a further opinion of the Department of Justice respecting the power of Parliament to provide that the representation of the province of Manitoba in the Senate shall be increased. It had been my intention to have the Deputy Minister of Justice prepare a more extended opinion than that which was laid on the table of the House, but as he is absent, being engaged in upholding the interests of the country before the Pecuniary Claims Commission in Washington, an opinion has been prepared by the Assistant Deputy Minister which has been submitted to and is concurred in, by the Minister of Justice.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 10, respecting the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Macdonell. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 5-by-law to be filed and notice given:
Mr. BOYS:: I have been asked to move an amendment to this section 5 by commencing it with the following words:

Such redemption shall be pursuant to by-law for the purpose passed by the directors of the company and-
This is at the request of the under-Secretary of State and with the approval of the company. Under sections 2, 3, and 4, power is given to create preference shares and also for their redemption, but there is no provision for the passage of a by-law by the directors bringing into effect the powers created by the sections I have mentioned. The amendment to these clauses provides for that power and also provides for the filing of the by-law in the department, thereby giving the necessary information.


The CHAIRMAN:: Has the hon. gentleman given notice of the amendment? Otherwise the Bill will have to stand.


William Alves Boys: In that case, I must ask that the Bill stand over. The same applies to the next two Bills-No. 22, respecting the Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, and No. 23, respecting the British America Nickel Corporation, Limited.
Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Gertrude Carmen Birks.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Rose Ethel Freedman.-Mr. Fripp
Bill No. 117, respecting the Montreal and Lake Victoria Railway Company.-Mr. Achim.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Air. MARCIL:: 1.	In what department of the Government are French translators permanently employed?
2.	What are the names of such translators?
3.	In the departments in which no French translators are employed, if there are any, is it the intention of the Government to employ such translators?
4.	In the meantime, how is French translation done and by whom in such departments?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1 and 2. Agriculture: C. E. Murtureux.
Civil Service Commission: J. R. A. Baril.
Customs: Albert 0. Rocque.
External Affairs: J. A. Leblanc.
Labour: E. Vincelette.
Marine and Fisheries: Lucien Banco and Louis P. D'Ornano.

Mines: Mare ISauvalle, Jobson Paradis and P. E. Levesque.
Naval Service: Henry Grignon.
Privy Council: R. Belanger.
Public Works: A. E. Belleau and A. H. Beaubien.
Railways and Canals: Mrs. Mary Josephine Lyons.
Trade and Commerce: Paul Colonnier.
Public Archives: Dr. L. M. Pelletier and Arthur Patry.
3.	Agriculture: no.
Finance: no.
Governor General's Secretary: no.
Indian Affairs: no.
Inland Revenue: under consideration.
Justice: not at present.
Labour: no information.
Mounted Police: no.
Post-Office: no.
King's Printer: yes.
Secretary of State: no special translators are required.
Insurance: not required.
4.	Agriculture: By members of the staff.
Civil Service Commission: J. R. A. Baril,
except in the case of examination papers. Being a member of the staff, it is considered inadvisable that Mr. Baril should know the nature of the questions contained in the examination papers, and in cases where the examiner is unable to furnish his questions in both languages (chiefly in mathematical and technical subjects) the translation of the papers is prepared by Mr. Marc Sauvalie of the staff of the Geological Survey.
Finance:	By members of the staff.
Governor General's Secretary:	By members of the ordinary staff.
Indian Affairs: By members of the staff.
Inland Revenue: By Mrs. L. E. B. Goodhue and Mr. J. M. Boulianne.
Interior: When letters have to be translated they are translated in the different branches of the department to which they belong. Occasionally when reports have to be translated they are given to Air. Alfred De Cedles.	[DOT]
Justice:	Several officers of the department are familiar with both languages and are able as a rule to do any translating that is necessary in addition to their regular duties.
Mounted Police: By a clerk in the office.
Post Office: Translation made in the different branches by French employees: Alessrs. C. P. Beroard, J. AI. Lorans, U. Aceouturier, S. Choquette, J. St. Germain, J. F. Purcell, J. H. Cossette, L. Lafram-boise, A. L. C. Martineau, and L. Landry;

Misses Antoinette Tessier, J. Weilbrenner, Irene Beaudry, M. McKain.
King's Printer:	No knowledge.
Secretary of State: By the following members of the staff:	Messrs. P. Pelletier, G.
Emond, A. Roy, L. J. Dube, E. C. Hamel and W. Labelle, or some other French officer or clerk.
Insurance:	By members of the regular
staff.


EMPLOYMENT OF FRED. McNEIDL AND JOHN CHESLEY.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	How much was Fred. McNeill to receive tor burning down the beacon light in the harbour of St. John, N.B. ?
2.	How much has been paid him tor said work since the 21st day of March last?
3.	How much has John Chesley, of St. John, N.B., received for motor boat service from the Department of Marine and Fisheries since the 31st day of March last, and how much from other departments of the Government during the same time?


Louis Coderre: 1 and 2. Nothing.
3.	For tug service attending dredge No. 12: By Department of Marine and Fisheries, $127.90; by Department of Public Works, $1,140; total $1,267.90.


QBEBEC UNION STATION.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Is the Union station, being constructed by the Canadian Pacific railway in Quebec, on the line of the National Transcontinental railway ?
2.	If not, on what line is it situated, and at what distance from the National Transcontinental railway?


Mr. REID:: 1.	When completed, the Union station at Quebec will be on the line of the National Transcontinental railway.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


INDUSTRIES ON LACHINE CANAL.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What is the number of industries by water-power on the Lachine canal?
2.	What is the number of industries that have ceased their operation from the emptying of the Lachine canal?
3.	What are the names of such industries, if any?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Twenty-one.
2.	None.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


MILLSVILLE-DALHOUSIE MOUNTAIN MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any petition been received from the residents of Dalhousie, Mountain, Pictou
county, asking for change of time in the carrying of the mail from Millsville to Dalhousie Mountain ?
2.	If so, when was such petition received?
3.	Was any petition received objecting to such change?
4.	If so, what was the date of the receipt of said petition?


Mr. PELLETIER:: This question was answered by the Postmaster General on Thursday, the 19th of March. See ' Hansard,' pages 1891-1892.


BAD THROAT RIVER WATER-POWER.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has an agreement been made for the development of water-power on the Bad Throat river, Manitoba?
2.	If so, with whom was such an agreement made?
3.	On what date was it made?
4.	What amount of power isi to be developed?
5.	When is development to commence?
6.	When is it to be completed?


Mr. ROCHE:: No.


PORT MAITLAND POST OFFICE.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	What was the revenue from all sources from the post office at Port Maitland, N.S., from July 1, 1910, to July 1, 1911?
2.	What was the revenue from same office from January 1, 1913, to December 31, 1913?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Revenue, 1st July, 1910, to 1st July,
1911,	$736.56. Commission received on
money orders issued, $63.40.
2.	Revenue, 1st January, 1913, to 31st December, 1913, $631.91. Commission received on money orders issued, $46.33.


LOWER ARGYLE POST OFFICE.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	What was the revenue from all sources of the post office at Lower Argyle, N.S., from July 1, 1910, to July 1, 1911?
2.	What was the revenue from same office from January 1, 1913, to December 31, 1913?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Revenue, 1st July, 1910, to 1st July,
1911,	$343.19. Commission received on
money orders issued, $48.02.
2.	Revenue, 1st January, 1913, to 31st December, 1913, $302.92. Commission received on money orders issued, $69.75.


STE. PERPETUE RAILWAY STATION.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: 1.	When was the name Laurier, which had been given to the station at the intersecting point of the Transcontinental railway, at Ste. Perpetue, county of L'lslet, changed to Monk?
2.	Who recommended such change of name?
3.	What are the reasons for such change?


Mr. REID:: 1. Changed in June, 1912, by the Trans-

continental Railway Commission, for the reason that there was already a station on the Intercolonial near Levis named Laurier, and to avoid confusion which would have arisen in both freight and postal services. 2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


ST. JOACHIM AND BAIE ST. PAUL MAIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
#Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Has a mail contract recently been awarded between St. Joachim and Baie St. Paul, county of Charlevoix, Quebec?
2.	How many tenders were received, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. The mail service between St. Joachim de Montmorency and Baie St. Paul is performed under two contracts, one from St. Joachim to St. Tite des Caps, the other from St. Tite des Caps to Baie St. Paul. Tenders were last invited for Baie St. Paul and St. Tite des Caps on the 12th April, 1912. That portion between St. Joachim and St. Tite des Caps was recently tendered for.
2 and 3. The list of tenders will be given when the contract has been executed.


CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	What are the amounts expended on capital account for the year 1913-14 to February 28, 1914, for Railways, Canals, Public Works, and for Railway Subsidies, respectively?
2.	What does the Government estimate as the probable expenditure for the same purposes on capital acount to the end of the present fiscal year?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Railways, $21,109,730.18; Canals, $2,149,577.79; Public Works, $7,691,807.54; Railway subsidies, $18,289,446.26; total, $49,240,561.77.
2.	The* Minister of Finance will give this estimate in his Budget Speech.


VICTORIA NAVAL VOLUNTEERS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Did the minister of the Naval Service, on or about July 24, 1913, receive a deputation on behalf of the Naval Volunteers of Victoria, B.C.?
2.	Is he aware that the enrolled strength of that body is said to be non-combatants 120, combatants 20, total 140?
3.	Is it the intention of the minister to officially recognize this organization as part of the Naval Service of Canada? If so, when?


John Douglas Hazen: 
WESTERN FREIGHT RATES CASE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has the Railway Commission reported its decision in the western freight rates case?
2.	If so, when will the report be brought down?


Mr. REID:: 1.	The argument in this case was completed on December 12, 1913, since which time the commission and its traffic officer have been engaged in consideration of the evidence, the many exhibits filed, and in working out such revised schedule of rates as the board could approve. No decision has as yet been arrived at.
2.	It will be issued by the commission following the usual course to the parties to the case and the public just as soon as it may be done with proper consideration of the many issues presented and interests affected.


GUYSBOROUGH-HEATHERTON MAIL CONTRACT.
Mr. W. M. CHISHOLM:: 1.	When was the present contract for the mail service between Guysborough and Heather-ton, N.S., entered into?
2.	For how long previously was the service performed under a temporary arrangement?
3.	When did the previous regular contract expire ?
4.	When was the previous regular contract entered into, from what date was such service to begin, and for what length of time was the service supposed to continue under said regular contract?
5.	What amount was paid for performing the service between the termination of the previous regular contract and the entering into the present regular contract?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: November 1, 1912.
2. Owing to certain necessary inquiries which the department was obliged to make in regard to excessive prices and the competency of certain tenderers, the service had to be continued under temporary arrangement for ten months.

3.	December 31, 1911.
4.	From January 1, 1908, to December 31, 1911.
5.	$225 per month.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY INVESTIGATING COMMISSION.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Was ex-commissioner Young examined under oath by the commission appointed to inquire into the construction of the National Transcontinental railway?
2.	If so, on what date, and on what page of the report can his evidence be found?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


APPOINTMENT OF G. H. FERGUSON.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	When was the Order in Council passed appointing G. H. Ferguson, M.P.P., a commissioner to examine into the matter of the Trent Valley canal, and what remuneration was to be paid to the said Ferguson?
2.	What amount of remuneration has been paid Mr. Ferguson and when, and what amount, if any, remains to be paid?


Mr. REID:: 1.	An Order in Council was passed on October 14, 1912, appointing Mr. G. H. Ferguson, M.P.P., a commissioner to investigate and report on charges of irregularity -in respect of a certain shipment of explosives required for the purposes of the Trent canal. Another Order in Council was passed on November 28, 1912, extending the scope of Mr. Ferguson's investigation so as to include charges of every nature affecting the conduct of any employees of the Trent canal; and so as to include the investigation of any theft or fraud attempted or practised by any person or persons whomsoever, upon or in relation to the Trent canal. Remuneration for his services to be $15 per day, with reasonable travelling and living expenses.
2.	Nothing has been paid Mr. Ferguson
so far. The amount due on the above investigation, is as follows:	Services, 37
days at $15 per day, $555; expenses and disbursements, $370; preparing report, $60; total, $985.


TOBIQUE INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has B. Frank Smith actually paid to the Department of Indian Affairs or any agent thereof $353, or any other amount, on account of purchase price of four lots of land sold to him out of the Tobique Indian reserve in the month of January last?
2.	If so, when and to whom paid'.'


Mr. ROCHE:: 1. Yes.
2. $354 paid to S. B. Waite, Indian Agent, Andover, on the 10th March, 1914, and $1,411, balance of purchase price of lots, paid to H. J. Bury, an officer of the department, on the 13th March, 1914.


COLONEL MORRISON'S EXPENSES.
*Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	How many trips did Lieut.-Col. Morrison, inspector of artillery, make to Quebec during the past year?
2.	What was the object of each of those trips?
3.	How much did each of them cost?
4.	Has he filed a detailed statement of his expenses in each case?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Twelve.
2.	Testing ammunition, Dominion arsenal investigation, March 27-31.
Testing Q.F. 18-pr. ammunition, Dominion arsenal investigation, April 14-17, April 2325, April 27-May 1.
Dominion Arsenal Investigation, May 29-June 3, June 5-20, July 10-13, July 16-19, August 14-17, September 7-9.
Inspection duty and new Dominion arsenal, November 3-7.
New Dominion Arsenal and Small Arms Committee meeting, December 1-5.
3.	$35;	$32.10;	$23.80;	$30.15;	$34.65;
$86.45; $21.75; $25.75; $28.85; $20.25; $29; $29.25.
4.	Yes.


MURRAY BAY WINTER SERVICE.
*Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	How many trips have the Montcalm and the Lady Grey, respectively, made to Murray bay or other places in the county of Charlevoix, since last fall?
2.	What has been the cost of each of those trips?
3.	What quantity of freight has been carried by them, and what amount was collected?
4.	What was the number and what are the names respectively of the travellers carried at each trip?
5.	What was the fare, and what amounts have been collected?
6.	Were Messrs. T. and C. Donohue among the passengers? If so, did they pay their fare?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Montcalm none, Lady Grey four.
2.	Each trip cost approximately $360. This amount includes wages and board of crew, coal and supplies. The only expense incurred by sending the Lady Grey to Murray bay would be represented by any extra quantity of coal and engine supplies consumed while steaming there and returning, as compared with the quantities that might be consumed while performing the usual service in which it is employed by the department.

3.	The freight carried consisted of packages of various kinds and weights, and no exact record has been kept of the total tonnage. The amount collected foT freight was $479.36.
4.	No records are kept as to the number and names of passengers.
5. Single fare, $2.50; return, $4.50. Amount collected for passengers was $130.
6. Messrs. T. and C. Donohue were among the passengers and paid their fares.


ONTARIO FISHERIES JURISDICTION.
Mr. BURNHAM:: 1.	When is a game or sporting fish a commercial fish?
2.	Is the district of Northern Central Ontario, including Peterborough, Haliburton, etc., counties and the district of Muskoka, comprising at least 10,000 square miles of territory and 1,500 lakes and rivers, which provide fish for food for 10,000 people, within the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Fisheries as to hatcheries, restocking, supervision, etc.?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. It is not easy to give a definition in each case, as there may in certain cases be an overlapping. Speaking generally, however, oommeraial fish are those that are caught iby regular fishermen as a means of livelihood, while sporting fish are those that are caught by sportsmen for pastime or pleasure. The principal sporting fish in Ontario are speckled trout and black bass.


Mr. ROOHE:: 2. Since the 1898 Privy Council decision in the Fisheries Reference, the fisheries of Ontario have been supervised by the provincial Government. Last year an arrangement was made with the provincial Department of Fisheries-which received the revenue from the fisheries-whereby the Department of Marine and Fisheries will confine its fish breeding operations to the stocking of waters resorted to by regular fishermen to earn their livelihood, while the provincial department will attend to the stocking of the sport fishing waters of the province.


VICTORIA DAY.
Mr. WALLACE:: What day in 1914 does the Government intend to name Victoria Day as a public holiday?


Louis Coderre: Victoria Day is a public holiday, as provided for by chapter 107, R.S.C., and section 3 provides that, when the 24th of May (Victoria Day) is a Sunday, the 25th of May shall be kept and observed as a public holiday.


LAND GRANT AUTHORIZATION.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1. With regard to the answer given by the Government to the question on March 9, asking for the number of acres of land given by the Government to railway companies from 1878 to the present time, under what statutes were the different grants made?
Name of Company.
Alberta Ry. & Irrigation Co. (Formerly North West Coal & Navigation Company	
Calgary & Edmonton Railway Company	
Canadian Northern Ry. Co. (Ry. from point on C.P.R. to
Hudson Bay)	
Canadian Northern Ry. Co. (formerly Lake Manitoba Ry &
Canal Co.)	
Canadian Pacific Railway Co.-Main Line '	
Canadian Pacific Ry. Pipestone Ext. Souris Branch-C.P.R. Souris Branch	
Great North West Central Ry. Co. (Formerly North West
Central Ry. Co.)	
Manitoba & North Western Ry. Co	
Manitoba South Western Colonization Ry. Co	
Manitoba <fc South Eastern Ry. Co	'	
Gu'Appelle, Long Lake & Saskatchewan Raiiroad and Steam boat Co	
Saskatchewan & Western Ry. Co	
Act authorizing subsidy.
48-49 Vic. Cap. 60 50-51 Vic. Cap. 22
52	Vie. Cap. 4
53	Vic. Cap. 3 53 Vic. Cap. 4 53 Vic. Cap. 4 47 Vic. Cap. 25
52 Vic. Cap. 4
Date of Act.
July 20, 1885. June 23, 1887. May 2, 1889. Mch. 26,1890. May 16,1S90. May 16, 1890. ' ' 19, 1884.
Apl.
May 2, 1889.
53 Vic. Cap. 4 44 Vic. Cap. 1 57- 58 Vic. Cap. 6 53 Vic. Cap. 4 54-55 Vic. Cap. 10
May 16, 1890 Feb. 15, 1881. July 23, 1894. May 16, 1890. Sept. 30, 1891.
49 Vic. Cap. 11	
48-49 Vic. Cap. 60... .
49 Vic. Cap. 11	
48-49 Vic. Cap. 60	
54-55 Vic. Cap. 10	
53 Vic. Cap. 4	
June 2, 1886. July 20, 1885. June 2, 1886. July 20, 1885. Sept. 30, 1891. May 16, 1890.
48-49 Vic. Cap. 60 50-51 Vic. Cap. 23 57-58 Vic. Cap. 6
July 20, 1885. June 23, 1887, July 23, 1894.
[Mr. Hazen.j


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Turgeon.-For a return showing: How-many engineers or assistants have been employed by the Intercolonial railway in connection with the engineering staff of that railway since February 1, 1914 ; their names and ages, and at what salary respectively, whether they are all British subjects! and whether any of them were formerly and recently in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a return showing: How many engineers are in the employ of the Intercolonial railway at Moncton, and at other points on that railway, and their names ; how many were formerly in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; whether Martin Murphy, C.E., is employed in the service of that railway; if so, when he was employed and his age.
Mr. Paquet.-For a return showing: The names of the wharfingers at coteau Landing from 1900 to 1914; the names of the vessels which moored there during that period; what wharfage each of those vessels paid during that time; what wharfage a coaler paid for unloading between 1900 and 1912.
Mr. Proulx.-For a return showing: What investigations and other worn have been en7 trusted by the Government, or any department thereof, to G. Howard Ferguson, member for the electoral division of the county of Grenville in the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario; how much the said G. Howard Ferguson has been paid by the Government, or any department thereof, for fees and disbursements since the 21st September, 1911, and how much is still due and owing to him ; how much has been paid to the said G. Howard Ferguson by the Government, or any department thereof, since the 21st September, 1911, in connection with any other matter whatever.
Mr. Ernest Lapointe.-For a return showing: The names of the lawyers who represented the Department of Justice, in the district of Quebec, since the 21st of September, 1911, and the amount of money paid to each of them.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-Fpr a return showing: How many additional employees have been added to the Customs Department in the city of Halifax, since October 10, 1911; their names and salaries at the time of their appointments, their respective salaries at present, and their respective ages at the time of appointment; whether all of them passed the necessary Civil Service examinations for the Customs service; how many temporary clerks there are upon the said Customs staff, who they are, and the dates of their appointment.
Mr. Sevigny.-For a copy of all plans and profiles designed by the engineers, in connection with the intended construction of the Transcontinental railway from a point called Ste. Claire, county of Dorchester, between the twentieth and thirtieth miles, east of the Quebec bridge, going through the parishes of St. Malachie, Standon, Cranbourne, Ste. Germaine and Ste. Justine, passing through the townships of Panet, Rolette and Valois, towards Ste. Perpetue, on the 105th mile east of the Quebec bridge, and of all the information and reports on the nature of land, timber and minerals of the places through which the engineers
have been, showing also how much the railway would have cost per mile had it been built in that part of the country.
Mr. Boulay.-For a copy of all evidence of the investigation in the case of F. Pedley, exDeputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs at Ottawa.	*
Mr. Nesbitt.-For a copy of all specifications and of all tenders pertaining to the Brantford public building now being erected, and of the contract awarded, and of all correspondence, whether by letter or telegram, with reference thereto.
Mr. Robidoux.-For a copy of all correspondence, documents, recommendations and reports respecting the dredging at Port Elgin, Westmorland county, N.B., with the names of men employed to perform that work, their salaries, respectively, and the amount of money spent on the same from January 1, 1901, to January 1, 1914.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a return showing the names of the successful contractors, with the particulars of their schedule prices respectively, on the contracts awarded by the Intercolonial railway for the work of double tracking from ChaudiOre curve to St. Romuald, Quebec, and the division line from Nelson to Derby junction, New Brunswick, and the division or spur line from North Sydney to Leitche's creek. Nova Scotia, with a copy of the reports, correspondence and recommendations relating to the awarding of said tenders or contracts respectively, and also showing the estimate of cost of said works respectively?
Mr. Emmerson.-For a return showing in detail the expenses and cost of an inquiry or investigation held by Commissioner Adair, under the authority of the Department of Railways and Canals, into the names of the electrical branch of the Intercolonial railway at Moncton, and the conduct of John W. Gaskin and others, in relation to their services in said branch or otherwise, held during the year 1912 ; together with the names of the commissioner, the agents, attorneys, counsel, constables, police officers, detectives, witnesses or other persons in connection with said inquiry ; the number of days consumed and paid for in the conduct thereof, and the services rendered by each person in connection therewith ; and a detailed statement of the sum or sums of money paid to each party therefor, at what rate and the amounts paid to each witness sworn and in attendance or otherwise, together with a copy of all bills, claims or accounts rendered in connection with said inquiry, and of all vouchers for moneys paid, by whom paid and to whom; with a copy of all letters or other correspondence relating to the appointment of a commissioner, and of counsel to be engaged or other officers employed, and relating to the compensation to be paid for services, and in connection with any of said bills, accounts, payments and vouchers, with a statement or summary of the total cost of witness fees allowed and paid them, and the cases in which their time respectively was not allowed them while absent to give evidence, and the cases to which such time was allowed and no deduction made from their wages or salaries for the period of their absence in attendance at such inquiry as such witnesses respectively.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a copy of all petitions, correspondence, engineers reports of survey and of all other reports on file, referring to a proposed diversion of the Intercolonial
[Stage Direction]
railway from, at or near Linwood station, through the districts of Linwood, Cape Jack and the village of Harbour au Bouche; and more particularly of the petitions and reports relating to such diversion filed in or about the years 1887 and 1891.
Mr. Pardee.-For a return showing the rates of interest paid on all Dominion loans from 1890 to 1914.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a copy of the reports made by Colin F. McKinnon, of Taylor's road, Antigonish county, Frank A. McEchen, of Inverness, N.S., John A. McDougall of Glace Bay, C.B., J. M, McDonald, of Christmas Island, C.B., William Watkins of Coburg road, Halifax, S. P. Fream, of Brighton, Digby county, and J. J. Walker of Truro, N.S., special immigration agents appointed from the province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Arthurs.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with the sale of any timber on Parry island, Parry Sound district, and of advertisements, agreements for purchase and any other documents connected with such sale or grant of timber to any person or persons.
Mr. Law.-For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, lists of shareholders, Orders in Council, licenses, certificates and others papers and documents and all renewals thereof, relating to the incorporation and licensing of the Bank of Yarmouth, and of all papers and documents relating to the winding up of the business of the said bank.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, papers and other documents relative to the purchase of a lot of land in the town of Stell-arton, for a public building.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all papers, telegrams, letters and other documents, relating to the purchase of a site for a public building in Hantsport, county of Hants.
Mr. McKenzie.-For a copy of all correspondence received by the Government since October 1, 1911, to date, from John M. Cormick, of Sydney Mines, N.S., in reference to the following matters, in the Riding of North Cape Breton and Victoria:-Railway extension into the Riding of North Cape Breton and Victoria; the opening of the harbour at Dingwall, Aspey Bay, C.B.; the breakwater at Meat Cove in the said riding; the boat harbour at Bay St. Laurence; the breakwater at White Point; the breakwater at Neils Harbour; the breakwater at McLeods, Ingonish; in respect to Ingonish Harbour; the breakwater at Breton Cove; the breakwater at Little Bras D'Or; the breakwater at Cape Dauphin; the breakwater at Point Aconi; the proposed wharf at North Sydney; the proposed extension of the breakwater at North Sydney; the bringing of the Intercolonial railway to the ballast ground at North Sydney; the wharf at Sydney Mines; the wharf at Leitches Creek; the repairs to the wharf at Groves Point; the rebuilding of the wharf at Boisdale; the breakwater at Jamesville; the wharf at Castle Bay, and the proposed wharf at Shunacadie.
Mr. Oliver.-For a copy of all the instructions issued to C. P. Fullerton and Fawcett Taylor, or either of them, in reference to the St. Peter's Indian reserve.
Mr. Ernest Lapointe.-For a copy of all documents, letters, recommendations, etc., in connection with a contract awarded to Chris-tophe Levesque, of St. Eleuthere, for the conveyance of the mail between St. Eleuthere and Sully.
[Mr. W. Chisholm.1
Mr.	Ernest	Lapointe.-For	a	copy	of	all
documents, petitions, correspondence, recommendations, investigations, etc., in connection with the dismissal of Dominique Levesque, lightkeeper at Riviere Ouelle wharf, countv of Kamouraska, and with the appointment of his successor.
Mr.	Ernest	Lapointe.-For	a	copy	of	all
documents, correspondence, petitions, recom-dations, etc., in connection with the dismissal of Arthur Levesque, lightkeeper at Grosse Isle, Kamouraska, and with the appointment of his successor,
Mr.	Ernest	Lapointe.-For	a	copy	of	all
correspondence, messages, petitions, and other documents in connection with the choice of a site intended for the construction of a station at the village of St. Eleuthere, on the National Transcontinental railway.
Mr.	Wm. Chisholm.-For	a	copy	of	all
letters telegrams, correspondence, complaints and protests, on file referring to the dismissal of the late postmaster at Havre Boucher, N.S., and to the appointment of a successor.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a copy of all letters, papers, telegrams, recommendations and documents of every kind in connection with the purchase of a rifle range near Souris, Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Verville.-For a return showing the names of the different contracting Arms, with the particulars of their schedule prices, respectively, the location of their respective factories, or principal places of business, that have received contracts for manufacturing and supplying of the caps, hats, shoes and clothing for the militia of Canada, from the Department of Militia and Defence.
Mr. Oliver.-For a copy of the agreement for a lease of water-power on the Saskatchewan river at Rocky Rapids, Alberta, made with the Edmonton Power Company, with information in detail as to the operations carried on by the Company to date.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of the Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply :
Mr. GEO. E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon): I would like to cal] the attention
4 p.m. of the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) to an article which appeared in the Saskatoon Daily Star of March 5 last, headed, 'Are Homesteads Taxed Illegally in Saskatchewan?' My apology for taking up the time of the House on this subject is the fact that this article, and the correspondence which has ensued in consequence of it, have attracted considerable attention in the province of iSaskatehewan, and my purpose in bringing it to the attention of the minister is to obtain from him a statement as to the position of the Department of the Interior on the matter. The article to which I refer is as follows;

Are Homesteaders Taxed Illegally in Saskatchewan?-Department Official Says Land is Exempt Until Government Releases Title-Saskatchewan Government and Municipalities who are Taxing all Occupied Lands are Affected.
The question was sprung upon a Star man today:	' Can municipalities or even the provincial Government, legally tax land, the title to which has not passed out of the hands ot the Crown, or federal Government?'
The reason for the query was a recent declaration within the Department of the Interior that such lands, until patent Is transferred to the occupant or purchaser, are exempt from municipal and school taxation, etc. The letter is from an official of the department and reads in part:
I am just in receipt of a communication from the department stating that they have received several complaints against municipal councils throughout the province of Saskatchewan levying taxes on unpatented homesteads, and stating that the same is illegal. .	.	.
The department has written a letter to the municipal commissioner of the province of Saskatchewan directing his attention to the matter, and pointing out that it is clearly illegal for municipal, school or other local authorities to levy taxes on unpatented lands. Our department is anxious to get a list of the municipalities that are doing this work so that it can take the matter up with the Minister of Justice in order to have this illegal practice stopped at once.
Is the Taxing Illegal?
The letter just quoted from is of the utmost significance. For instance, in the municipality of Cory, which surrounds this city, practically no distinction is made, a Star man was given to understand to-day upon inquiry at the municipality's office on Twentieth street, just west of the Y.M.C.A. building, whether the land taxed is held under patent by the occupant or if the title is still in the possession of the Dominion Government.
According to the letter a homesteader's land is exempted until he. receives his patent. The homesteader has, however, been taxed right along by the municipality for years before he came into possession of the patent to the land. If it can be established that such taxing was illegal it is conceivable that Cory may be called upon to refund immense sums of money. There is instance after instance where the homesteader has been made to pay taxes for anywhere from three to six years when, assuming that the letter quoted from is correct he could not legally be taxed. In one case mentioned to the Star to-day, a man was actually forced off his land because of inability to pay the taxes. And this has been going on throughout the whole province.
What About the Provincial Government?
Has the provincial Government along with the municipalities been collecting thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to which they are not legally entitled?
The point is a decidedly interesting one and should be put to the test of the courts, said a prominent barrister of the city before whom the matter was laid to-day for an opinion. He cited the case of a man who had bought Dominion Government school lands and was taxed by the Cory municipality from the date of his purchase notwithstanding that the title to the property continued to remain in the possession of the Government for a long time
until paid for. As Government land it was exempt from taxation and the purchaser applied for a refund on this ground, but was informed that the provincial Government gave authority to impose the tax. He did not proceed with his suit. The point, then is, has the provincial Government the authority to give such permission and is itself not guilty of illegal practice in levying toll from exempted land?
The practice has been for municipalities to get after the homesteader, as soon as he registers his claim to a piece of homestead land and clap on all the taxes to which he would be liable as the owner outright of the property. Both municipal and provincial taxes are exacted right up to the time he receives his patent, and after, of course. The taxing even extends to grazing leases, where settlers obtain rights to use Government land, but take no steps to gain title.
Now a Government official declares that lands, the title to which is still with the Government, are exempt. If the ruling becomes official the revenues of the municipalities and the provincial treasury will be enormously reduced, and it might even mean, said one today, the refunding of millions of dollars.
I have read the whole article, which appears in the Saskatoon Daily Star, the Conservative newspaper in the city of Saskatoon. The letter quoted is said by the Saskatoon Daily Star in another issue to have been written by a prominent official of the department on the departmental letterhead. Its conclusions as to the right of the province or the municipalities to tax homesteaders are so astonishing that I think it advisable to call the attention of the minister to them, and to obtain from him a statement as to whether the department acquiesces in this expression'of opinion by one of its officials, or whether the department holds otherwise.
There is no doubt as to what view the Saskatoon Daily Star takes of this letter. I will read one sentence again:
According to the letter a homesteader's land is exempt until he receives his patent.
That would mean that no homesteaders are subject to taxation in the province of Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan our understanding has always been that lands vested in the Crown are not taxable nor are lands in which the Crown is interested as a beneficiary owner. But it has been the practice, and I believe legally so, that the interest of a homesteader in a homestead should be the subject of taxation.
There has been some correspondence between Mr. Pereira of the Department of the Interior and the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs of Saskatchewan with regard to another matter. Mr. Pereira, in his letter, dated the I6th of February, 1914, draws the attention of the Department of Municipal Affairs to the fact that some of our muni-
[Stage Direction]
cipalities are allowing taxes to stand against homesteads which have been abandoned or cancelled, so that homesteaders, who presumably receive free grants from the Government, take them subject to some taxes placed against them, when other persons have been in occupation of them. So far as that point taken by Mr. Pereira is concerned, it is one upon which we all agree-that there is no right in the province or in the municipalities to create a lien upon any homestead belonging to the Crown. The letter, however, mentioned in the Saskatoon Daily Star, in the article which I have quoted is not the letter of Mr. Pereira to the Department of Municipal Affairs; and when one compares them, one will see that the views are altogether different. Mr. Pereira's view is in accord with that of the Department of Municipal Affairs, who say that they are doing all they can to prevent these taxes which are levied against homesteads, from being levied against homesteads which have been abandoned or cancelled. The fact that any official of the department should write any such letter carries considerable consequences with it. Such a letter, with a declaration as to the right of the province to tax homestead lands, can have no legal effect. What any servant of the department may think, or what may be the official view of the department, can have no effect in law, because the law is not interpreted by the department, but by the judges of the land. The only result which such an expression of opinion by an official of the department and its publication in one of the leading papers of the province can have, is to disturb the public mind and to cause trouble, because it is not desirable that any false views should be spread throughout the province as to the liability of those in possession of homestead lands to be taxed for them.
My purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the minister is to obtain from him the view of the department, and a statement as to whether or not the department repudiates the letter which I have quoted. I may say that the minister has before him the letter and the correspondence to which I have referred.
William Roche: The department has been in receipt of quite a number of complaints from homesteaders that they are being charged and have been charged for taxes against their homesteads prior to their receiving patents for the same. Some complaints have touched the point referred to in Mr. Pereira's letter regarding taxation of homesteads which have been abandoned,

and where the second homesteaders h^ve been billed for the taxes levied during the previous year. The question was submitted to the department, and I have a memorandum here, a portion of which I will read, which sets forth the view of the deputy minister on that point. The memorandum fn part is as follows:
In the first place, a few settlers have complained to the department that they were being' required to pay taxes which became due before they secured entries for the lands which they now hold. This appeared to us to be quite unfair, and it was decided to communicate with the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs at Regina on the subject. He now writes back that if a homestead has been abandoned or cancelled all arrears of taxes are written off, so that the next entrant is not required to pay these taxes. Owing to the fact, however, that there is always some delay experienced in finding out what entries have been cancelled, there are cases where the new entrant is served for the payment of taxes which he does not owe himself, but upon his malting proper representations to the rural municipality secretary, the matter is always satisfactorily arranged. It is not necessary to have to make any further inquiry so far as this feature is concerned because we are now put in a position to advise any person who may make a complaint to the department in this regard what course' he should follow in order to secure redress.
The department was not aware of the nature of the provinical law upon this subject; but, receiving so many complaints of this nature where the homesteader was charged with taxation with which he had nothing whatever to do and which had accrued prior to his making entry, a protest was entered with the proper authorities at Regina, and a satisfactory answer was received. So that now, when we receive similar protests from homesteaders, we shall know how to direct them to have this remedy applied.
The other point that has been raised, however, is of much wider scope, as it involves the power of the province to levy taxes upon unpatented lands. It would seem that in the past we have advised all persons who might be inquiring for such information on this subject that no lands which belong to the Crown in the right of Canada can be legally assessed for taxes by any provincial, municipal, school or other local organizations. It was this statement, coupled with the information contained in my letters to Mr. Cuttle and Mr. Bayne, which gave rise to the newspaper article which has been brought to your attention. As for the provincial law itself, it would appear that under the statutes of Saskatchewan the owner or occupant of any land within a rural municipality

or a school district is liable for the payment of the taxes assessed upon such land. If such taxes are not paid within the required time, they become a lien against the lands affected, and the same may be recovered by distress of the goods and chattels thereon. The law provides further that the land itself may through proper judicial procedure become the property of the municipality and be sold subject to redemption. I have never heard of a single case where a municipality has undertaken to sell an unpatented parcel of Dominion lands owing to the non-payment of taxes.
It is true, as stated in this letter, that the department has always made reply to homesteaders, who have inquired as to whether lands the title for which was in the Crown were subject to provincial taxation, that such lands were not subject to such taxation. I do not know whether the provincial law taxes the interest of the occupant or the land itself. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that if they are taxing the land as they would tax it if it had been patented and the title vested in the individual, that is not legal. That is the advice given us by the law officer of the department; and it -would seem probable that the provincial authorities take that view, inasmuch as they have not, up to the present time, enforced this Act, .that is, to the extent of distraining and selling the land. I was in receipt of a letter this morning stating-whether it was absolutely correct or not, I do not know-that the provincial Government are going to insist on taxes being paid on those lands the title to which is now in the Crown. However, the letter the hon. gentleman quoted from, sent to Mr. Bayne on the 16th of February, he will see, does not touch that particular point. It states:
Many letters have recently been received by this department from homesteaders upon lands in the province of Saskatchewan who complain of demands being made upon them for the payment of taxes which have been assessed upon Dominion lands before such homesteaders were granted entry therefor, respectively under the Dominion Lands Act.
The department points out that the point should be cleared up. It has been cleared up, and I should think that there should be no trouble in future with regard to it. But when the department has been asked whether lands the title to which is in the Crown, the patents not having been granted to the homesteaders, are subject to taxation, the answer has been given that in the opinion of the department they are not. I
understand that some years ago the Government of Manitoba recognizing this fact, did tax the interest of the holder, including improvement and stock, and made this taxation a lien. At any rate, looking upon that as a very important point, we have recently referred it to the Justice Department for an authoritative opinion.


Mr. OLIVER:: What action is likely to be taken by the department in case of the receipt from the Department of Justice of an opinion in the line of the statements the hon. gentleman has made ?


William Roche: We, should be guided by the Justice Department, but I should imagine we should have to have a test case in the courts if there were any contention to the contrary by the provincial authorities.


Mr. McCRANEY:: I presume no action would be taken by the Department of the Interior unless Dominion lands were taxed. Of course, the department must see to it that the homesteader gets a patent clear of incumbrances.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman is familiar with the Saskatchewan Act. Does he know just upon what the taxes are levied ? Upon the land ?


George Ewan McCraney: Upon the interest of the homesteader. It is quite agreed that the land cannot be taxed so that the tax can become a lien upon the land; of course, if the tax became a lien upon the land, the land could be sold. [DOT]


Frank Oliver: Following out what my hon. friend from Saskatchewan has said, there seems to be in the answer of the minister, as well as in the correspondence from the department, the elements of a great many difficulties for the municipalities without probability of any good result. The necessity of taxation will, of course, not be disputed, and the interest that a man has in the land which he is occupying and using, and which he holds against all the world except the Government of Canada, must of course be admitted to be a very substantial, tangible and taxable interest. Both in Saskatchewan and in Alberta-certainly in Alberta-while it may be said that it is the interest of the homesteader that is taxed, and while as a matter of fact it is only the interest of the homesteader that is taxed, the taxation is levied on the area of the land. That is a single tax at so much per acre.


Mr. KNOWLES:: A flat rate.


Frank Oliver: Yes. It is understood to be a right and proper taxation of the homesteader's interest in the land. Of course, it is impossible for the municipality to collect the tax by sale of the land, but it is not impossible for the municipality to collect the tax assessed against the interest of the homesteader in the land by distress upon the homesteader's personal property, and therefore the tax has been collectable and has been acknowledged as a proper tax and as equitable in practice in both these provinces. I would impress upon the minister that to throw doubt in any way upon the legality of the procedure and practice which has prevailed is certain to create an enormous amount of trouble, and as to whether it will produce a good result or not I think there can be no question that it will not.
There is no doubt as to the necessity of the taxation; there is no doubt that the man who occupies .and uses the land and who, in effect, owns it against all the world,' except the Crown, .should pay his share of the burden of the community in the way of taxes. Any steps, therefore, that are taken by the Government to disarrange existing conditions must be to the detriment of the general welfare in the western country. I would very strongly urge upon the minister that if there is any reference to the Department of Justice of the question as to the legality of the taxation that has been levied, it should be a reference for an opinion or an authority that would confirm the practice that has hitherto been followed.
It has been one of the very great grievances of the settlers in those two provinces that under the arrangement that was made, not only with the Canadian Pacific railway, but with other raiway companies which were given land grants in those provinces which were not exempted from taxation by the Parliament of Canada, that by reason of the Government of that day not issuing the patent to the grantee, the railway company was able to avoid paying its fair share of the taxation of the country, lhat was a condition that prevailed during many years. It was finally remedied by the issue of all patents that could be issued to the railway companies. But it was a very great grievance, and it would be an equally great grievance if the undisputed ownership of the Government in the homesteaders' land should be used as a means of preventing the homesteader from paying his fair share of the burden of the taxation in the locality in which he lives. The

great object of getting homesteaders and getting settlers is that 'by their presence there shall be, for the convenience of the people improvement of the conditions as they exist, and that one set of people who are getting the advantage of these conveniences should be relieved from the burden of taxation while,the others should be compelled to carry the burden is essentially unfair. It will be understood that many homesteaders do not get their patents within three years of the date of their entry, binder the law a homesteader need not take his patent out for five years after the date of entry, and there are many occasions when it is not desirable even to insist upon that limit. It would be most unfortunate if the homesteader, by reason of his refusing to take out his patent, even after he had become entitled to it, should be relieved from taxation. I would respectfully urge the Government not to take any action that will lead to the idea that the present practice is opposed by this Government or that the Government would under any circumstances use its influence or authority to prevent the continuance of the present practice, within, of course, legal and proper limits.


William Roche: I understand that there is a case now pending before the courts to test the legality of the provincial Act levying taxes on grazing lands the title of which is in the Crown.


Frank Oliver: That is a different question from the homestead lands; it is the homestead lands we have especially in question. In my judgment there is no question that the interest of the leaseholder in the grazing land should properly be taxable.


William Erskine Knowles: Can the minister tell us again what has been .submitted to the Justice Department and how the question arose?


William Roche: The question arose in the department through the receipt of a great many .communications from homesteaders protesting against taxes being levied upon their lands.


William Erskine Knowles: Taxes payable by a former entrant whose patent had been cancelled, or by the present occupant?


William Roche: Both. No opinion has been expressed by the department as to the legality of the taxation of the interest of the occupant, but they have expressed an opinion as to taxation of land when the patent remains in the Crown.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The House is not in Committee of the Whole, and therefore it is not permissible for the same member to speak more than once. The practice of rising over and over again calls the minister up so frequently that the rule is being abused rather than observed.


William Erskine Knowles: I had not spoken before, Mr. Speaker; I do not suppose you meant that for me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman first introduced some observations and asked a question. When a member has been on his feet he is presumed to have spoken, and after that he cannot, of course, speak a second time.


William Erskine Knowles: I asked the question merely that I might speak intelligently; 1 simply wanted to know how the question had arisen. With regard to the question which seems to have been originally raised in the letter written by the secretary of the Department of the Interior to Deputy Minister Bayne on February 16, namely as to whether the new entrant could be made liable for the taxes of a cancelled entrant, there can be absolutely no question about that. A new entrant is not liable for the taxes which have been imposed on a former entrant; that is as clear as it as possible for anything to be clear, and the letter written by Mr. Pereira, secretary of the Department of the Interior, was absolutely uncalled for in its substance as well as in its tone. This letter, which was written by a representative of this Government to a provincial Government-true, not political friends of this Government, but at the same time having the confidence of the people-was written in altogether too domineering a tone. I do not see how the minister can raise at this junction the question as to whether a homesteader is liable for taxes that have been incurred after he became an entrant. There seems to me to be no doubt about that matter. The minister said that his department received complaints and protests, and of course he knows the conditions, but it is strange that this matter should come up now for the first time. It seems to have been settled beyond peradventure for the last twenty years, both while the western districts were territories and since they became provinces, that the homesteaders are liable in this respect.
As to the question whether a man is liable for taxes in arrears on a cancelled
homestead which he has taken up afresh, the answer is, of course, in the negative. As to the question whether a man is liable for taxes on a homestead incurred after he himself enters for it, there is no doubt that the answer should be in the affirmative. As to the question to which the minister has referred, namely, whether grazing lands should be taxable, that is a different question, but there is no doubt that, as far as Canadian courts are concerned, the ruling will be that such lands are taxable. In the case of the Calgary and Edmonton railway companies versus the province of Alberta, it was decided by our Supreme Court that the liability exists. I may tell my hon. friend that judgment was Tendered this morning by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case to which he referred, that of Vermilion Hills versus Smith, the court holding that owners of grazing lands are liable for taxes. The case was carried to the Supreme Court at Ottawa only because the litigants desired to carry the case to the Privy Council. The Supreme Court of Canada has already declared *itself on that point of law.
I want .to read the letter written by the *secretary of the Department of the Interior, a letter which is-I will not say isaucy, but which was not one that the representative of one Government should write to another. I do not know who wrote it; perhaps the minister knows?


William Roche: No, I do not; I presume the secretary. I know it was supervised by the law clerk.


William Erskine Knowles: It is a little high and mighty, nothing really terrible, but it calls on the provincial Government a little as a man might call on his office boy. It is as follows:
Ottawa, 16th February, 1914.
Sir:
Many letters have recently been received by this department from homesteaders upon lands in the Province of Saskatchewan, who complain of demands being made upon them for the payment of taxes which have been assessed against Dominion lands before such homesteaders were granted-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I might say to the hon. member that that letter has already been read and was placed on ' Hansard ' a few minutes ago.


William Erskine Knowles: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was informed by a fellow member that it had not been read. I shall do no more than make a comment on it.


George Ewan McCraney: Mr. Speaker, what I
read was an extract from a newspaper which did not contain the whole of the letter. It is possible that my hon. friend may wish to read the other parts. Another point which I wish to make is that there are two letters from the department, and I read only one of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may have misunderstood, but my impression was that the hon. member read the whole letter from the newspaper from which he was quoting.


George Ewan McCraney: I read the whole article, tout it contained only extracts from the letter.


William Erskine Knowles: The world would still
revolve even if the letter were read twice. I shall now read the whole letter:
Sir:-
Ottawa, 16th February, 1914.
Many letters have recently been received by this department from homesteaders upon lands in the Province of Saskatchewan, who complain of demands being made upon them for the payment of taxes which have- been assessed against Dominion lands before such homesteaders were granted entry therefor, respectively, uder the Dominion Lands Act.
These complaints have been brought to the attention of the minister, and it is considered that the practice complained of should be put a stop to at once. The assessment in such cases is the assessment by provincial, municipal, school or other local authorities of lands the title to which is in the Crown in the rights of Canada, and is, therefore, clearly illegal. It is also very unfair and discouraging treatment of the homesteader. Nothing can be said in support of the practice which besides being illegal and unfair to the settler, is not in the interests of the province of Saskatchewan in which nearly all the cases in question have arisen, and it seriously injures immigration to that province.
I am directed to request that the necessary action be taken by you to have this very objectionable and illegal practice stopped at once in the province of Saskatchewan.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
(Sgd)
J. N. Bayne, Esq.,
Deputy Minister,
Municipal Affairs, Regina, Sask.
L. Pereira,
Secretary.
The writer does not say: Provided these stories are well founded a change should be made. He does not say:	Kindly look
into this at your convenience. He simply says:	I want this illegal, objectionable,
unfair practice stopped; it is against the wish of this Government and against the interest of immigration. You will notice the reason he gave. I am glad my hon. friend told me it was revised by the law clerk. He says the reason is that ' The title

to which is in the Crown in the rights of Canada.' That is no reason, and the law clerk or whoever revised it ought to know it. The title being in the Crown is no reason why the lands should not be taxable. The reason why they are not taxable, according to the first paragraph of the letter, is that the man who is the entrant now was not the entrant when the taxation was made, and that is what the letter should have said. There is no doubt that the title is in the Crown and is until the day the patent is issued, but that is not the reason why it is not taxable; if it is not taxable the reason is that the entry has changed hands. Therefore .1 say that the letter is not only a little lacking in courtesy and good taste, but lacking also in good law. The reply of Mr. Bayne is as follows:
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 16th ultimo, your file 1428986, the contents of which have been fully noted.
I desire further to call your attention to the fact that I am aware of no good reason for the tenor of your remarks, for since and even before this department was created we have instructions to all municipal officials, the fact that an entrant should not uc charged taxes on account of some previous entrant whose claims on the homestead was either abandoned or cancelled. Sometimes it transpires that the municipal secretary does not learn of the change in occupancy until he has mailed his tax notices, but I have yet to learn of one of these officials who has failed to promptly adjust his records and of deleting therefrom any erroneous errors, such as that which you describe, on his receiving proper information that the homesteader has either abandoned or cancelled his land.
The following is an extract from instructions which are in the hands of every municipal secretary in Saskatchewan:
' If a homestead has been abandoned or cancelled all arrears are written from the records in so far as they are held as a lien against the land. . . If a new entry is made previous to July 1, the annual assessment is charged, or after that date, the liability of taxation does not commence until the next year.'
The statement of arrears of taxes which you have in your office may contain certain amounts which should be cancelled in accordance with paragraph 3 of the manual of instructions, as some homesteads that have been cancelled or abandoned since the said statement was compiled. In case a homesteader protests to you against these arrears you may have him produce his interim' homestead receipt as official proof of the date of his entry. You can make a note of this number and date, adjust the records in accordance with paragraph 3 therein and then carefully return nim his interim homestead receipt.
' All protests against your tax notices should be carefully investigated and full consideration and explanation given to those desiring an equitable adjustment, avoiding, if possible, appeals to magistrates.'
Contrary to what your letter assumes this

department has been quite aware of the situation for several years and in every case where taxes are improperly levied against a homestead, the matter is equitably adjusted without friction and contention.
I am aware of no one attempting to either adopt or defend the ' practice ' which you describe, nor has any municipal official refused to act in accordance with the department's suggestions in placing the homestead taxes on a regular basis. Where temporarily, certain improper arrears have been shown on the tax notices, it has been as a result of lack of information.
I would be pleased to hear further from you in this matter.
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) J. N. Bayne,
Deputy Minister.
L. Pereira, Esq.,
Secretary, Department of Interior,
Ottawa, Canada.
I have read those letters that it might be quite clear that the calling down the provincial Government of Saskatchewan received from the Ottawa Government was uncalled for, and I think it would be up to the department now to write a letter to the Government at Regina and rather express regret for the hasty letter written by the secretary of the Department of the Interior.
I am still in doubt as to how a serious question ever arose in the department as to whether homesteads are taxable, and this letter does not explain. Evidently there has been confusion as to whether taxes might be continued from one homesteader to another, but how the other question ever arose is a matter of mystery. The minister says he has letters complaining of that from homesteaders who were taxed as soon as they were on the entry. It is the first time I have heard of this, and I would like to see some of the letters.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Department of Justice-Living allowance for judge of Atlin district, B.C., $1,200.
George William Kyte: Will the hon. minister explain why there is a living allowance for this particular judge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This allowance has been made for a great number of years-in fact, ever since there was a judge in that district-on account of the expense of living there.


George William Kyte: Do any other judges in
Canada get the same treatment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The judge of the Supreme Court, and the magistrates of the Yukon also get living allowances.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I do not propose to discuss this particular item, 'but I would like to ask if it is the minister's intention to increase the salaries of the judges of the province of Quebec this year? He is aware that the cost of living has gone up for judges as well as for other classes of people, and judges are forced to enter into social functions in which other people do not have to participate. It appears to me that the salaries of the judges in the province of Quebec, at least, are abnormally low, and I would urge increasing them in all parts of our province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No doubt the increased cost of living applies to judges as well as the rest of us. I have every sympathy with the judges, but I am not in a position to say at the present moment just what will be done in that regard.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to say a
word or two in regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend the member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) in favour of increasing the salaries of the judges. I have in previous sessions spoken on this question, and if I now speak for our judges in the province of Quebec, I do not mean to set apart the claims of the judges of other courts in the various provinces; but it is because I am a member of the bar of the province of Quebec. I would like to lay before the hon. minister the case of the judges of the Circuit Court of Montreal, eoncernina whom the minister has, no doubt, received a memorandum. I will not recite this memorandum,	but I may	perhaps beallowed	to summarize	its contents.
The Circuit Court of the district of Montreal was established in 1893. It has therefore been in operation for twenty-one years, but its judges receive to-day exactly the same salaries as when the court was established- $3,000 a year. There is one exception, that of the Chief Justice, who receives a salary of $3,600 a year. There are five times as many people in the district of Montreal as there were twenty-one years ago, and the cost of living, in Montreal especially, has at the least more than quadrupled in that period. ' Why ' this memorandum asks, ' have the salaries of the Circuit Court judges remained at a standstill? ' For two reasons: first, because the Minister of Justice when he increased some years ago the salaries of the Circuit Court judges of the province of Quebec simply forgot the Cireuit Court jjudgesi *of the district of Montreal, being under the impression that the Circuit Court of the district of Montreal was under the same conditions as the Cir-

they would otherwise give? A man who is underpaid does not feel too well inclined to give a fair day's work. Of course, members of the House are sacrificing themselves on the altar of the country. But I am not speaking on behalf of the members -they can take care of themselves-but on behalf of the underpaid judges. I know that with some people this is an unpopular stand to take. Some people say that judges are soldiers of fortune, because they have been appointed for life. I have not been actively in the profession for some years past, but I have the highest Tegard for the administration of justice, and I say that if you do not give our judges a fair salary, you cannot expect to have the ablest men to administer justice. Remember, Mr. Chairman, while comparing the work of the Circuit Court judges of Montreal with the work of the County Court judges of Ontario, I do not wish to minimize the work performed by these Ontario judges. I am simply answering an objection that has been unduly raised time and time again in this House against the claims of the Circuit Court judges in the district of Montreal. The Circuit Court judge of Montreal administers justice in a district with a population five times greater than it was at the time of the creation of the court, and always with the same salary, though the cost of living has risen to the high water mark during the last ten years. Once more I beg the favourable consideration of the hon. minister, and I hope that, knowing the facts as he knows them, he will reach a right decision. There may be obstacles, but I would urge upon him to rise above such obstacles. Though on his side of the House he may meet some opponents, he will find compensating support on this side. I see my hon. friend from L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) and my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny). Will they not stand by me in this instance? Will they not admit that the judges of the Circuit Court of Montreal deserve better treatment than they have received heretofore?


Mr. FOWLER:: I was glad to hear the
plea of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in favour of higher remuneration for the very onerous and important services rendered to the country by the judiciary. It is a matter of great regret, however, that the hon. member had not, while he had more influence in this Chamber, made as strong a speech on behalf of the judges as he has made to-day. I reifer to the time when the hon. gentleman was a power-

ful member of the Government of this country. Then his voice could have been much more effective than at present. However, he has made such a very strong plea that I am sure the Minister of Justice will take the matter into consideration. I wish to say a word on behalf of some of the judges of New Brunswick, particularly on behalf of the judge of Divorce and Matrimonal Causes in that province. The hon. member for Rouville, perhaps does not approve of divorce.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will make this proposition: do away with divorce, and I will support an increase of the salary.


George William Fowler: I am not sure that ttte
increase in salary would follow the abolition of the court. I would point out that this judge has very considerable duties to perform. Two courts a year are held involving as many as nineteen or twenty cases last year, necessitating the judge going to the city of Fredericton at very considerable expense. Yet the total remuneration he receives for this service is $500 a year. Compared with this the salaries of the Circuit Court judges of Montreal are princely. He is one of the Supreme Court judges, which helps out his salary to some extent. But there is no reason why he should perform this extra service and not be reasonably remunerated therefor. The judge of Admiralty in New Brunswick does not do a tithe of the work of this other judge to whom 1 have referred, but he has a salary of $1,000 in addition to his salary as judge of the Supreme Court. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that the salary of the Divorce Court judge be placed at $1,000 in view of the large amount of work he has to do-much larger than formerly on account of the increase of population, and perhaps on account of the modern tendency towards the severance of the marital tie.
There is another class of judges in our province whose salaries should be increased, the County Court judges, who correspond to some extent with the Circuit Court judges in Montreal-though not entirely. These judges have not the opportunity of increasing their stipends as have those in the province of Ontario, and their salaries have not been changed for many years, although the cost of living, as the hon. member for Rouville has pointed out, has greatly increased within eight or ten years. The result is that in some instances-I would not say in all-judges have done what, perhaps, is not quite the correct thing for them to do, they have sought to increase theiT incomes by holding circuits in

courts in other counties, holding chambers away from their places of residence when, perhaps, it was not entirely necessary, in order to increase their remuneration which is altogether too small.
This should not be permitted; but the temptation should be removed. I have heard of instances where judges have very considerably increased their salaries by this means. I think the judge should be paid a proper remuneration for his work, and that these additional means of adding to his stipend should not be permitted. I would ask the minister to take into consideration an increase of the remuneration not only of the County Court judges of New Brunswick, but also of the judge of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.


George William Kyte: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. minister is. of course, familiar with the fact that in the province of New Brunswick we now have two divisions of the Supreme Court known respectively as the Court of Appeal and the Court of King's bench. It is the duty^ of the members of the King's Bench division to attend to the work in chambers, and the judges of that court reside at different points in the province. The chief justice resides at Dorchester in the county of

Westmorland, two judges live in the city of Fredericton, and one in the city of St. John. I understand that the assignments have been made to the respective judges for work in the various sections of the province, and before we take up the item for the province of New Brunswick I would like my hon. friend to secure information as to the assignments for the present year. This information will have a very material bearing upon the question of the travelling allowances to be made to these judges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to getting the information for the hon. gentleman. but I would like to point out that I am not submitting any vote for travelling allowances; that is all provided for by statute. As to the assignments of the judges, that forms a part of the administration of justice which is under provincial control. As I say, I shall be glad to get the information, but it does not bear upon any item this committee is called upon to vote, nor could the House control it if they thought it was not proper.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite appreciate that; I am asking that the information may be procured because it may throw some light upon the question as to whether the judges should receive an increase in their salaries.	-
It is a well understood fact that in New Brunswick the number of divorce cases is, unfortunately, increasing year by year; and the work of that court has expanded to a degree that must be viewed as a misfortune, as far as the province is concerned. Yet we have to face those conditions, and I think that the judge of that court is entitled to at least the same salary as the judge of the Admiralty Court, whose work, instead of increasing, has very materially decreased within my experience. This matter has been commented upon in the past and it might have a very great bearing on the judgment one might exercise on the question whether or not the judges are fairly compensated if we had the information for which I have asked.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I wish it to be distinctly understood tnat in raising this question I was not in any way criticising the Minister of Justice because the salaries of judges were not raised. I am sure that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), in speaking for increased salaries for judges, was actuated by the same motives as myself. We feel that in the administration of justice there is something different from what there is in the administration of other depart-

ments. The administration of justice is non-political in its nature, and it may help the minister in increasing the salaries cf judges, if he knows exactly what the wish of this House is. For that reason it is well that members on both sides of the House should give their views. I believe that the present Minister of Justice, who has had experience on the bench, would be willing to increase the judges' salaries. I really cannot, at the present moment, appreciate the difficulties in the way; but I can perceive that certain conditions may have arisen that may have delayed the matter. I wish to place myself on record as strongly in favour of the increase. As to the judges of the divorce courts I have absolutely nothing to say. In the province of Quebec we have no divorce courts; but, speaking generally for all the judges of my province, I know that a judge receiving $5,000 a year as a salary, after he has paid his rent, his life insurance and the education of his children, has no margin and is very often in debt. Therefore I want to encourage the increase in the salaries as much as possible.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has presented the case on behalf of the County Court judges of Nova Scotia so well that I need add little to what he has said. I would call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the memorandum presented by the County Court judges a few years ago on the occasion of their interview with him. It will be seen from that memorandum that two of the County Court judges particularly are referred to, one in Halifax and one in Sydney. They are perhaps the hardest worked judges that we have in the land. The others also have a great deal of work that perhaps may not strike the Minister of Justice as existing in that part of the country. The judges of Ontario, corresponding to a large extent te the County Court judges in Nova Scotia, have not as much work to perform as the County Court judges in Nova Scotia. They have to deal with not only civil but criminal cases, and in addition to that in case there is any contentious matter, in the Probate Court they have to sit as judges on it. And if the minister remembers the case presented to him at that time, it must have struck him very forcibly that the County Court judges of Nova Scotia have a great deal more work to do than the County Court judges of Ontario. Whatever objection there may be to raising the salaries of the judges in Ontario corresponding to our

County Court judges, I do not think that objection would apply so far as Nova Scotia is concerned.


Mr. McKENZIB:: I do not wish to say [DOT]very much about the salaries of judges.
I fully concur in what has been said by other hon. gentlemen. There is one thing about the allowance made to^ judges for travelling which I wish to bring directly to the attention of the minister. I brought this matter to the attention of the deputy minister, and he felt rather embarrassed as to what really should be the ruling. The minister knows well that what shall be assigned to any court is a matter within the legislative power of the provinces. They assign the subjects that go to the Supreme Court and to the County Courts respectively. Sometimes this Parliament assigns duties to judges of the different courts. There seems to be a rule in the Justice Department that even if a County Court judge goes to a remote section of his district to hold a court, unless the Department of Justice thinks he should be paid for going there he will'not be allowed travelling expenses. The County Court judge has nothing to say about it; he has to go. The provincial authority says he shall try a certain style of case, and he has to. go there and try it. It is rather a hardship on him that, after he has travelled and performed the duty which is imposed upon him by the legislature having a right to impose that duty on him, he should not be paid. Some duties are imposed on County Court judges that might be regarded as almost trivial. For instance, in our province there is an appeal from the assessment court, of the towns or districts to the County Court judge. The County Court judge is not obliged to hold a special court to hear that; he usually hears it at the ordinary sittings of the court; but if he were obliged to go to the different parts of his districts to hold courts for that purpose, I rather think he should be paid. That is one of the things that might be regarded as being not within the contemplation of section 18 of the Judges Act. But I wish particularly, to call attention to a very important class of trial which must be held by the County Court judge under chapter 72 of volume 1 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia which provides for the trial of election cases. The trial of election petitions in Nova Scotia, whether municipal or provincial, is governed largely by the same practice and the same law as the trial of
Dominion election petitions. In Nova Scotia, we follow, as nearly as possible, the legislation and practice .that applies to this House. Section 3 of chapter 72 says:
The court shall, subject to the provisions of this chapter, have the same powers, jurisdiction and authority with reference to an election petition and other proceedings thereon, as it would have if such petition was an ordinary cause within its jurisdiction.
That is one of the things I wish particularly to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice. When a County Court judge is obliged, under the law of the province to go from the town in which he resides to another town to try a case, I think the fair interpretation of the Judges' Act is that he should be paid his travelling allowance. I fully concur in what has been said by other hon. members with respect to the propriety of increasing the salaries of the judges. One word more. I cannot understand why the chief justices of the different provinces should not be on precisely the same footing in the matter of salary. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, two provinces which I know very well, we have gentlemen of very high attainments occupying this position. They require a knowledge of the law equal to that of the Chief Justices of Ontario and Quebec and an equally high standard of ability, and therefore I think it is invidious to make distinctions in respect to salary between the chief justices of the different provinces. It is rather a reflection on the Chief Justice of the province of Nova Scotia not to pay him exactly the same salary as the Chief Justice of the province of Ontario. Whatever trouble the Minister of Justice may get into by revising the salaries of other judges, he certainly should not be found fault with for putting the chief justices of the different provinces on precisely the same footing.


George William Kyte: Before the minister replies, I have one or two observations' to make with regard to the law relating to travelling allowances of County Court judges. According to the law as it exists on the statute book to-day, it would appear that a County Court judge leaving the town in which he resides to hold court in another town in the same county is not entitled to any living or travelling allowance. That law was passed at a time probably when County Courts sat in only one town in the county, when judges appointed to the County Court naturally, and perhaps necessarily, took up their residences in the shire town. But

conditions which have developed in the province of Nova Scotia in the last twenty years have made it necessary to establish County Court sittings in different towns of the same county, and therefore it does not necessarily follow that a County Court judge resides in the shire town of the county, but in some other town where sittings are held. Therefore, according to the interpretation of the Act-and I have no doubt a perfectly correct interpretation according to the wording of it-a judge who resides in the town where the sittings are held, if it does not happen to be the shire town, does not get a travelling or living allowance for travelling to and hotel expenses in the shire town. I do not think it was contemplated or ever understood that a judge should not be paid his reasonable travelling allowance whenever or wherever he might have to go in order to discharge his functions as a County Court judge. As I stated a moment ago, there are instances in the province of Nova Scotia where County Court judges who have to leave their own town to hold a sitting in the shire town, have not been allowed their travelling allowance. That refers to counties where there are two seats of a County Court within the borders of the same county. I wish the minister would direct his attention to that feature of the Act and have it amended, so that County Court judges may get their travelling allowance whenever they have to travel, under the provisions prescribed by the provincial Acts which regulate the service, in order to hold court.


Mr. BUREAU:: ' The hon. member for Kings, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), said a moment ago that the Minister of Justice was going to take into consideration the various demands made by the members to increase the salaries of judges. I want to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the particular case of the district of Three Rivers. I have listened to the very eloquent plea of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) on behalf of the Circuit Court judges of Montreal, and I have also heard the plea by other members for County Court Judges. In the district of Three Rivers things have developed very rapidly, and the cases that are tried there are not of the ordinary commercial kind. They arise out of the fact that property has taken a sudden rise in value; titles are all mixed up, and we have lawsuits involving titles, water-powers, and all kinds of things out of the ordinary trend of litigation. The judges

in Three Rivers are more than overworked. If the judges in Montreal and Quebec ought to get $7,000 on account of the high cost of living, I say that it costs more to live in Three Rivers than it does in Montreal. And if you are going to put an increase of ' salaries on the ground of work done, I say the judges in Three Rivers do more work on account of the number of cases. I am satisfied that if the number of cases tried in Montreal were divided by the number of judges trying them, there would not be as many cases to each judge as there are to the judges in Three Rivers. Besides that, they have to perform all the duties of the Circuit Court judges of Montreal. There is a line of cases which my hon. friend from Rouville mentioned, which in Montreal cannot come up very frequently, but which do occur very frequently in Three Rivers, that is, appeals from the game laws. If a lumber jack or anybody else is sentenced by a justice of the peace for killing a moose, or for any other breach of the game laws, he can appeal to the Circuit Court, and in Three Rivers those appeals are very frequent. They try every kind of appeal there-appeals from municipal assessment under the school law-and election protests, not only municipal, and school, but federal. The judges often have to sit for eight or ten days in succession. I submit to the Minister of Justice that there is no reason why a judge in Three Rivers should not get a salary of $5,000. The argument cannot be successfully put forward that a judge in Montreal has to pay more for the necessaries of life than a judge in Three Rivers. You can buy the necessaries of life cheaper in Montreal than you can buy them in Three Rivers.
If the amount of work is taken into consideration, I am here to say that the work of the judges in the district of Three Rivers is far more difficult than that of the judges in the city of Montreal. In a place where -there are ten or eleven judges together their work is not as hard, and they have not the same amount of work, as where there are only two judges. Some of the judges have had experience in a case which can be drawn upon, greatly to his advantage, by a brother judge. Then, in Montreal the judges have their rooms in the court house, and they have the Bar Library at their disposal, whereas in the district of Three Rivers the judge has to buy his own library. Not having any university in the district of Three Rivers, we do not get any fees from the students

to read law or to be admitted to practice, and therefore our library is defective. The result of this is that our judges have to put their hands into their own pockets and buy books, which they do not have to do in Montreal or Quebec. In Montreal, as also in Quebec, the judges of the Court of King's Bench sit as a criminal court. In Three Rivers the Superior Court judges have to preside in the Criminal Court. We have of late had a lot of work in that line; there have been two or three trials for murder in which new trials were granted, and this involved a lot of work for the judges. In addition, the judges at Three Rivers have to sit as .a court of review. Here they are performing all the work that is performed in the city of Montreal by one class of judges-the judges of the Circuit Court. They perform the work of the judges of the King's Bench and they sit in the Criminal Court. In addition to that the judges at Three Rivers have to go to Quebec and sit as a court of review.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Is that too much work for the two judges of the Superior Court?


Jacques Bureau: I am not complaining and they are not complaining, but if the judges, at Montreal and Quebec get $7,000 a yeaT, I see no reason why the judges at Three Rivers should not get the same. If you say that this difference in salary is justified by the high cost of living in these two places, I answer that you cannot live more cheaply in Three Rivers than you can in Montreal or Quebec. But, I repeat that the judges of the Superior Court have to .sit in the Court of King's Bench and hear criminal cases, and they have to sit as a court of appeal in Three Rivers to hear appeals from the acts and decisions of the municipal and school bodies, appeals from acts and decisions taken under the charter of the city of Three Rivers and of other municipal .centres throughout the district of Three Rivers. We must not forget that this district is developing very rapidly. You have in that district the city of Three Rivers, which has increased in [population from 13,000 to 18,000; you have the town of Grand Mere, which has a population of 5,000, and which is increasing very rapidly; you have the town of Shawinigan with all its important industries, and you have the new town of La Tuque, which is also developing very rapidly. New industries are going into these towns and cities, and the amount of
litigation at Three Rivers is increasing every day. As a result of this these country judges can never sit down at, night before their fire-places and smoke their pipes. They have a great deal more work to do than the judges in Montreal or in Quebec. These country judges have to expend a good deal more money in order to keep their libraries up than the judges of Montreal or Quebec, who have the advantage of the Bar libraries.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By way of implementing the remarks I made 'before six o'clock, addressed to the hon. the Minister of Justice, and so that I may get from him a complete answer to all the requests made regarding the salaries of the judges, I will read to the House two petitions which I believe are in the hands of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, but which should be on ' Hansard.' By reading these documents I do not intend to be parochial or provincial. If I state a case for the judges of my own pro%'-inee, I do not intend by so doing to deprive the judges of the other provinces of whatever recourse they may have. I speak whereof I know most. I will read first the petition sent to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice by the judges of the Superior Court for the district of Quebec. The province of Quebec is divided judicially into two large districts, Quebec and Montreal, with subdivisions for smaller districts. The petition is as follows:
Quebec, November, 1913.
To the Honourable Charles J. Doherty,
Minister of Justice of Canada.
The undersigned judges of the Superior Court, of the review district of Quebec, in cooperation with the judges of said court for the balance of the province, respectfully represent :	, ,	...
That they are constrained, for, among other, the reasons hereinafter given respectfully to call your attention to the indemnity paid to them for their services; they are almost daily reminded by their experiences, that it is quite inadequate to enable them to live in comfort and in accordance with their station in life, without exercising too great economy; they must deny themselves such necessary luxuries as useful and helpful legal and literary publications, and, more important still, they are unable to adequately provide for the future of those who are dependent upon them.
The cost of living, as compared with a few years back, has almost doubled; incomes and salaries which were formerly considered an independence, are now quite insufficient to meet anything but the most ordinary expenses of living. Of course, we recognize this condition is not confined to judges ; it is so also in every walk of life; but judges' salaries have


Mr. LAMAECHE:: I agree with my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that something ought to be done for the judges, especially for the judges of the Circuit Court of the district of Montreal. They are in a special class, as my hon. friend has said, being judges of ' the poor man's court.' The roll of that court is always congested; the work the judges have to do, the hours they have to devote to their duties, are certainly great in view of the salary that is given them. I believe that not very long ago a demand was made for an increase in the number of judges of this court from three to six; and you will observe, Mr. Chairman, that a fourth judge has been appointed on that Bench. If the work is to be done by these four judges-and everybody knows there is work for at least six judges-I think that is an additional reason for an increase in salary. I do not know whether the hon. member for Rouville has mentioned any figure. At present these judges are paid a salary of $3,000 a year. In my opinion, these four judges should be paid at least $5,000 a year. They certainly earn such a salary, and nothing less would be adequate for the duties they have to perform. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice is ready to announce what will be the policy of the Government in the matter, but I simply wish to join my hon. friend from Rouville to endorse absolutely the remarks he has made, and tn' ask the minister to take seriously into consideration the petitions that have been forwarded to him.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT:: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat (Mr. Lamarche) should have concurred in the views expressed by the hon. member for Rouville. I must say right away that I am wholly opposed to any increase of salary for the judges, because, to my mind, they are already getting too much for the work performed in the country's behalf.
the Superior Court judges of the district of Montreal are getting just now salaries of $7,000 or $8,000 per annum, and I was not a little surprised at hearing the memorandum of the judges of the district of Quebec which the hon. member for Rouville has just read to the House. When complaints are being voiced as regards the high cost of living on behalf of people who earn $7,000 per annum, it strikes me as something laughable. I admit that in the case of a poor workingman earning from $1.25 to $1.50 per day, the high cost of

living may be made a consideration towards obtaining an increase of his salary, but such considerations cannot be urged in the case of people earning from $7,000 to $8,000 per annum.
As a matter of fact are there not in the province of Quebec retired judges who get more as pensioners of the State than they earned while on the Bench?
That question was never taken up before the Canadian electorate, and I intend during the next recess of Parliament to carry on a campaign against the increase of such salaries throughout the province of Quebec, whatever may be thought of it by hon. gentlemen who belong to the profession. In this connection, I put both political parties exactly on the same plane; hon. gentlemen on either side are always ready to rise in this House and. defend the privileges of the upper set; they remain silent when the rights of the common people are in jeopardy.
We have in the province of Quebec fifteen retired judges; out of that number, three get $8,000 per annum, though they earned only $5,000 while on the bench. That makes $3,000 more per annum than during their term of office, that is to say, they get $3,000 more per annum for doing nothing.
How could it be otherwise, when we have as Minister of Justice a retired judge in person? Of course, it may be that the law makers who provided such increases had their own cases in mind. In 1905, the then Minister of Justice was Mr. Fitzpatrick. The .salary of the Chief Justice was increased to $12,000, and he was on the point of himself going over to the Supreme Court.
I was listening the other day to the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) when he acknowledged that there were in his department poor people earning from $500 to $600 per annum as temporary clerks, for the past fifteen or twenty years; and he added that he did not see his way to granting them any increase. Besides, he said, if they are not content with that, there are hundreds of people who are ready to take their places.
Do you suppose, Mr. Chairman, that in the event of the judges of the province of Quebec resigning to-morrow, on the ground of insufficient remuneration of their services, it would be found impossible to replace them? I can assure you, Sir, that there are on the other .side of the

House some hon. gentlemen-I "have a certain number of them in front of me who, having deceived their electors at the last elections, would be very glad to slip into those vacancies. It would not take me a half-hour to fill in the gaps.
As for me, and I speak on behalf of the farming community which I represent here, I say that the latter class is unaware of all that is going on; and in this connection I may tell you of an incident which occurred in the course of my last electoral journey. I was addressing a meeting at St. Michael de Napierville, and in conclusion was pointing out the case of the hon. Minister of Justice, who is at one and the same time a pensioner of the State, Minister of Justice and member of Parliament. On these various heads, I told them, he is drawing three salaries. After the meeting some Conservative electors came to me saying: You have not stated the truth; the Minister of Justice can not be a State pensioner. I ascended the hustings once more and told them: Go and inquire from Mr. Patenaude, the local member for Laprairie (a staunch Conservative), and if he does not confirm what I have just stated to you, I undertake to give up my mandate. Those people would not believe me.
Now, I would like to know from the Minister of Justice whether he intends applying on my behalf to the Prime Minister for an opportunity to discuss the Bill I have on the Order paper in reference to the matter we are considering just now?
The contention is that there are not enough judges in Montreal; I know the reason, and I am going to tell you what it is. Our Montreal judges, like those in other parts, often suffer from slight headaches and travel for the benefit of their health. Several of them even cross over to Europe every year. While they are on such trips their salaries are by no means cut down. But take a poor customs officer, if he be sick two days in succession, he must show a doctor's certificate-which costs some money-to draw his salary. What I now state is a fact; many a time I have witnessed such things while I was sitting on the Government side.
I stated that a judge, even in the event of a six months' absence in Europe, draws his full salary. But that is not the whole story; should he be called upon to act as chairman of a commission of enquiry, or
to fill some other office apart from his judicial functions, he draws $50 per diem besides his salary as a judge which continues to run.
That is the kind of justice which is meted out to us farmers and workingmen.
I say that the time is near when we will show our resentment of such grievances.
Quite recently, in this House, when we urged cutting off the duties on agricultural implements, the objection was raised that we would no longer have sufficient revenue to meet tire expenditure incident on Civil government. To that I answer: Let us begin with the judges,, let us cut off, to begin with, the pension of the Minister of Justice-whom I see just now occupying a seat opposite. That pension amounts to $4,666.66. Mr. Chairman, that sum is surely equal to the net revenue of forty-six farmers in my constituency?
Let us now compare the pensions paid to judges in Ontario and in Quebec. Fifteen judges in Quebec are the recipients of nearly $100,000. In Ontario, one judge gets $7,000, two get $2,500 and one gets $.3,000. The comparison is greatly in favour of Ontario. I may add that the Ontario judges remain on the Bench until 83 years of age. Indeed, there are judges in that province who might have asked to be retired eight years ago, and who have not done so yet.
In conclusion, I shall once more inquire from the Government whether an opportunity will be given me to discuss in this House the Bill which I referred to a moment ago? Should the Government stand aloof in this connection, I shall undertake to myself go through the province of Quebec and discuss the question against any lawyer appealing to the electorate.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I wish to bring to the attention of the committee something that has been very strongly impressed upon the minds of the people not only of Canada but of all civilized countries. I refer to the desirability of doing away with courts of appeal. According to the principles of British law-civil, canon, and all the other branches of law-people are presumed to know the law; in fact one of the maxims of the law is that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Strange to say, however, when it comes to the bench the surmise is that as the judges may not know the law, wre had better provide a higher court. I say, follow out the principle that they are presumed to know the law, and let the
10.38

matter stop at that. If you want to do the poorer people of this country a favour, cut off these needless appeals. Where a matter of principle is concerned, let the public counsel, at the public expense, carry the case to a higher court for the general good of the community or of the nation, but the idea is wrong that the people, who themselves are presumed, by a very pleasant fiction, to know the law, should wade through a sea of technicalities and expense to a court of last resort when there is no scientific way of deciding the matter at the end or any other time. The whole thing is a matter of opinion from first to last. There are no axioms, there are not even postulates of law; there are simply experiences which have been put together, which form a certain sort of history and which we are supposed to profit by, but largely they are problematical and unsettled. We may study ancient law, modern law, international law, the law of evidence, the law of real property, and so on-and what is it ? It is nothing more or less than a sort of eruption of a great volcano; it is all confusion-the lava is running all over the community; it is hardening and becoming ossified. We call it the principle of law in some cases; in others we do not know what it is. This incongruity should be done away with. It is all a toss-up at any time. Tbss your copper into the air; if it falls head up, do not go to law; if it falls tail up, do-and you are just as likely to come out right in that way as in any other way; in fact, you are more likely than if you go on with an appeal. So that if you come to investigate the matter and look into the whole system of appeal, and its foundation, you will find that it is absolutely incongruous, inconsistent and illogical to the last degree; there is absolutely no sense in it. It is being perpetuated by the fact that the people do not know what else to do. Therefore, in default of somebody with a louder voice and more influence to make these things known, I have the hardihood to do so on this occasion. The day is coming when it must be done. I have already seen the influence of these things; I have already seen in more than one part of the British Empire that a tendency to cut off sources of appeal, divisional courts and things of that sort, is manifesting itself. Put good men on the Bench-I do not say that good men are not there now-put the best you have, pay them high salaries if you have to; it is the cheapest thing in the long run, but lessen appeals. Have men on the Bench who are like Privy Councillors in 
England. They do not take a year and a day to decide a case; they hear you in a few minutes; they decide promptly whether there is anything in your case, and they render judgment the next day. But, lessen the number of them. We know that the tendency is that the more profound you look the less you know and the longer you take to know it. I know this is a most momentous question; I know it may seem ridiculous to launch it in this way, but I am doing so in all seriousness. From the very earliest time when there were courts of law-in the Egyptian days, in the Grecian days and in the Roman days-we find this same thing cropping up: the necessity of repressing a multiplication of appeals because,. as I say-and this is the reason-you cannot arrive at any scientific solution of the question if you keep on appealing it till the crack of doom.


Mr. H. BOULAY:: In the first place, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Justice. When a judge goes out to sit in his district, are his travelling expenses paid by the Government or by himself?


Charles Joseph Doherty: When he goes out to hold the court within the territory which is assigned to him, his travelling expenses are not paid by the Government. But should the Government send him outside his territorial jurisdiction, then he is recouped of his travelling expenses from public chest.


Herménégilde Boulay: The-minister's answer does not supply exactly the information which I am in need of. My query is this: there is a judge appointed for the county of Ri-mousi. He resides in Quebec. Now, what I would like to find out is whether, in the event of his coming from Quebec to Ri-mouski to hold the court, his travelling expenses are paid to him by the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards the question of the judges' residence, that is a point which is settled by the Provincial Act, and I do not exactly remember just now how Rimouski stands in that respect.


Herménégilde Boulay: We sometimes hear it said that there is nothing new under the sun, and to-day we are witnessing the same old story of lawyers agreeing and acting as a unit when the proposal is made to increase the salaries of the judges. I am in almost every respect at one with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) in the views he expressed.

I listened carefully to the remarks uttered on either side of the House in respect to the judges' salarie_s. It may be that in certain particular instances these gentlemen are underpaid, but in most cases judges receive not less than $20 per diem. As stated by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville, almost every year judges take holidays, and though there are no data to be found in public documents regarding the matter, it does not appear that the least particle of the judges' salaries is deducted.
The hon. gentleman from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) referred to the high cost of living. When a man gets a salary of $5,000 per annum, the increased cost of living can only be a trifling consideration in his case. But as regards a poor labourer, who is obliged to pay the same rent and support a numerous family, the case is altogether different; however, there is no talk of increasing his salary. When a man is appointed judge, he has in most cases reached an age when his children are brought up for the most part. So he has only himself and his wife to look after, which is quite a different proposition. On what grounds is an increase sought on behalf of the judges? No solid ground, to my mind, beyond the notion that the farming community, the industrial and business classes, the labouring classes generally should be plucked for the benefit of others. It is time a stop should be put to that kind of thing. Have we heard many lawyers in the course of this debate come to the rescue of the farmers and fight that proposal to increase the judges' salaries?


Mr. WILSON:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Is he in favour of increasing the members's sessional indemnity?


Herménégilde Boulay: It would certainly be fairer to increase the sessional indemnity of members than the salaries of judges. I am thinking of those members who exert themselves; as for the others, I have nothing to say. vVe certainly should earn more, for v,e work 365 days in the year and sometimes during nights. We are obliged to go through expensive electoral campaigns, while our friends the judges, who draw big salaries, about twice the amount of our indemnity, sit only about 150 days in the year, when it is possible to lay hands on them, which is not always an easy matter.
As for us in the county of Rimouski, we have a judge who resides in Quebec. I have already called the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact; litigants complain of such a state of things. That judge only comes to Rimouski for the sittings of the court, which are far between, and very often we are obliged to do without him. Recourse must be had to the district magistrate, the judge being absent.
As the representative of the county of Rimouski, I agree with all my constituents in condemning any proposal for an increase of the judges' salaries.


Mr. PROULX:: Mr. Chairman, I was not here this afternoon, but I have been informed that some hon. members advocated an increase in the salaries of County Court judges. I shall not speak for the other provinces. I understand that in the Maritime provinces the districts are larger and there are fewer County Court judges in proportion to the population than in Ontario.
I would not oppose an increase in salaries to the County Court judges in Ontario if the number of County Court judges were reason- * abie; but before I would support an increase I would ask that the number should be decreased. We could dispense with at least a dozen County Court judges in Ontario. Some districts which have two judges, a senior and a junior, could do with only one. Many years ago districts which had 40,000 population were entitled to two judges. That was increased to 80,000 population. But there are quite a few exceptions to the general rule. A district having within it a city was entitled to a second judge, and there were districts, large in area, which were also made exceptions to the general law and were granted two judges. At that time the transportation facilities were not so good as they are to-day. Then too, litigation has decreased. I do not know how it is in other districts, but in my district litigation has very much decreased within the last few years. The province of Ontario could dispense with quite a few County Court judges; that is, the Legislature could amend the law and do away with a number of junior judgeships. Until this is done I would oppose any increases in
9 p.m. the salaries of County Court judges in Ontario.


Charles Avila Wilson: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that such a question can toe discussed without appealing to class prejudices. Those who are called upon to fill judgeships have spent several years studying a profession which requires a wide range of knowledge. Why not pay them in proportion to their merits?
As regards the pensions of judges, I know what are the views of the Minister of Justice on that point; he has previously stated them, and he is capable of defending himself without any assistance on my part.

Now, to-day exception is taken to the discrepancies in the judges' salaries, and I think rightly so. Why should $3,000 only be paid to Circuit court judges? I contend that they. do as much work, if not more, than the judges of the Superior court in Montreal, and certainly more than the judges in country districts. I aver that the Superior court judges in the country districts have duties of a three-fold nature to perform: in the first place, as judges of the Superior court, then as judges sitting in the court of Queen's Bench, and lastly as judges of the Circuit court. And they have other duties besides to perform.
I understand that the difficulty in the way of increasing the salaries of the four judges of the Circuit court in Montreal, is that they are assimilated to County court judges in the Province of Ontario. That is comparing day and night. The organization of our courts in Quebec is altogether different. Our Circuit court in Montreal is also different from Circuit courts in country districts. The hon. minister is aware that in Montreal those judges decide from twenty to thirty cases per annum, and that they sit every day, except during the long summer recess.
When the hon. member for Rimouski stated a moment ago that the judges work only 150 days in the year, he was speaking, I regret to say, of something he is entirely ignorant of. I invite him, in the course of June next, if the session is over, or in September, to enter the Circuit court and witness the work which is being done there. Even during vacations, there is always a judge in chambers for any business that may be urgent. .
On my responsibility as a memiber I have no hesitation in stating that the salary of the Circuit court judges is ridiculously inadequate, considering the cost of living in Montreal to-day and the standard, however humble it may he, they are expected to live up to. Considering the duties which devolve upon them, the meagre allowance granted does not enable them to do things properly.
When I see hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars voted every year toward building armouries, it seems to me the expenditure for military purposes might be cut down in a measure and the expenditure for the administration of justice proportionately increased; in that way would those grievous discrepancies be done away with.
As I stated a moment ago, there is no comparison to be made between the two provinces; their systems of judicature dif-

fering entirely one from the other. The appointment of judges, as well as their salaries are matters falling wholly within the powers of the Dominion Government, and such salaries should be sufficient to uphold the dignity of the positions; that is why I entreat the minister not to proceed on a basis of comparisons.


Mr. LAPOINTE (St. James):: It was not my intention to take part in this debate, but as I am fully aware of the unfairness of the treatment dealt out to the Circuit court judges in Montreal, I think it is incumbent on me to say a word or so.
There is no appeal from the findings of those judges; so it will be seen that their responsibility is very great indeed. Nevertheless, all they get is $3,000 per annum, while judges in country districts get $5,000. Circuit court judges in Montreal are not entitled to a pension, while other judges are so entitled.
The city of Montreal pays to its clerk and assistant clerks salaries of over $3,000 per annum. The deputy prothonotaries of the Superior courts are paid a salary equal to that of those judges. Evidently that is unfair.
I may be.allowed to enquire from the hon. Minister of Justice why those judges are not paid as much as the others? Why are they singled out?
The hon. Minister of Justice has read the petition asking that their salaries be increased. I think lawyers should unite and make every effort toward obtaining that such salaries be increased. I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napier-yiHe, and I believe the salaries of these judges should be increased. The Montreal recorders earn from $5,000 to $6,000 per annum. We have three or four of them who are in the same position as those retired judges who, after a period of fifteen years, retire, settle down in the country or take to travelling in Europe. But such is not the case of the Circuit court judges.
Why -are those judges dealt with in that way, differently from others? I trust the hon. Minister of Justice will give us some fair and satisfactory explanation of the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I am to do justice to the observations of all the distinguished members who have spoken on this subject, it will be admitted that it i-s a fairly large task, even for a Minister of Justice. I may answer the very pointed question of my hon. friend from iSt. James, Montreal (Mr. Lapointe), at the outset. He has asked me

why it was that these four judges were singled out to get this smaller salary. I may say to him that they were singled out to get this smaller salary by the Government which he supported at the time they singled them out, and that is the reason why he has to appeal to me to remedy this grave injustice.


Louis Audet Lapointe: If the late Government has made a mistake, cannot this Government remedy it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend asked
me why they were singled. out. There is only one reason. They were singled out by the Government of the day, who fixed that reason. Why , that was done at the outset, I am not in a position to say.
I do not want to treat this subject from a partisan point of view. I quite realize that the whole question is above that, as my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) said this afternoon. It would be rather difficult for me to take up seriatim the observations of the different gentlemen who have spoken. With a great deal that has been said I may say that I am in very hearty sympathy. With a great deal of what was said by my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) and by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) I am in very hearty sympathy. I am heartily in accord with my hon. friend from Rouville in his expression of welcome on the return of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). We are all glad to see him back with us in such evidently perfect health. I shall endeavour to deal with the observations made by different gentlemen as I proceed. I wish to say a few general words on the increase in judges' salaries. I note what the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson) says in regard to inequalities in isalaries. I cannot undertake to give the reason why these inequalities were created. They date, I think, from even before the previous Administration, and I have nothing more to say than that I inheiited them. There are some things that are sufficient reasons for inequality. For instance, it might perhaps fairly be contended that inequality of work should represent inequality of salary. I think, too, that some consideration has to be given to the important work entrusted to one class of judges as compared with the relatively unimportant work entrusted to another. In the general business world the man who has large responsibilities is usually paid more than the man whose responsibilities are 123
smaller, and there may be also the question of relative expenses of living in different places, though I am free' to confess after listening to the discussion of this afternoon that I have pretty nearly come to the conclusion that it costs more to live anywhere than it does to live anywhere else. That seems to be the situation, as I gathered it from the different opinions expressed this afternoon. These are some considerations that may have influenced those who established the inequality of salary. There is also the consideration pointed out by my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx) that in some circumstances it may be reasonably contended that in some provinces there are more judges of certain classes than are required. It is quite true that it is the absolute right of provinces to decide how many judges they shall have, but it is also not only the right but the duty of the Government of the Dominion to determine how much these judges shall be paid, and this Government, whether in the past or the present, is not perhaps to be too much blamed if, finding that it has to provide for a larger number of judges than is necessary, it considers that having to spread its pay over this large surface, it must be spread perhaps a little thinner than it otherwise would be. All these things come into play and have to be considered, and the position of any government called upon to deal with the question of judges' salaries is in every way complicated by the fact that the government that does the appointing and the paying has nothing to say about the organization of the courts, the number of judges, or how their work shall be distributed. So that while we have to arrive at a system of determining salaries, we have no control over the circumstances in which different classes of judges are placed; and that situation necessarily makes it more difficult for us to deal with the judges as a whole than it would be if we were in a position to regulate the organization of the courts, to fix the duties of respective judges and then be in a position to adjust the salaries in view of the arrangements that this Government might make. When I speak of this Government, I speak of the Government of Canada in general. All these things make it not easy to deal fairly and justly with the whole question of the adjustment of judges' salaries. Furthermore, we have to consider the question of the additional burden imposed upon the country by an increase of salaries granted to a large number of judges. Speaking in a general way, I thoroughly sympathize with



the idea that the judges should be adequately paid. 'I quite agree with the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that we ought to try to get the best men, and to pay them adequately. When you come to apply that principle one has to take into consideration the different things I have mentioned, and that makes it not e%sy to arrive at a satisfactory adjustment oi salaries. There are particular cases that do very especially press upon one when one goes into an examination of the positions of these different judges, and I think the case of the judges of the Circuit Court in Montreal-a case, in a very special way, deserving of consideration. We have to avoid, of course, the possible suggestion of favouritism as between different localities. I certainly would like, in dealing with the question, to keep myself quite above that. I think that, without any regard to any possible feeling of that kind, theie is no mistake in saying that the case of these judges is one that presents itself to the mind as calling at least as strongly as any other for action. Upon the question generally of an increase of judges' salaries, as I said to the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) this afternoon, I am not at the moment prepared to make an announcement. I may permit myself to say this much, in regard to certain provinces, that they could give us very great assistance in the direction of providing more adequate salaries for the judges generally if they would give some thought, and above all take some action, in the direction of reducing the number of judges. My hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx) has pointed out that, in his judgment, the number of County Court judges in the province of Ontario is greater than there is need for. I think that possibly the same observation could be made in regard to the judges of the Superior Court in the province of Quebec. If there were a better distribution, a smaller number could do the work that is done. If that be true, and if legislation looking to bringing about that result could be enacted-which legislation could only be enacted by the province-'it would be a great help in the direction of providing larger salaries for the judges. In regard to the remarks of the hon. members who have spoken in a sense adverse to an increase in these salaries, I shall 'be pleased to consider what they have said and give it the weight to which it is entitled.
The hon. member for Laprairie-Napier-ville (Mr. Lanctot) made some observations upon the subject of judges' pensions which did not seem to me to be very germane to the question which we are consider-

ing. He also made some observations of a somewhat personal nature in regard to myself. As far as the latter are concerned, I think I can afford to let them pass. I have never done anything more than take what this country, in the most, express terms, agreed to give me if I did a certain thing.
I did that thing. The country through its law said to me that it would give me a certain recompense if I did a certain thing.
I carried out my contract, and it is made a subject of reproach to me that, having . done so, I have received that which the country, through its law-a law enacted before I was born-agreed to give me. It is made a reproach to me that I have carried out my contract and the country has carried out its contract. With regard to the suggestion that there was any question of my being too ill to continue after I had fulfilled t/he terms that my contract called for, I think that my presence in this House for the last few years makes it quite evident that I could make no pretensions to illness.
I have difficulty in speaking with seriousness of this matter, which gives rise to such indignation on the part of the hon. member, and I think I may leave it right there.
I have only to say, in regard to what my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) said with reference to the amount of work done there, that I will look into the statistics and see how far he is correct in his impression that the judges of that district are called upon to do a larger amount of work than the judges in some other districts.
I would be very much surprised to find that one of the two judges at Three Rivers has more to do than a judge occupying a similar position in the district of Montreal.
I have a word to say with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) and the hon. member for Sydney (Mr. McKenzie) in regard to the allowance made for travelling expenses of the County Court judges. I understand that what the hon. member for North Sydney was pointing out was that, in his judgment, there was some injustice done to the County Court judges in so far as their travelling expenses were concerned inasmuch as no allowances were granted to them when they went to try municipal or provincial election cases. Am I right in that?


Mr. McKENZIE:: That was the specific
case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to my hon.
friend from Richmond, I understand that the particular complaint that he asked a

remedy for was that in his province County Court judges going from their place of residence to some other place within the same county are not given anything for travelling allowance. If the hon. members fur North Sydney and Richmond would be good enough to send me a memorandum of the section of the law under which they contend that these things happened, which, upon their face look to be unfair, I shall be glad to look into the matter with a view to bringing about some remedy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have a great deal of sympathy with the expression of opinion by the minister as to the desirability of the provincial authorities giving some thought to and taking some action in connection with the number of judges that are required, I think I voice the opinion of the province of New Brunswick when I state that the number of Supreme Court judges in that province is entirely disproportionate to the amount of work to be done. Litigation has decreased from year to year and to such an extent that the judges have practically nothing to do outside of those who have to do with the equity side of the court. The former Chief Justice, Sir Frederick Baker, who was judge in equity, had a great deal of work to do. I fancy that on the equity side of the court there is considerable business, 'but I venture the assertion that in so far as the other judges are concerned they have not. enough to do to make life tolerable to themselves. Yet it was only within the last year that my hon. friend was called upon to provide a salary for a sixth, or a seventh judge. I have really forgotten how many there are, but an additional judge was provided for by the legislature of the province, and my hon. friend was called upon to provide a salary for that additional judge. The increase in the number of judges, in my judgment, was not warranted by the business to be done or by the circumstances of the case. If the number of judges in the other provinces is at all in proportion to the number that exists today in New Brunswick, I am satisfied that we should call a halt before increasing the larger salaries. The judges receive their annual remuneration, they receive as well a pension on their retirement, and if the number is in extent of the requirements of litigation in the province, it sems to me that they cannot fairly ask for an increase in their salaries. I have no knowledge with respect to the requirements in the other provinces. I understand that the County Court judges in the province of Nova Scotia have a large 1231
amount of business to deal with. That is not the case in the province of New Brunswick. If you interview a lawyer or any one who has a knowledge of business before the courts, he will tell you that the amount of business the judges are called upon to do is very small in comparison with the amount of work they might do if it were necessary. One does not like to make complaints of this kind, but we must recognize conditions as they are. Litigation in that province is decreasing, not increasing. The number of cases that are tried before the Supreme Court and before the County Courts in the province of New Brunswick in the last ten years has decreased. I have not looked at the figures, but I am within bounds when I say 25 per cent-I would almost go as far as to say 50 per cent. Of late years I have not been actively engaged in practice before the courts, but I know from observation that not nearly so much business and not nearly so many cases come before the judges as did ten years ago. Even twenty years ago the number of ease tried by the respective courts in the province of New Brunswick was largely in excess of the number of cases that are heard to-day before those courts. Yet we have additional judges. It seems to me that the increase is not justified.


Mr. CARROLL:: Has the department
been approached by petition or otherwise as to the advisabilitv of appointing a resident judge of the Supreme Court in the city of Sydney, N.S.?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot recall at the
present moment that I have received any communication on that subject. I am pretty sure that I have not, but I will make certain and give the hon. member the information later on. Of course, the hon. member understands that, unless the province provides for a judge, resident there, this Government cannot appoint one.
i I


William F. Carroll: I think the matter has been taken up in the Legislature of Nova Scotia at the present session. I do not think our judges in the province of Nova Scotia are in the same position as those in the province of New Brunswick, as stated by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson). I consider that our judges in Nova Scotia are overtaxed and overworked. ,


Henry Robert Emmerson: In your Supreme
Court?


William F. Carroll: Yes. I want to second the sentiments put forward this evening by my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) as to the advisability of making the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia commensurate with the salaries of the chief justices of the other ' provinces of Canada. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia receives only 17,000, while the chief justices of Ontario and Quebec receive $8,000. I am glad that the minister has that matter under consideration.
In the province of Nova Scotia we have a peculiar situation with reference to the respective jurisdictions of our County Court judges and Supreme Court judges. In the island of Cape Breton, even in the city of Sydney, there is perhaps more litigation, that is nisi prius cases, than in other parts of the province, not excepting the city of Halifax. The County Court judges, strange to say, are not given jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases. The Judicature Act, which is an Act of the Nova Scotia Legislature, does not make provision for that. In that way we are hampered very much. For example, probably each week ten or twelve habeas corpus eases come up, and the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has decided that the County Court or district judges of that province have not jurisdiction to hear such cases. In that way the lawyers are obliged either to go to Halifax or to retain counsel there. In either case at a loss both to themselves and their clients. I know that the Minister of Justice has nothing to do with that particular matter. I am simply paving the way for the time when he may be called upon to provide an additional $6,000 for a judge of the Supreme Court at Sydney. I know that when the appointment is asked for, that will be readily done.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It appears that considerable noise in the House interfered with the hon. Minister of Justice hearing the remarks which I made ju3t before six o'clock. I find thaf!T was not heard even by the reporter. What I wanted to point out particularly was that there is a special provision in chapter 72 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia wliefeby a court is created especially for the trial of municipal election petitions throughout the province, and the judge of the County Court is created the court for that particular work in his own district. It is a'very technical trial, as the minister can readily understand. As I pointed out before six o'clock,

in our province the law in respect to a petition against a municipal councillor is the same as the law in respect to a petition against a member of the local legislature or a member of the House of Commons, requiring the same competence and ability to try out the case properly as ff the judge were trying a petition against a member of this House. There is a peculiarity about the trial that does not exist in any cither kind of a case that I know of, so far as our province is concerned, that is, the judge is called upon by the statute to decide instanter iat the close of the hearing. He must either decide the case instanter or adjourn the court. It is not often in a case of that kind that a judge is prepared, right 'at the close of the trial, to give his decision, and so he has to adjourn to give the matter consideration. Under the present law he cannot file his decision; he must go back again, open his court, and deliver his judgment in open court. Therefore he has to travel more in oases of that character than in other cases in which he can send his decision by mail. The hardship I complain of is this. This is an important court, one created by special statute passed many years ago. The hon. minister's department refuses to pay the judge his travelling expenses, basing the refusal largely on a provision that has stood for a long time, passed before this Act of 1905. Before this Judges' Act of 1905 was passed there was a provision that the County Court judges should be entitled to $200 for travelling expenses. That was removed and the County Court judges were put on the same footing as the Supreme Court judges. Before that reform took place there was an antiquated rule in the province of Nova Scotia under which a judge was allowed $2.50 a day for expenses in cases of this kind, no other provision being made for him. That provision still exists in the Nova Scotia statute, and it appears that for this reason the Department of Justice refuses to pay the judges' expenses. Chapter 72 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, and section 18 of the Judges.' Act of 1905 are the two parts of the law on which I base my case, and take this way of calling the attention of the Minister of Justice to the matter.


Edmond Proulx: If the hon. minister takes into consideration ,an increase 'in the salaries of the County Court judges, and enters into negotiation with the provincial authorities,. he should make it a condition precedent [DOT] that the provincial authorities

shall do away with fees paid the judges under different statutes. Last year I got a return of petitions of judges to the minister, and among them were the petitions of the judges for an increase in salary. To bolster up tljeir case, they cited a long list of statutes under which they were called upon to do certain work. I know that under many special statutes they were receiving fees. I took the trouble of looking them all up, and I think there were over twenty of such statutes. They receive fees for hearing appeals from Courts of Revision, for revising the voters' lists, and for hearing appeals under the Ditches and Watercourses Act and others. I think that if the salaries of County Court judges are increased these fees should be done away with; we should not be called upon to pay fees, whenever we want work done by the judges under various Acts. They receive fees for acting as Surrogate Court judges, which in certain districts amount to a large sum. There is at least one who receives fees as local master of the Supreme Court, and we are called upon to pay considerable fees whenever we require the services of the local master. For uniformity's sake, I think these fees should be done away with.
Supreme Court of Canada, $15,500.


George William Kyte: I desire information with regard to the appointments made in the department since the last session of Parliament. I may not have selected the best item on which to ask for this information, but it is the most appropriate I can find.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to the question being asked under this item.


George William Kyte: I would like the names of the persons appointed to the department since last session.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot undertake to give that offhand with absolute accuracy; and of course I cannot give the appointments in the penitentiaries; they are numerous.


George William Kyte: I mean the appointments
here in Ottawa.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can recall only two
at the moment.


George William Kyte: Was a gentleman named
Bill appointed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


George William Kyte: What position does he hold?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No special title is
attached to his position. Mr. Gisborne was secretary of the department and assistant Deputy Minister. He was appointed Parliamentary Counsel, which took him out of the department. Mr. Edwards became secretary of the department, and that moved him up a step, though it did not give him as much salary as Mr. Gisborne had had. Mr. Chisholm was increased in salary, and his position to that extent was improved. Mr. Bill came in to take the place that had been made vacant in that way.


George William Kyte: Was a gentleman named O'Brien appointed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. Mr. O'Brien was appointed temporarily as one of the legal officers.


Mr. KY  TE@: Is he the gentleman who was formerly law clerk of this House?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


George William Kyte: What was his salary and
when was he appointed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: His salary in the department was $5,000 a year. He was appointed on the 4th July and resigned on the 30th of September.


George William Kyte: What were the conditions
under which he resigned from the department?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He simply resigned.


George William Kyte: He was superannuated, was be not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The position he held
as law clerk was abolished, and the branch of which he had been the head was reorganized. The position being so abolished, he became entitled-I have not under my hand the section of the Civil Service Act which provides for this-to his superannua-* tion, which was granted him. During the time he held the position in our department he received no superannuation allowance, but simply the salary of his position.


Edmond Proulx: Was his superannuation based on his salary as law clerk or on his salary in the Justice Department?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As law clerk.


George William Kyte: What was the salary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As law clerk he was not in my department, and I do not come supplied with information as to his salary; but the superannuation annuity he received by reason of being deprived of the position he

held-his being so deprived resulting from the abolition of the office-was based on the salary of the position he held as law clerk of the House of Commons.


Edmond Proulx: Even if. the position of
law clerk was abolished, Mr. O'Brien bettered his position, for he was given another poaiton in the Department of Justice at a larger salary.
' Mr. DOHERTY:	So far as the Department of Justice is concerned, the explanation is very simple. Mr. O'Brien's position was abolished. In the estimates of the current year, passed during the last session, Mr. O'Brien's salary as law clerk was dropped. As it was found that certain work required to he finished, and the salary of the law clerk was not available for Mr. O'Brien, who was the fittest man to do that work, and he was temporarily appointed to that other office in order that the work might be done.


Edmond Proulx: Was Mr. Gisborne not
appointed to the position of parliamentary counsel immediately after the session?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. At the time Mr. O'Brien was appointed, the deputy minister was absent on the business of the country. Mr. Gisborne was acting deputy minister. Although it had been decided that Mr. Gisborne was the most fitting person to be appointed parliamentary counsel, we could not immediately spare him from the department, and so he was not appointed parliamentary counsel until the return of the deputy minister from England. In the meantime the work to which I referred had to be done.


Edmond Proulx: Even if Mr. O'Brien's
position as clerk had been abolished, it was replaced by the position of parliamentary counsel, and this amount of $5,000 which was voted for the position of parliamentary counsel was available to pay Mr. O'Brien. It was not necessary to give him an increase of salary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps so, but there
was $5,000 available for the parliamentary counsel, and there was $5,000 available for the legal officer. The complaint of the hon. member for Prescott is that we called him legal officer; the salary was precisely the same. It was not intended that Mr. O'Brien should be appointed parliamentary counsel; it was intended that Mr. Gisborne should be appointed parliamentary counsel. What advantage would have been gained

by our calling Mr. O'Brien, in the interval of his temporary employment, parliamentary counsel at $5,000, instead of legal officer at $5,000 I am at a loss to understand.
Mr. Kl'TE: Was it really intended that Mr. O'Brien should do anything in the Department of Justice?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was intended that
Mr. O'Brien should finish, as I said a moment ago, the work that remained to be done, in connection, it is quite true, with his abolished office of law clerk. But, the office of law clerk having been abolished, there was no salary for him.


George William Kyte: As law clerk, he was getting $3,350 a year, ,and for the position to which he was promoted in the Justice Department he got $5,000 a year.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But no salary was
available for the position of law clerk.


George William Kyte: Why was he not given a
position at the same salary, $3,350, instead of $5,000 a year?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because we had one
position vacant to which he could be appointed, and the salary attached to it was $5,000.


George William Kyte: As a matter of fact, Mr. O'Brien was kicked out of the department of the House of Commons and kicked into the Department of Justice, and in the process his salary went up from $3,350 to $5,000 a year. He never did any work in the Department of Justice, and in addition to the increase of salary, they were generous enough to add ten years to his services during the short period that he was upon the pay-roll of the Department of Justice, and he was enabled to retire upon a superannuation allowance of $1,741.50, instead of $1,339. There was an investigation last year into the conduct of certain officials of the law branch of the House of Commons. That investigation was conducted by Mr. W. D. Hogg, barrister of this city, and Adam Shortt, one of the Civil Service Commissioners. I will read the part of the report which referred to Mr. O'Brien:
Taking- the officers of the law branch individually, we find that Mr. O'Brien is a painstaking and industrious officer. His knowledge in regard to parliamentary Bills, both public and private, gained by long experience, is extensive. His ability as a draftsman is very good, and his attention to the details of the work is also very good. His defects are: a want of ability to manage the branch as chief officer, his desire to change and alter any documents placed be-

fore him, no matter by whom drafted, his inclination to find fault with those under him, sometimes without fair justification, his irritability in dealing with these officers, and his excitability. He says a good deal of his irritability is caused by the incessant strain upon him caused by the incompetency of his assis-ants, for whose mistakes he feels himself responsible. Still, we think his defects, however caused, prevent his being a successful head of the law branch, although as an individual member of the staff he is capable of doing very good work.
Upon the report of this commission Mr. O'Brien was dismissed from the position of law clerk, but the hon. Minister of Justice, out of the goodness of his heart, felt that something more was coming to Mr. O'Brien. I am not sure whether his generous treatment of Mr. O'Brien was intended as an olive branch to be held out to the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). If that was the case, I regret to observe that it has fallen far short of accomplishing its object. Mr. O'Brien, according to the Civil Service Act, and according to his record in the House of Commons, was not entitled to the preferential treatment which [DOT]was accorded to him by the hon. Minister of Justice. Surely it was sufficient to superannuate Mr. O'Brien according to the terms under which he was entitled to superannuation, in view of the reason for dismissing him from office, without transferring him to the Department of Justice. As I have said, Mr. O'Brien's salary as law clerk was $3,350 a year. Upon the report of this special commission appointed to inquire into his competency and fitness to discharge his duties, he was dismissed, and he was pitchforked, if I may use the term, into the Department of Justice at a salary of $5,000 a year. I understand that during the two or three months tnat he drew his princely salary of $5,000 a year, he performed no service at all in the Department of Justice. He called there at the end of each month for his cheque, which was given to him in due course. At the expiration of the short term during which he was qualifying . for superannuation upon a basis of $5,000 a year, the Department of Justice was good enough to add ten years to his service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Surely the hon. member does not want to mis-state the facts. He is quite mistaken in saying that Mr. O'Brien was superannuated from the Justice Department on the basis of $5,000 a year. Before this temporary appointment to the position in the Justice Department was made, the gentleman had been superannuated, in view of the abolition of his
office of law clerk, and his superannuation was fixed on his salary as law clerk. With that, the Department of Justice had nothing whatever to do; that was done by the department of the House of Commons, of which His Honour the Speaker is the head. All that the Department of Justice had to do with was the temporary employment of Mr. O'Brien to do the work that I have indicated.


George William Kyte: And the basing of his superannuation upon the salary of $5,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon;, it is not based on $5,000 a year. The superannuation had taken place before he came into the Justice Department.


George William Kyte: As I said a moment ago,
Mr. O'Brien's salary was $3,350 a year. Ten years' service was added, and he retired upon a superannuation allowance of $1,741.50, instead of a superannuation allowance of $1,339. So Mr. O'Brien is pensioned upon the taxpayers of this country to the extent of $402 a year over and above that to which he would be entitled in respect of the services he actually performed.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What part of the
county of Frontenac does Mr. O'Brien come from?


George William Kyte: The interests of my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) are not limited to the boundaries of his county. The hon. gentleman has other interests throughout Ontario which far transcend any interest he has as the representative of Frontenac.


William Cameron Edwards: Thank you.


George William Kyte: I repeat, Mr. O'Brien lost his position as law clerk by reason of the report of this special commission which was appointed to investigate the law branch of the House of Commons. It was well known during the last session that something extremely unsatisfactory existed in connection with the law branch-that certain complaints were being made from time to time as to the manner in which that branch was conducted. A condition of mutiny existed among the members of the law branch; so much so that Mr. Speaker was obliged to interfere to bring about something like peace in that important branch. A commission was appointed, and they found that Mr. O'Brien was absolutely incompetent to discharge the duties of his office as law clerk. Not

only that, but lie had a very improper disposition of interfering with Bills that were sent to him for his revision. In the face of that report it was necessary to dismiss Mr. O'Brien, and if Mr. O'Brien had received the ordinary superannuation to which he was entitled he would have had $1,339 a year. I say that in view of that report the Minister of Justice scarcely exercised the discretion in the matter of making appointments to his department that one would expect him to exercise. Surely the report of the commissioners did not indicate that Mr. O'Brien had any special qualifications to discharge duties in the Department of Justice at the increased salary of $5,000 a year. The whole thing is apparently a frame-up to enable Mr. O'Brien to draw a superannuation allowance of over $400 a year over and above that to which he would be entitled in respect to the services he actually performed. The question was put on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy): In how many instances was time added to the service of civil servants so as to count in their superannuation; and the answer was that during the fifteen years of the late Government there was only one case where time was added to the service of a civil servant to enable him to draw additional superannuation; but since the present Government came into power, within a space of less than three years, three persons have been superannuated upon a fictitious period of service; that is in addition to the time actually served. I do not know what the conditions were in the other cases, but I do submit that, in view of the report of the special commission appointed to investigate Mr. O'Brien's case and the manner in which he discharged his duties as law clerk, the Government, or the Minister of Justice, if he is responsible for it, certainly did show a special favour to Mr. O'Brien in the treatment he received in respect of his superannuation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let me attempt to make it quite clear that foT .all this heinous offence I am -entirely guilty, and my friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has not the slightest responsibility. But let me -point out that, in so far as the hon.
10	p.m. -member for Richmond is finding fault with the fact that Mr. O'Brien had ten years added to his period of service 'as law clerk for -the purpose of fixing the -amount to be paid to him as an annuity, that was no action of the Justice Department. I am not seeking to shirk

my [DOT] responsibility for the actions of this Government; but as the hon. gentleman has undertaken to distribute responsibilities, I want to s-ay that was not the action of the Minister of Justice. I would like to add that, in the opinion of the Minister of Justice, it was the mere appli-. cation of the law. If the hon. gentleman will turn to section 15 of the Superannuation and Retirement Act he will find that it is provided that:
If any person to whom this Act applies is removed from office in consequence of the abolition of his office for the purpose of improving the organization of the department to which he belongs, or is removed or retired from office to promote efficiency or economy in the Civil Service, the Governor in Council may grant him such gratuity or superannuation allowance as will fairly compensate him for the loss of office, not exceeding such as he would have been entitled to if he had retired in consequence of permanent infirmity of body or mind, after adding ten years to his actual term of service.
The hon. gentleman -says that the commission reported adversely to Mr. O'Brien. The commission found that Mr. O'Brien was painstaking, that he was remarkably capable for the actual doing of the work with which he was -concerned; but that he was irritable, that he did not get on with people under his control; and the commission went on to recommend the reorganization of the Law Department and the -appointment of an officer holding a rank totally different from that given to Mr. O'Brien. That report was acted on by the department charged with the matter, and when they came to determine what should be granted to Mr. O'Brien by way of superannuation, they applied the law as I have just read it. The Minister of Justice did not do it; but if he had done it he could not have done it in any way more exactly in accordance with the law.
Now comes the very head and front of all this offending; now -comes what I did- The hon. gentleman -said at one time that I did this, at another time that Mr. O'Brien was kicked into my office, and at another time that he was pitchforked in. If he came in in either of the two last-mentioned methods, I do not know that I am responsible for it. But he did not. In the report of the commission that found fault with Mr. O'Brien in other respects, we had the certificate that he was thoroughly qualified to do the work of putting the -statutes in proper order. That work was required to be done. The position which

he had occupied had been abolished. The other position was vacant, and he was appointed to that position to do the work. The hon. member talks about the princely salary of $5,000. Mr. O'Brien was appointed to the office fox a period of three months. Any one can figure out the amount of the difference between a salary of $3,500 and one of $5,000 for that time: it would be one-fourth the difference between those two amounts.
I do not want to discuss the findings of the commission with regard to Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien was an old servant, and even assuming that he had the faults that the hon. gentleman has read from that report, he had also the very high qualities which that report itself attributes to him; and, if it did happen that he got, by the accidental combination of one position having been abolished and the oilier one being the only one available, $400 more for that three months than he otherwise would have got, I do not think this country is so ungenerous that it will condemn us for not finding some method of preventing that combination of circumstances, bringing about that result.


George William Kyte: I desire to place on record
the balance of the report signed by the two special commissioners:
Evidence was given before us by the Clerk of the House of Commons, Dr. T. B. Flint, and his evidence was corroborative of some of the statements made by the assistant law clerk and the secretary of the branch, to the effect that the law clerk, influenced either by his tendency to alter and amend documents that were placed before him, or by an exaggerated view of the responsibilities of his office, had on some occasions made amendments and alterations in Bills after Parliament had become seized of them, and without referring these amendments to Parliament for its sanction and approval. A number of Bills were placed before us in which these alleged changes had been made. This conduct on the part of the law clerk is no doubt wrong. It is evidence that Mr. O'Brien has not properly and fully apprehended the serious nature of the duties of the law clerk. He seems to have ignored the fact that when a Bill is once introduced into Parliament there should be no amendments or alterations to it, excepting with the approval of Parliament. Mr. O'Brien meets these charges of Dr. Flint and the other officers by saying that it had always been the rule in the Law Branch to make such changes in Bills as would express the intention sought to be conveyed by a Bill in proper parliamentary, language. He has cited to us instances of Bills in which the former law clerk made changes after they had received their third reading and maintains that in many cases the changes made by himself were so made only after consultation with those having charge of the Bills and to correct manifest errors. He believes it is one of the duties of the law clerk to make changes and
alterations in Bills which have passed the House, so long as such changes and alterations do not affect or alter the clear meaning and intention of the enactment. He says practically that some one must finally judge as to whether the alterations should be made or not, and that it naturally falls to the lot of the law clerk to be that judge, he further contends that in regard to minor and trivial changes, such as correcting the spelling of a word, making a change in a 'date where it was manifestly wrong, renumbering sections in Bills or such like alterations, he considers it as essentially part of the duties of the law clerk to make changes at any stage of the Bill, and that he would consider he was not doing his duty if he allowed such clear and manifest errors to remain in the Bill.
There can be no question that neither the law clerk nor any other person has any right whatever to alter, amend or vary a Bill, once it has become the property of Parliament, and particularly after it has passed the House. Mr. O'Brien has, we think, shown that in regard to the changes that have been made heretofore, nothing harmful has resulted in any of the cases referred to and brought before us. Perhaps on this question it might be sufficient to say, that whatever Mr. O'Brien may have done with reference to the making changes and alterations in Bills, was done under the impression that because such things had been done or permitted in the past, he was safe in following in the precedent thus established; and no doubt his conduct in this regard may also' have been due to his great zeal in seeing that the Bills were couched in what he thought was proper language, and contained no mistakes of any description ; and while we must not be considered as agreeing with his contentions in this regard, perhaps it might be sufficient to say that in future the law clerk, whoever he may be, should personally see that nothing of this kind is done at any stage of the Bill without the sanction of Parliament or of the committees thereof.
The Law Branch of the House of Commons is, we believe, the most important of all its departments, inasmuch as it deals with the laws of the country, in the making and publishing of which the greatest possible care must be taken. It is also .a department requiring considerable legal knowledge as well as skill on the part of its officers in drafting and revising Bills and other documents. It also demands from the law clerk a knowledge of the general laws of Canada, so that in drafting or revising Bills whether public or private, he may be competent to judge as to whether the laws of the country as they stand, are being entrenched upon or interfered with, and to be able to advise in respect thereto. While Mr. O'Brien is possessed of many of these attainments, we feel satisfied upon a review of the whole evidence before us, that he does not possess the qualifications necessary to manage and conduct the business of so important a department. We think that for the safety of legislation passing through Parliament, and for the harmonious working of the office, considerable reorganization should take place, and we therefore beg to submit the following suggestions for the consideration of Your Royal Highness in Council.
That is all of the report that has particular reference to O'Brien. The fact remains that


George William Kyte: Flattering as it might toe to the hon. member, I did not say his 'influence;' I said his interest.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know that I
altogether agree with my hon. friend, that it would be flattering as coming from him.


George William Kyte: It is a matter of choice.


William Cameron Edwards: I might in courtesy
accept that, and agree with him that any compliment coming from such a distinguished man as himself would be flattering to any member of this House.


George William Kyte: The hon. member


William Cameron Edwards: If the hon. gentleman
-will possess his soul in patience, he will get a little bile off his stomach before I get through. He has stated that the Minister of Justice did something in connection with this man O'Brien as a sop to me. I must confess that until this evening I was not aware of anything about O'Brien-whether he had been dismissed or promoted, or anything else. It was not a matter that interested me particularly; and, as I say, I was not aware of the facts until to-night. I do not know that the House has been especially enlightened in regard to the facts-I might emphasize the word ' facts '-by the hon. member for Richmond. The hon. gentleman speaks of this man O'Brien as being very irritable.


George William Kyte: I did not say so. The report says that.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman
read from the report, and endorsed that in the reading. But surely the hon. member for Richmond would not find fault on that score. He ought to appreciate a man's being irritable better than any other hon. gentleman in this House.


George William Kyte: The Commission reported
that he was irritable.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman is boiling over again. This Mr. O'Brien had been long enough in the service to learn by experience to do better. There again, I think this criticism comes with bad grace from the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman has been long enough in the House to learn by experience that a good many of the criticisms that he sees fit to apply to ministers of the Crown, when finally ventilated, prove to be of no account whatever. Yet, he does not profit by that experience. While in one breath the hon. gentleman is talking about the dismissal of Mr. O'Brien, in another breath he speaks about the superannuation of this gentleman being increased very largely. I am at a loss to know where I come into this. Am I responsible for the dismissal of this
gentleman, or am I responsible for the increased amount of money that was paid to him? In each particular, where do I come into this matter? Of course, I had nothing whatever to do with the removal of Mr. O'Brien from office or with any other matter connected with him. As the Minister of Justice has properly said, I had no connection with it whatever. I fail to see why the hon. member for Richmond saw fit to bring my name into it. I really cannot see that he was justified in doing so. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Richmond seems to feel the weight upon his shoulders of tackling every minister of the Crown, when his Estimates come up, in regard to dismissals. He has that complaint to make. He has a certain amount of this stuff to get off his chest, and he is going to get it off. If the minister of any department comes forward with his Estimates, it is regarded as an opportune time for the member for Richmond to get up and read sheet after sheet of foolscap in regard to the dismissal of some man from a lighthouse, or a post office, or some other position. He has prided himself on being the champion of all those men who have been dismissed from the service since this[ Government first came into power.
Up to the present time I have not observed that the hon. gentleman's influence has been so very great in so far as his criticisms are concerned. I think they have had very little result. If it has given the hon. gentleman any relief to get rid of his feelings and to make himself the special champion of the people who have been dismissed, very well. If the hon. gentleman wishes to do that, I suppose there is no person who has any right to prevent him from doing it. Far be it from me. I love to hear the hon. gentleman's voice. He has a delightful manner, a pleasant way of putting things, although at times he becomes a little irritable, as he is now, when he speaks of the case of Mr. O'Brien. I may say to the hon. gentleman that I have never asked any special favours of any minister of any department and what I have to say in regard to my department I shall say in this House in the future as I have in the past, and in doing so I shall endeavour to be fair with any department that I am referring to. I shall not be deterred from Saying what I have to say because of any allusion made by the hon. member for Richmond. It will have no effect upon me whatsoever.


George William Kyte: Having regard to the rules
that govern debate in this House, I suppose that the only retort I am permitted to make upon the hon. member for Front-enac (Mr. Edwards) is the retort courteous. For that reason therefore and for that reason only, I will say to him that it will ever be to me a matter of extreme regret that I am unable to rise to that high elevation of intellect and conduct which have always characterized him since he became a member of this House. With respect to his rather unpoetic suggestion that my thoughts were coining from the region wherein are situated the digestive organs, I venture to say that he made that suggestion from the experience of his own characteristics. My thoughts do not come from my stomach, and I am rather surprised to learn that an additional source of intellect and light is possessed by the hon. gentleman.


Mr. PROTJLX:: With reference to this
case, we were told that there was some trouble in the law clerk's department and that the law clerk was found carrying a revolver to protect himself from some of his subordinates and especially from his first assistant whom I considered to be the most inoffensive man in the service. If the law clerk had not been such an offensive bigot I do not think lie would have found it necessary to carry a revolver to protect himself. An investigation was held. I was informed that the Speaker, aided by the Clerk of the House, commenced an investigation, and that when the Speaker found that he would have to find fault with the law clerk he abandoned the investigation, and called in a special commissioner, Mr. Hogg, K.C., and also the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Adam Shortt. They continued the investigation. They had to find fault with the law clerk although they made their report very mild; but they had to admit that he was guilty of very serious things, especially changing Bills. I submit that if he was guilty of these offenses he was not entitled to have ten years added to his term of service and by this means to get a larger superannuation. I do not know what the reason was that prompted the officials of this House to give him this large superannuation but I was told that if he had not got it there would have been trouble in the Orange lodges of the country. We all know that Mr. O'Brien is a prominent member of the Orange Association and that some of his relatives are high up also in 
the Orange Association and if lie was not treated as he asked to, be treated there would be trouble. I have to admit that I am compelled to believe that the ten years were added to his term of service and a large superannuation was given to him to pacify him and his friends.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to a statement made some months ago by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane. Speaking at University College, in England, he made the statement to which I will refer. On the occasion of his recent visit to Canada he had been the guest of the Bar Association of America in Montreal, at which meeting he delivered certainly what is considered as a great oration. He made the statement that, after investigating the opinions of the principal judges and counsel of the Dominions, but especially of Canada, he had come to the conclusion that a desire was expressed of reforming the House of Lords. In order to make the matter clear, I might be permitted to quote the very language used by Lord Haldane. The despatch on November 5 to the Canadian Associated Press is as follows:
-London, Nov.	5.-The Lord Chancellor
\ iscount Haldane, speaking last night at University College upon the Legal and Political Unity of the Empire made some interesting remarks on the establishment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a movable Imperial court.
He said that recently he had given a good deal of thought to this subject and the other day when in Canada, he was struck with the feeling among those best competent to give authoritative opinion, that if any change took place they did not want to appeal to some new court outside the dominions. It was easy to talk about a new court of appeal but it was not easy to define in a way which did not entrench upon the just claims of the dominions across the seas to the self-contained.
Canadians valued appeal to the King in Council very much, and if anything was to he done to alter the judicial arrangement they hoped the foundation of appeal and form of the court would not he varied. He thought that was a very pregnant observation and probably one which all self-governing dominions would make. It meant that the dominions did not want to appeal to any court outside themselves. They regarded the King in Council as something not aside from themselves.
'Well,' proceeded the Lord Chancellor, 'both parties in the State agree that the existing second chamber must he reformed in a fashion that will make it impossible for it to he the supreme appellate court for England, Scotland and Ireland, and that when that comes we shall have to find a new appellate court. What can that be? I have an impression that it will work out so that presently we will have to think of it in this way, that this great link of empire will be further developed and that all appeals whether from countries form-

mg' part of the King's dominions outside these islands will be to the King in Council just as it has been proposed with Irish appeals in the Home Rule Bill.	.
4 That will involve certain changes. The work will be far too great for the Judicial Committee as at present constituted. Supposing that body were still more enlarged and an Act was passed enabling it to sit in more divisions than one. You see what an important instrument we should have for solving imperial problems. All appeals would then be taken in council and would be heard by the Judicial Committee, but the committee, instead of sitting in one division as to-day, would sit in several places, and as the King is president in each of the dominions and is represented by his ministers, and as the Privy Council is an imperial body containing the Chief Justice in most of the different parts of the empire, you have got at once a court which does not offend the canon which the self-governing dominions set up that " the Supreme Court should not be outside themselves."
' In this scheme,' continued Lord Haldane,
41 see the ready solution of the problem vexing the minds of many statesmen. Supposing we had a boundary case out in Canada. What would be more easy than to export members from London to go and sit as the King's Imperial Privy Council committee in Canada and deal with these things on the spot.'
In conclusion, the Lord Chancellor said the reform of transferring appeals to the King in Council as enabling the Judicial Committee to sit in the dominions would be a good step towards the solution of the problem of imperial notification.
I would rather hestitate before criticising any opinion emanating from such a highly respected authority as that of the Lord Chancellor of England; but my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) will agree with me that in a matter of that far-reaching importance the old maxim, ' let well enough alone,' *should apply. I think that every Canadian -in this case I hope that I speak the mind of [DOT] every Canadian-is satisfied with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as it is actually composed and as it deals with present conditions. Many of us in this House, and many outside the House, especially of the legal fraternity, would probably look with great complacency upon the Supreme Court of Canada as the court of final resort. For my part, speaking for the minority in the Dominion, for the province of Quebec, I have no hesitation in saying that I am perfectly satisfied with things as they are. In all the cases which have affected the minority, and m all other cases, the Judicial Committee :of the Privy Council as at present constituted 'has always given a fair interpretation of the constitution of Canada and of the law of the various provinces. Therefore I contemplate with some fear any proposed change in that court. Probably my conservatism is the cause of
that fear. I admit that in constitutional matters I am somewhat of a conservative.
With regard to this proposed change, strange to say, the London Times, which is supposed to be the most formidable exponent of imperialism, is opposed to the scheme propounded *by Lord Haldane. I have under my hand a comment of the new scheme by the London Times on the morrow of the announcement made by Lo d Haldane, and I will read a few extracts from that article. You will notice that the principal suggestion made by Lord Haldane is the one which consists in importing members-when I use the word ' import ' I use the very expression of Lord Haldane himself-from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the various dominions in special cases affecting those dominions. The London Times of the 7th of November, speaking of the foreshadowed changes in the position and constitution of the Judicial Committee, uses the following language:
But the predictions or suggestions of one who has not only thought much upon the subject but who must help to construct any amending measure, are likely to prove in the main true, especially if they are in accordance with a strong current of opinion. The Lord Chancellor was not, we must assume, indulging in academic speculations.
The reason I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to this proposal is that very suggestive phrase-he was not indulging in academic speculations:
It must be taken that he had in his mind probable changes which would have an important bearing upon the future of the empire. Never, probably, in modern times was the Judicial Committee stronger than it is; rarely has it commanded greater confidence than today. Lord Parker and Lord Sumner bring to it valuable elements. It includes two Scotch lawyers; several judges of distinction from oversea, among them Lord de Villiers and Chief Justice Griffith, have lately sat to hear appeals : and one may now look forward to the frequent attendance of some members of the Supreme Courts of the dominions. It is safe to say that the times when questions of consequence to the colonies and India were decided by one or two judges, perhaps with no special knowledge of the law to be administered, will not return. There is also, in the opinion of most lawyers, including those of our dominions, a distinct improvement in the character of the judgments, which generally show a clear recognition of the duty of the final court, not merely to decide a particular controversy, hut, by exposition of principles and frank and full discussion of problems, to give a lead and guidance as to the settlements of future disputes. Its business is not to stifle or evade real difficulties, but to settle them.
At the Imperial Conference some colonial delegates urged the fusion of the present two Courts of Appeal-the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee-into one Imperial Court. All were agreed that the appeal must be in


Henry Robert Emmerson: Currents of thought.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, currents of thought -bearing upon this most important subject. Let me be very frank with my hon. friend. I think he is a patriot and would not for a moment impair our Canadianism. I cannot too often repeat what I said a moment ago that in these matters we should leave well enough alone. Let us make our Supreme Court as strong a tribunal as possible; let us make it a court which shall carry the respect and confidence of all Canada, and let us strengthen that court to reach that much-desired result.
I am bound to say that our Supreme Court is. a highly respected tribunal. With regard to the Judicial Committee of the Privy-Council, for Canadian litigants and for Canadian cases I do not know where any change in the present system of appeal would be useful. Various opinions have been expressed in the House with regard t >
this matter. To my great surprise the*hon. member for South York has expressed the opinion that we should do away with appeals to the Privy Council. I am not of that opinion. As a Canadian, and especiallv as a member of the minority in this House, I have ia great confidence in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I am opposed to the changes which are so frequently dreamt of. With all due deference to the high authority of the Lord Chancellor, I do not believe in exporting members of the Judicial Committee to Canada cr Australia to sit in special cases. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, to Canadians, the legal sanctum sanctorum- perhaps it gains in sanctity because of its distance. I do not believe that Lord Haldane would promote the much vaunted imperial unity by altering the status of the Judicial Committee. That the court should remain as it is presently constituted is the unbiased opinion of many not only at the bar but on the bench as well. Last year, I

queried my hon. friend in this regard and he answered me that he had not heard of any change, but now, a year later, we have the opinion of Lord Haldane after his visit to Canada which shows that he has had some grave conversations with high authorities on this side of the Atlantic. I would like to know if my hon. friend the Minister of Justice favours any such change. I expect him to state clearly, so as to dispel all doubts, that he does not contemplate any radical change, that the Supreme Court will remain as it is, and that, above all, our system of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will not De altered.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the hon. gentleman's anxiety has not very much to base itself upon; at all events I shall be very happy to set his mind at rest so far as I can do so by saying that I have not suggested and do not contemplate suggesting any very revolutionary changes with regard to the appeal as it exists at present to the Privy Council. As the hon. gentleman fully knows, so far as the judgments of our Supreme Court are concerned, there is, properly speaking, no right of appeal to the Privy Council; His Majesty in his Council has the right to grant leave to appeal if he deems proper. I do not gather from what is reported here as having been said by the Lord Chancellor that he suggests that he received while in Canada the recommendation of any change in the appeal so far as Canada is concerned or so far as the dominions are concerned. Nor do I gather from what he said in this address, which was made at a college, and which does not at all lay down any settled opinion, that in going on to suggest how things might work themselves out, he purported at all, either in binding himself to any plan upon which he had decided or, still less, in dealing with those matters which might so work themselves out, to be reproducing or basing his remarks upon any opinions expressed to him in the Dominions or in Canada in particular. If the hon. gentleman will look carefully at what the Lord Chancellor said he had gathered from his interviews in this country, he will see that what he says he had gathered was that there was -no desire for an appeal other than the appeal as it now exists to His Majesty in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that the dominions, so far as he gathered their impression, were averse to the establishment of any other court of appeal to which appeals should go from the dominions. If I follow his idea further, the suggestion of
modification, so far as I see there to be any, js in the first place a modification of the right of appeal within the United Kingdom, so as to make that appeal to the Judicial Committee. The only change affecting us which the Chancellor says he thinks might ultimately work out is the change by which the court to which pur appeal now goes by leave of His Majesty should, while remaining the same court, possibly in certain cases transport itself to the different dominions to hear cases. But I do not gather that His Lordship suggests that he gathered in his visit in Canada or his interviews with people in others of the dominions that there was a desire for modification in the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as it now hears appeals from the dominions. The despatch says of Lord Haldane :
The other day when in Canada, he was struck with the feeling among those competent to give authoritative opinion, that if any change took place they did not want to appeal to some new court outside of the Dominions.
I take this to mean they did not want to appeal to any court outside the dominions other than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. (Reading):
It was easy to talk about a new court of appeal but it was not easy to define in a way which did not entrench upon the just claims of the dominions across the seas to be self-contained.
There is sometimes talk about a court of appeal as distinguished from the appeal to His Majesty in His Privy Council. The despatch goes on to say:
Canadians valued appeal to the King in Council very much, and if anything was to be done to alter the judicial arrangement they hoped the foundation of appeal and form of the court [DOT]would not be varied.
One would almost think that the Lord Chancellor had been conversing with the hon. member for RouviRe. The despatch continues:
He thought that was a very pregnant observation and probably one which all self-governing dominions would make. It meant that the dominions did not want to appeal to any court outside themselves. They regarded the King in Council as something not aside from themselves.
So far-and I think my hon. friend will agree with me-the Lord Chancellor purports to be giving the effect of the views he heard in Canada; now he goes on to make his own observations:
Well, proceeded the Lord Chancellor, both parties in the state agree that the existing second chamber must be reformed-*

Manifestly he is talking now about the affairs of the United Kingdom. (Reading):
-in a fashion that will make it impossible for it to be the supreme appellate court of England, Scotland and Ireland, and when that comes we shall have to find a new appellate court.
All this, of course, is in the United Kingdom.
What can that be? I have an impression that it will work out so that presently we will have to think of it in this way, that this great link of empire will be further developed and that all appeals whether from countries forming part of the King's dominions outside these islands or from these islands themselves, will be to the King in Council just as it has been proposed with Irish appeals in the Home Rule Bill.
In other words, what he foreshadows is changes in the system in the United Kingdom. My hon. friend would not suggest that that presented anything affecting us.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. Read the next paragraph.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have it settled practically that for the Dominions the court is to be the same as it is to-day. (Reading):
That will involve certain changes. The work will be far too great for the Judicial Committee as at present constituted. Suppose that body were still more enlarged and an Act were passed enabling it to sit in more divisions than one. All appeals could then be taken in council and would be heard by the Judicial Committee, but the committee instead of sitting in one division as to-day, would sit in several places.
All I see suggested there is the possibility that the appeal, while it is an appeal to His Majesty in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, should be heard, for instance, in Canada. The court would remain the same, but instead of the litigants going to the court, the court would come to the litigants. I may say, to satisfy my hon. friend's legitimate curiosity, that, although I had some conversation with His Lordship upon the subject of these appeals, at that time no suggestion looking to the making of the Judicial Committee a peripatetic tribunal was made on either side.
I read this and took it to be-I think that the context shows it to be-only the throwing out of a suggestion that might ultimately work itself out, and not a conclusion resting at all on any suggestion coming from anybody in Canada. I think it is quite clear from the article that all His Lordship went home with as the impression obtained in Canada was that the [DOT]dominions, so far as Canada could speak for them, desired no appeal to any courts

outside, of those now existing, that we were satisfied with the appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as it how stands.
Taking that as his starting point and .dealing with the interests of the United Kingdom, in view of the changes taking place there, he foreshadows a plan by which our appeals would not cease to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but the appeals from the United Kingdom would go to the Judicial Committee. As to how far it would be desirable that the Judicial Committee should come to the dominions in cer-
11	p.m. tain cases, while I am quite aware that the suggestion does not seem to have met with enthusiastic approval, at all events by members of the Bar generally, I am very far from being sure that it should be cast aside as not having very considerable value. I do not quite share the views of the hon. gentleman that our respect for the Judicial Committee is due solely to the fact that we do not see it at close quarters. I would like to believe that all the enchantment does not come from distance, and that their lordships could stand even a cioser scrutiny. From a practical point of view, while I would not like to pronounce myself absolutely on such a thing as desirable, neither would I be prepared to brush the suggestion aside as not being worthy of consideration. I think it is conceivable that there might be cases where it would be advantageous that their lordships should come into the country where they are called upon to judge and familiarize themselves with certain conditions which they may have difficulty in realizing at the distance at which they sit. I take it that no suggestion of any change is made so far as our appeals are concerned, save that possibly the Judicial Committee might come to this country to sit, and that last suggestion, at all events, is worthy of careful and respectful consideration. But so far as any apprehension in my hon. friend's mind that there are any changes being worked out in secret, either officially or unofficially, to which any member of the Government of Canada is a party, I can assure him he can safely disabuse his mind of that. I would not undertake, and I do not suppose my hon. friend will expect me, to detail whatever conversation I may have had with His Lordship; hut I may say that when he went home, as he said he went home, with the impression that in this country we were not desirous of any

*appeal to any court other than the Judicial Committee as it now stands, while I do not flatter myself that he included me at all among those authoritative persons to whom he refers, he went home with an impression which, if it was not I who conveyed it to him, is the impression which I would have endeavoured- to convey to him if I had been the party referred to.


George Perry Graham: Has a second judge been appointed for Renfrew county? My reason for asking is that I have had a good deal of correspondence against the Government appointing another County Court judge. They say there is not enough work for one.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far there is no occasion for protest; the vacancy is still there.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to ask a question with reference to the Admiralty Court in Nova Scotia. Some years ago an effort was made to give us a better Admiralty Court in Canada than we had previously had had, but nothing really came of it. An effort was made to enable us to issue writs in the county of Cape Breton where there is a great deal of admiralty work, and all I would like to say to the minister is that the machinery which has been provided for the court is very inadequate. When the minister would perhaps care to listen to what I have to say, I will deal with it again.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I shall be very pleased to listen to him now. I beg to apologize to the hon. gentleman for having been interrupted and I shall be very pleased to listen to the hon. gentleman.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is quite unnecessary.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Tuesday, March 24, 1914.