1919-06-28

REPORTS.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Morphy.
BOARD OF COMMERCE: COMBINES AND FAIR PRICES.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice):: In the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, notices appear with respect to the forthcoming introduction of

two Bills, one the Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and the other the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919. In order to facilitate the printing I ask the unanimous leave of the House to introduce these Bills this morning.
Bill No. 166, The Board of Commerce Act, 1919. First 'reading.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Bill No. 167, The Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919. First reading.-Hon, Mr. Meighen.



DOMINION DAY SITTING.

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: Is it intended that the House shall sit this afternoon and this evening?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The House will sit this afternoon, but not this evening. I wish also to announce that the House will sit on Tuesday next, 1st July.



$75,000,000 LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) to an item that appears on the front page of this morning's Citizen stating that a Canadian loan of $75,000,000 is being negotiated in New York and that the negotiations are about closed. Is there any truth in this statement?


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: Negotiations for such a loan have been proceeding for some time past but are not yet concluded. Therefore, any announcement on the subject is premature. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that two years ago we floated in New York a loan of $100,000,000. That loan will mature in August next. The object of the negotiations now in progress is to provide funds to meet that maturity.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Was the forthcoming loan of $75,000,000 covered by the Minister of Finance in that part of his Budget speech referring to the loan of $350,000,000 authorized by resolution?


William Thomas White: No, but loans maturing were referred to in the Budget speech. I stated in that speech that loans were maturing in London and in the United States, and that temporary action would be taken to meet them. There is a resolution now before Parliament asking for the necessary authority to borrow $100,000,000 which covers the amount of loan that we have in view in New York. I stated at the time the $350,000,000 resolution was before the

House that we should require further borrowing legislation.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: The minister has stated that the loan of two years ago was for $100,000,000. He now proposes a loan of $75,000,000 to retire it. What becomes of' the difference in amount?
Sir THOMAS' WHITE: A certain proportion of the $100,000,000 has been got in and cancelled.


Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria):: Is the loan in New York being negotiated privately, or is it being offered for public competition?


William Thomas White: The loan is being negotiated through the fiscal agent of the Government, the Bank of Montreal



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 158, to provide pensions to, or in respect of, members of the Canadian naval, military, and air forces, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 31-payments to wife under certain conditions.
Mr. MANION:: It has been my experience that occasionally the pension awarded is not anything like commensurate with the injury that the soldier received at the front; and considerable correspondence and a certain amount of controversy has been necessary in order to get a new medical board for the man concerned. I suggest that the minister impress upon the Board of Pension Commissioners the necessity of allowing new medical boards to be held whenever doubt is expressed by a competent medical man as to the fairness of the treatment accorded to a soldier by the board. I do not think it should be necessary in such cases to carry on an extended correspondence. The board have been too strict in this regard. I know that they are trying to carry out their duties as well as they can and that they meet with many difficulties, and I do not wish to offer any captious criticism; but I think that arrangements should be made, either by the appointment of a travelling medical board or in some other way, to ensure that where a competent medical man considers that a soldier has not been treated fairly, that soldier shall, in short order, get a new medical board to decide upon his disability and the amount of his pension.


Mr. ROWELL:: I agree with the general principle laid down by the hon. member,
and I believe that will be found to be the policy of the board in carrying out this law. The organization has been passing through a transition stage, and now that legislation has been passed and the organization completed, I have no doubt that that will be the policy.-


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, that so much conversation is going on that it is difficult even to hear the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) when he calls out "Carried".
On section 33-pension to unmarried wife at discretion of commission.


John Howard Sinclair: Suppose the case of a man who was married in Canada and had lived with his wife a couple of years; then deserted her, went to the United States and lived with another woman there, but did not marry her. In the case of his being killed at the front and of both women claiming pension, which claim would prevail?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Each case would be investigated on its merits by the Pension Board. Subsection 3 of section 33 reads:
A woman who, although not married to the member of the forces, was living with him in Canada at the time he 'became a member of the forces and for a reasonable time previously thereto, and who, at such time, was publicly represented by him as his wife shall, for the purposes of this Act, be considered to have been his unmarried wife, and may, in the case of his death and in the discretion of the commission, [DOT]be awarded a pension equivalent to the pension she would have received had she been his legal widow. The commission may also award a pension if, in its opinion, an injustice would be done by not recognizing a woman as the wife of a member of the forces although there is no evidence that she had been publicly represented by him as his wife.
Section 37 of the Bill gives the 'Commission discretion if the womarf lived in Canada to deal with such a case as my hon. friend mentions. It reads:
The commission may, in its discretion, apportion a pension between several pensionable applicants. Any such award may from time to time be reviewed and varied. Upon the discontinuance or reduction of a pension to one such pensioner, the pension awarded to any other such pensioner may, in the discretion of the comm ssion, be continued or increased, provided the total pension paid to the several pensioners does not exceed the amount prescribed in the Schedules to this Act.
There are a number of case^ of this kind, and they present very grave difficulties. The conclusion embodied in the Bill was the best conclusion that the Committee could reach. The Pension Board, upon in-

vestigating the whole case, might award the pension to one or the other, or might apportion it between the two, as the merits would appear to demand.


Mr. M. CLARK:: May I call attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that a kind of soviet is being conducted in this part of the Chamber which is interfering with our hearing the proceedings?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. This is the second time this morning that the attention of the Chair has been directed- to the fact that there is too much conversation in the Chamber. There is a very considerable number of members here; it is not necessary for all hon. gentlemen to remain in order that there shall be a quorum, and I ask hon. members who desire to carry on conversation to repair to the corridors.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: They might be sent to the Tower, if there was one.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I see a source of grave difficulty in the application of subclause 3, as explained by the President of the Council. I have in mind now a case bearing on this particular subclause. A soldier has a wife and two children living in Renfrew; he has deserted his wife, and he is at present living with a woman in the United States, and no doubt he 'will parade this woman as his unmarried wife. In 'the event of that soldier's death, who is entitled to the pension? Certainly, by all the laws of fairness and equity, his legal wife and children should be entitled to the pension in that case. If this clause passes, in the shape in which it is and explained by the President of the Council, the money may go to the woman whom he claims to be his unmarried wife.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is the explanation I have.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that in the particular case he mentions, this clause would have no application, because in the case mentioned, the case of disability
I perhaps inadvertently in my former statement put it a little broader than the circumstances required-the pension is paid to the soldier.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But in the case of death.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In the case of death the Board of Pension Commissioners would inquire into all the facts and would deal with the case as its merits would appear to require.
[Mr. Rowell. 1


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understood the minister to say that they would divide the pension.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They have the power to do it in the case of death.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is absolutely unfair.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Most serious and complicated questions come before the board, as all military men know, and it is difficult to lay down hard-and-fast rules that will assure justice in all cases; and past experience would appear to indicate that the wisest course is to give some discretion in cases of that kind to the Board of Pension Commissioners. That was the view of the committee.


John Howard Sinclair: The subclause reads "was living with him in Canada." So this would not apply to the case of a man living in the United States at the time of enlistment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 'Supposing a soldier is married; a divorce is obtained against him; the .soldier remarries, and then he dies. To whom shall the pension go? To the first or to the second wife?


Mr. CURRIE:: To the first wife if there is any alimony.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Subclause 4 of this clause says:
A woman who has been divorced or legally separated from a member of the forces who has died shall not .be entitled to a .pension unless she was awarded alimony or an alimentary allowance, in which case she shall be entitled if she is in a dependent condition to the equivalent of the widow's pension or to the equivalent of the alimony or alimentary allowance which was awarded her, whichever is the smaller in amount.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That would 'be the first wife?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: The balance could go to the second wife.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why should there be a division with the first wife who has obtained a divorce, surely, on legitimate grounds against the husband? The husband remarries, and he dies. Who is legally and morally entitled to the pension? Assuredly the first wife, and there should be no division with the second. The second may be only the paramour of that man. This is encouraging vice. Let my hon. friend think over the matter.


Newton Wesley Rowell: You could not deprive the legal wife, the wife who under the law of

the land is his wife, with whom he may be living at the time of his death, of her pension. In the case suggested by my, hon. friend, he says we might intervene, but on what ground could we deprive her of her pension? We would have to pass on the character of every wife, in the case of the second wife.
Mr. LEIMI'EUX: My hon. friend is too pious not to see the difference in the two oases. I am serious in the matter. Here is [DOT]the first wife who has obtained, for cause, a divorce against her husband, .probably and possibly-and let us take it for granted- because he was committing adultery with this woman who becomes his second wife. A divorce is granted; he marries his paramour; then he dies. By what law, moral or otherwise, will you pay the pension to the paramour because she had gone through the ceremony of marriage, which certainly she did not consider as a sacrament but purely as a contract that could be broken at any given moment. The first wife is living; she is an honest, respectable woman, and yet the pension will be divided between her and the paramour. This is creating a very strange state of affairs in society.


Mr. COOPER:: If the hon. member were a pension commissioner, what would he do in that case?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would pay the pension to the honest wife. By all moral law, you cannot do otherwise.


Richard Clive Cooper: If that is what the hon.
member would do, if he were a commissioner, that is probably what the commissioners will do, and that is why I would support the proposal, especially as clause 37 gives discretion to the commissioners to do the very thing which the hon. gentleman himself would do if he were a commissioner.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Surely my hon. friend will not give any discretionary powers when morally and conscientiously no other course can be taken than the one I have mentioned. Why should 1 leave a discretionary power to a commissioner, that he shall pay, if he so pleases, either to the honest woman, the woman who has been wronged, or to the paramour who has been the cause of all the misfortune that has happened to the honest woman and who probably has been the cause that the children have been scattered amongst other families or in refuges? Surely my hon. friend will reconsider that.


Richard Clive Cooper: The honourable gentleman is constructing a hypothetical case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is happening every
day.


Richard Clive Cooper: My hon. friend becomes very sympathetic with the victim whom he describes. Men of experience know that there will be for the consideration of this commission a thousand and one cases with different slants of sentiment, and sympathy, and morals, and justice, and right, which this Parliament cannot now foresee; and in order that pure and simple justice may be done, I should much prefer that discretion be given to the commissioners who, it may be presumed, will be men of discernment, rather than try now to build up a law on a series of hypothetical cases. The question as to whose wife shall she be or whose husband shall he be, who shall receive a pension, sounds extremely familiar.
I remember, in the Scriptures, the Saviour was asked on one occasion whose wife should she be after she had married seven brothers, and I do not know quite what the answer was. I do not think there was one.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There was one.


Richard Clive Cooper: What was the answer?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: They neither marry nor
are given in marriage in Heaven.


Mr. GRTESBACH:: There the Saviour was laying down a law to cover cases which he foresaw would arise. We cannot legislate for every possible case, but if we secure the right kind of men for commissioners and give them discretionary power in cases of this kind, I think we can trust them to do justice.


Mr. MARCIL:: In such a case as cited, where the legitimate wife and her children are living, the board should have no discretionary powers. The legitimate wife should share the pension with no other woman in the land. If a man abandons his legitimate wife and children the pension should still go to her.


Mr. NICKLE:: It is not as simple to give decisions in reference to the complex marriage relations that exist as hon. gentlemen seem to think. My hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) takes a position diametrically opposed to that taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux). He says the legitimate wife should get the pension and not share it with the other wife. Now if a woman has secured a divorce from her husband she no longer is his legitimate wife, and even if he has gone

through a form of marriage with the paramour who was the cause of the divorce being granted, she is. the legitimate wife because the law recognizes as the wife of the man the woman to whom he has been married, his first wife having been divorced.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member (Mr. (Lemieux) cited a case where the man obtained the divorce, not the woman.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) cited the case of an honest woman securing a divorce from her husband, who then marries the woman who was the cause of the divorce, and he took the position that the pension should be paid to the woman whom I would call the first wife.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The honest woman.


William Folger Nickle: That is one instance. Let me give another instance. A wife deserts her husband and lives with another man, with the result that the husband obtains a divorce from her and marries an honest woman. To whom then should the pension be paid? Certainly it would appear that it should be paid to the woman who was the legal, wife of that man. My inquiries into these questions have led me to the conclusion that the complexity of modern social life, and the disclosures which the war has made, necessitates discretionary power in regard to these domestic conditions being left to the Board of Pension Commissioners, who in each case will have to inquire carefully into the merits surrounding the domestic conditions, and on the wisdom of their administration must rest the satisfactory operation of this Act. You cannot build this Act up on individual cases, because if you do, it will break down, for the complexity of social conditions as disclosed by this war absolutely overwhelms a man. If your Pension Commissioners are not big enough men, if .they have not the qualifications which Solomon is alleged to have had, this Act will break down; but if you get the right men and they enter into the spirit of the Act the legislation will be effective. If you itry to build it up on a consideration of the peculiar circumstances of each individual case the Act will be found to be unworkable and impracticable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I certainly respect the views of my hon. friend (Mr. Nickle), as he well knows. If we are going to act on the point of view of my hon. friend (Mr. Griesbach) that Christ did not indicate who was the wife, we shall be going to the very root of Christianity. But this is not the time to discuss the question of divorce, al-
though it is engrafted on this subject incidentally. I say that the pension should go to the honest woman, and to the legitimate children in all cases.


William Folger Nickle: The children always get it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They would not get it
in the case I cited a moment ago.


William Folger Nickle: Oh yes, both sets of children would get it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know if I am exaggerating, I speak the thought of the moment, but it seems to me that this is putting a,premium on immorality instead of recognizing the services that have been rendered by our gallant men. We must not give way to the whims and passions of men. We must stand by the moral law of the land. My hon. friend (Mr. Griesbach) seems to think that because we had a war and social conditions have changed we must not be too particular about these matters, and must leave discretionary power in the hands of the commissioners. I have the highest regard for the commissioners; I know the Government will appoint the right men; they will not appoint pagans but Christians. But at the same time I do not want to leave discretionary power in their hands if in certain cases they give preference to the paramour.


William Folger Nickle: Oh, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, you give preference to the paramour in the case I have cited.


William Folger Nickle: Oh, no.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Would my hon. friend permit me to point out one consideration? He objects to giving the board discretionary power.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In such a case as I
have cited.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In the case mentioned,
who is to decide whether the woman is a paramour or not? Who is to decide the degree of guilt? Suppose we put in such a qualification as my hon. friend suggests.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There will be either a
judgment of the court or a Divorce Act passed by this House, giving power to remarry. The commissioners will know ab initio who is the guilty party.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so, but I am speaking of the legal wife. The man marries again, as he is authorized to do by the decree of divorce. Who is to determine the character of the legal wife, as to whether

she should or should not be disentitled to the pension? My hon. friend will see that to carry out his own suggestion there must be discretionary power left somewhere to determine such a case, and the more he looks at it the clearer he will see the wisdom of the decision of the committee to leave the matter in the hands of the Pension Commissioners.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not leave it to the discretion of the commissioners. I would make a law providing that the honest wife, divorced at her request, and divorced by reason of the conclusions arrived at on the evidence-that she with her children should get the pension.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) raises a point to which I take exception. He spoke of the " guilty " person, whether the husband, the first wife, or the second wife. Now, no matter which of them is the guilty one, I submit that the children that are born, whether legitimate or illegitimate, are not guilty parties and should be looked after by the pension commissioners.


Michael Clark: It appears to me that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) would lead the committee into a discussion of questions we could not possibly settle. He is confusing his thoughts on morality with his thoughts on legality. If we were to go into the moral and Christian aspect of the question, I could make out a very Christian case against the woman whom he describes as the honest -woman. Christianity says that people must forgive seventy times seven, and that, I think, would teach the woman that on strictly Christian principles she should have forgiven her husband and not divorced him. When the woman has divorced her husband she has put herself, by her own act, in the legal .position of no longer being his wife. May I. say to my hon. friend that I approximate very closely to his views on the religious side of the question, but that they do not appertain here. The question is as to the legal wife, the husband himself having been divorced contrary to the Christian injunction of forgiveness. The question is not one of morality at all, but of legality: Who is the legal wife of the man? The second wife is his legal wife, according to the laws of the country, and therefore she is entitled to consideration under the Act. May I summarize the situation by repeating that the question is purely and simply one of legality.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would appeal to my hon. friend's sense of fairness. Let us suppose that he is .a pension commissioner. Now, according to my tenets, I would not favour divorce, but divorce is provided for in our statute-book; it is in the constitution. Any woman can come before the Senate and by giving the necessary evidence she may obtain a divorce. She obtains a divorce, we will assume, and the husband re-marries. He marries the woman who was the cause of the divorce as eternally such a woman has been the cause. As I say, he marries the paramour.


Michael Clark: According to law.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes; according to law. Now, he dies and the first wife remains with three or four children.


Michael Clark: The children are provided for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, they receive not a very large amount,-a matter that was criticised yesterday. However, the children are provided for. But the mother is there,-the faithful and good wife. Would my hon. friend, as commissioner, take the pension provided in such a case and divide it between the two women, or would he give the whole of the pension to the second wife? May I ask him that question?


Michael Clark: I would endeavour, to the best of my ability, to administer the law as it stood. But in the ease of a woman who has cut herself off from a man, I would respect her if she took the position that having divorced him she did not want to have anything further to do with him; and nine out of ten women whom I have met and respected would not care to be supported by such a man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend forgets that during the four years of terrible war that woman, that good and faithful woman, remained at home suffering various anxieties and troubles in bringing up her little ones, whom she protected with her conscience and [DOT]soul, keeping inviolate the home of the absent soldier. She sent that soldier all the little tokens and delicacies which such a wife would send to her good man in the trenches, and now, on his return, she finds that he has been unfaithful. She is by law,-law which we have created and which is on the statute book,- authorized, for her own protection and fair name, to obtain a divorce. She obtains that divorce. Yet my hon. friend would take only the abstract and coldly legal

poinit of view, forgetting the anxieties of the wife and mother, her sufferings and trials during the absence, of that soldier. I am speaking, of course, of the perfect wife, the good, pure, honest, true, Canadian wife. This soldier would not remain in Red Deer nor in Maisonneuve, as the case might be. He would be ashamed of himself and would probably cross the border and establish himself in the United States. If he died, would the Canadian commissioners give the pension do the paramour living on the other side of the boundary, oblivious of the honest and faithful wife? No! My hon. friend, I am sure, would consider the first wife.


Michael Clark: As I understand the Act, there would be no discretion in the hands of the commissioners and there would be no other way of doing it. I do not depart from the first sentence I uttered in regard to my hon. friend's attitude. He is mixing up questions of morality and legality, and that is something we cannot carry out in this House. It is impossible to carry it out.
I am very much impressed with my hon. friend's sympathetic references to the sufferings and anxieties of the woman. But if I might give the hon. member, as an old friend, a piece of advice, I would suggest to him not to carry these anxieties too seriously in this world. If he allowed himself to be too much obsessed with anxieties of that kind, I am perfectly Sure they would have a large effect in destroying his ability as a legislator; because, after all, we cannot draw Acts of Parliament along those lines. I think there is the utmost force in the contention that a certain degree of discretion must be left in the hands of the commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Just a word in reply to my hon. friend. From my study of law generally and of the fundamentals of Roman law, I may remark that law is founded on morality and not on immorality. Yes, law is founded on morality, and this is a heritage from the old Roman' law. You will find that principle in the common law of England and in the civil laws of countries where any civil law exists.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I quite realize the mental attitude of the hon. member for Maisonneuve in approaching this subject. May I refer to another feature of subsection 3 of section 337 to which I have already called attention, and which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. In the case of an "unmarried wife" there should be no room what-
TMr. Lemieux.]
ever for doubt as to the disposition of funds in the hands of the commissioners. Surely an "unmarried wife" should not obtain any consideration whatever at the hands of the commissioners, and there should be no room for discretion when the married wife is still alive and has dependent children. I have cited the case of a wife with two children, one two years old and the other four.


William Folger Nickle: The hon. member says there should be no room for doubt.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: No room for discretion.


William Folger Nickle: Suppose a woman ran away fifteen years ago leaving her husband, and is living in the United States with another man. Suppose ten years ago the husband went to live with another woman and there grew up a family of say, four children. Let us suppose, further, that he volunteered and went to the war and was killed. Does my hon. friend suggest that the woman with the four children should be left to starve in Canada, while the other woman lives in the United States and has not been dependent on the man who was killed ?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: My hon. friend misunderstands me. I am referring to the case where the man himself left the woman.


William Folger Nickle: That is not what you said.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Yes, distinctly. He left his wife and went to live with another woman now considered his unmarried wife. His first wife is living in the town of Renfrew with two children. Supposing that man dies to-day, according to this law the commissioners have discretion to divide the funds at their disposal between these two families. There should be no room for doubt in a case of that kind, and the law should not leave any room for doubt. The wife living in Renfrew is undoubtedly entitled to all the funds voted by this Parliament for relieving such a case as that.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause carry?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Clause carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 34-Pension to parent or person replacing parent when dependent. Pension to orphan children cared for by dependent parent or person. Pension to parent or person becoming mentally or physically incapacitated. Pension to such parent or person subject to review, etc.:
Mr. BUREAU:: I have been requested by the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) to move this amendment:
That clause 33 of the draft Bill be amended by adding the words " iifcome or " in the forty-fifth line after the words " on account of."


Newton Wesley Rowell: This Bill in its final form is slightly different from the Bill as it waj before the committee at the time, no doubt, when the member for South Quebec framed his amendment. The amendment which my hon. friend has in view would be an amendment to line 6 of clause 34.
iMr. BUREAU: On page 13, after the words " on account of " add the words " income or."


Newton Wesley Rowell: It would more properly come after the word " her," making the line read " her income or earnings," etc.


Jacques Bureau: That is right. I have no comments to make.
Mr. CHAS. MARCIL: That is to cover the case I brought to the attention of the minister last night. A young man in my constituency who enlisted as a private became a captain and was killed. A pension was given to his mother, and was afterwards taken away because it rwas discovered she had a private income. She explained that her income is barely sufficient to carry along her real estate and that she cannot live without this pension. It is the case of Captain Frank Maguire. I have communicated with the Pension Board, and they seem willing to do something if the law will allow them.


William Folger Nickle: The principle underlying pensions to dependents was the most difficult, I think, that confronted the committee. As the members know, a distinction was made as between the position of the widow of a soldier and the dependent. It was regarded that as a man was legally responsible for the maintenance of his wife, she, as of right, as well as his children, should be entitled to a pension. There is a moral obligation, but not in all the provinces a legal obligation, on a man to support, or assist in the support, of his father and mother, or, using a general expression, " those who may be dependent on him," including sisters and, sometimes, aunts. The committee reached the conclusion that dependents should only be paid a pension when they were dependent on the man who was killed; that is, they had a moral right to look to him for support. To depart from that position would mean that every father-if you include fathers as well 267
as mothers-and mother in the country, as of right, should be entitled to a pension. Arguments were advanced to the committee that where a widowed mother supplemented the allowance to be granted to her by way of pension by her personal earnings, these should not be deducted from the pension allowance. The principle that underlay the granting of pensions to dependents was that the country would give to them sufficient to maintain them in reasonable living conditions. The hon. member for South Quebec was anxious to go further and say that the income of the mother, if not from personal earnings, but from investments, should not be taken into account.. That simply meant that every mother, whether she had one son or ten, and whether she had seen the son that was killed within ten or twelve years or otherwise, would be entitled to a pension. When it was realized that this would cost the country probably $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 a year, and would be, in effect, class legislation of the moslt dangerous character, it was thought inadvisable to make the change. If you lay it down as the principle on which you are granting pensions to dependents that the amount the Government Will grant is sufficient to ensure a reasonable standard of living, then you surely establish the principle that where a widowed mother or another dependent has sufficient means to attain that standard without the pension, no pension should be granted. To say that the personal earnings or income of a dependent shall not be taken into account simply means that the well-to-do in the community -although they may have more in the way of personal income than this committee and the House has determined is a reasonable amount to secure comfortable living-shall have their private income, either from investment or earnings, supplemented hy a Government allowance to the dependent. It would mean that much would be given, relatively speaking, to those who have, and little would be given to those who have not. We felt that it would be bound to produce discord and hard feelings in the country, because one woman who had lost a son and had no other means of support, and had been dependent on him. would get a pension of $48 a month-which by the adoption of this report, Parliament says is sufficient to maintain her-and another woman who has $5,000 of personal income from investments, would also get a pension on the ground that she was entitled to it because she was a dependent. And yet in the same breath the Pension Commissioners



would have to say that an income of $5,000 a year was not sufficient to maintain a woman. We would be led into all sorts of anomalies, and I am afraid great discontent would arise throughout the country. The committee felt they went a long way when they changed the law so that the income from personal employment should not be deducted.
But they felt they were justified in going that far, because if women, in the main women past middle age, cared to devote their energies to increasing the amount they should have to live on, the committee did not feel they would be warranted in deducting that from the pension allowance.


Charles Marcil: I quite agree with the principle laid down by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nickle), but he has not covered the case I brought to his attention, which was this: The man in question was killed and the board recognized that his widowed mother, an aged woman, was entitled to a pension. The pension was granted to her and she received it for a year or a year and a half. It was subsequently discovered that this woman had some estate from which she derived a small revenue, only a very small revenue insufficient to meet the exigencies of her situation, and the pension was cut off. I communicated with the Pension Board who stated they were looking further into the matter, and if they found out that the revenue was practically nil the pension would be given back to her-that is, the original pension which was awarded to her in the first place. Now I do not want anything to be inserted in this Bill which would prevent the Pension Board from carrying out that intention.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent that pension from being paid.


Charles Marcil: That is all I want.


William Antrobus Griesbach: There is a further point to be provided for. We are passing through a transition period. It is possible that to-day a widow may be in receipt of an income which does not entitle her to a pension, but perhaps five years hence that income may fail her.


William Folger Nickle: Then she goes on the pension list.	.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Can she go on in view of the undue limitations that are being imposed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, the law covers that.
[Mr. Nickle. j


William Folger Nickle: Any time she becomes a
dependent she can get the pension.
On section 40-power to cancel pension of prostitute or adulteress.


Mr. AIORPHY:: Has the question of bigamous marriages been considered in respect to this Bill? I have known several cases of Canadian soldiers who have gone overseas and married, although they had a wife and children in Canada. The soldiers bring those second wives, and the children resulting from the bigamous marriages back to this country and great trouble results. Are such cases as these provided for under the Bill? [DOT]


William Folger Nickle: In such a case the first
wife would get the pension. The overseas woman with whom the soldier had gone through the form of marriage would not be awarded a pension, but the children would.


Herbert Brown Ames: Under the laws
of this country is a man who has twice married punishable in all the provinces?


William Folger Nickle: That is a long way outside the purport of the Bill. By the provisions of the Criminal Code, as I remember the law, a man who goes through a form of marriage outside of Canada cannot be prosecuted for bigamy, unless he left Canada with the intent to commit bigamy. As the great majority of the men who went overseas and committed bigamy did not leave Canada with that intent-or at least it cannot be so proved-they cannot be punished for bigamy on returning to this country.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am not sure what the
law is in regard to a matter of that kind, no doubt the lawyers can give an authoritative opinion. Supposing such a man re-marries in England, or in any part of the British Empire, would not the same law apply?


William Folger Nickle: He would be amenable
to the law of England which he broke by going through a form of marriage with a woman, he already being married, but that would not give any jurisdiction to the Canadian courts to try him for that offence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I need not repeat with respect to this clause the argument we had a moment ago. I think it is an immoral clause and should not be on our statute book.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This clause provides for
exactly what I understood my hon. friend to be arguing for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then we are far apart.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The clause provides as
follows:
The pension of any female pensioner who is a common prostitute or who openly lives with any man in a relationship of man and wife without being married to him shall, in the discretion of the commission, be- suspended, discontinued, or cancelled.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand the distinction my hon. friend makes, but I am opposed to the discretionary power given here because I say there should be no discretion as between morality and immorality; the Board of Pension Commissioners should not have to exercise its discretion in such matters. My hon. friend is not in bad faith, I know, but that was the gist of my argument. For that consideration- and I am advancing no other-I am opposed to this section, and I ask that a vote be taken on it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that if we were to strike out the clause it would only perpetuate the thing he wishes to avoid, but I assume what the hon. gentleman means is that the pension should be cancelled without any 'discretion in the commission. If my hon. friend wishes to accomplish that he should strike out the words "in the discretion of the commission" rather than strike out the whole clause.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not in favour of granting a pension to the adulteress, the paramour, or the prostitute.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The trouble lies in inserting this clause in the Bill. It gives a certain recognition to a condition in society that this committee and this House should not recognize at all in such a way.


William Folger Nickle: 
Mr. FRIPP:: This clause puts the Board of Pension Commissioners in the position of a court or a judge. What right has this commission to pronounce upon the moral character of a woman? If some court pronounced upon her morality, it would then be proper for the commission to exercise such discretion; but are they to sit in judgment upon her? Are they to say: From the information we get from our visitors, such and such a woman is not of proper character? I submit that that is a very dangerous practice; it is the practice that I condemned last night.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The point my hon. friend raised last night came before the committee because the clause as originally drafted was broader than this; it contained some such words as "if she was not of good character." In view of the considerations my hon. friend has mentioned, those words were struck out; but the committee did unanimously reachdhe conclusion that if a woman was living as a common prostitute, or if she was openly living with another man as his wife, then it was quite proper to give the Board of Pension Commissioners discretion to terminate the pension. They also had in view the considerations mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston. The committee will agree that the Pensions Committee exercised a wise discretion; they cut out the more general power, and they give the Board of Pension Commissioners power to deal with these two specific cases.
Mr. MjORPHY: I have a good deal of difficulty in feeling that this section is a fair section. A widow might openly live with a man-a widower, say, with children -as his housekeeper, and a kind neighbour might think they were living together as man and wife. In other words, a woman might bb openly living with a man within themeaning of this section, and be assumed to be living with him as his wife; and that

assumption might not be properly founded. It seems to me that this section goes very far towards enabling an imputation to be cast upon an honest woman who has given her husband to the service of the State and who is doing her best to make her way in the world. It would be the next thing to a crime to enable this non-judicial com-missftn to apply to her the odium suggested in this section, simply because she is living in that way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What does my hon. friend mean "by in. that way?" Is there any other proper way of living but the honest way?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Many a woman lives openly with a man in a domestic way, having her separate apartments in the same house, and perhaps, going out with the man in public. She may be, without remuneration, taking care of a man's children for the sake of having a home. Is she to be stigmatized under any such provision as this?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend misapprehends the effect of the section. It is limited Jo any woman who openly lives with any man in the relationship of man and wife without being married.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What does the minister mean by the words "openly living"? Can a woman be "closedly living" with a man if she is living in the same house with him?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister means,
living immorally.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It means the publicly
acknowledged relationship of these two; that they live together as man and wife, and that that is publicly and openly known to the world.


Mr. MAHARG:: If that is the interpretation, such discretionary powers as are given by this section are undesirable.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
William Antrobus Griesbach: How is it to be
"found"?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Wherever you have the word' "found," that means after evidence, after .a hearing and decision.


William Antrobus Griesbach: By the Pension Commissioners, or by a court?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am satisfied with
the Pension Commission as a court in that case. .
Mr. ROWELL; I think that my hon. friend's amendment should hardly go so far as to strike out the words "suspended, discontinued or" in the last line; otherwise I see no objection to accepting his suggestion. It is possible that .a woman living in that condition might reform, and it should be possible to restore her pension. I think that the full purpose which my hon. friend has in view would be served if the clause be amended to read as follows, and I so move:
The pension of any female pensioner who is found to ibe a common prostitute or who openly lives with any man in the relationship of man and wife without being married to him shall he suspended, discontinued or cancelled.


John Archibald Maharg: Does that make any difference? The commission aJtill use their discretionary power; 'this does not change the purport of the clause.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It becomes their duty to suspend, discontinue or cancel the pension if the facts are found to be as thus indicated.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I should like to have an explanation of the difference between a common prostitute and an unmarried wife. Is there any difference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A common prostitute lives in a bawdy house.


Jacques Bureau: Not necessarily.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is quite a difference in the Criminal Code.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Or between a private prostitute and an unmarried wife?


Jacques Bureau: As regards the term " unmarried wife," I want to give notice to the minister now that I am going to move on the third reading of this Bill that the term "unmarried wife" disappear from the Bill, and I will give my reasons then.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Section as amended, agreed to on division.

On section 41-pension to cease on marriage, or remarriage:


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I object to the phraseology in this clause of " unmarried wife." It seems incongruous that we should introduce into the legislation of this country such a phrase. Whoever heard of an "unmarried" wife? I do not know what the origin of the term is. We had this up the other night, and some clauses were allowed to pass with these words in them, but I think it should be expunged from the other clauses. I do not know whether it is a Yankeeism, or what is is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not a Yankeeism, it is paganism.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No, I think paganism is purer than that. This is worse than paganism. Is it right to the people of Canada to recognize that there is such a thing as an unmarried wife? It is far better to leave this under the old principle of the common law wife, a term used from time immemorial. I should like to know why this committee has departed from that. This term is absurd.


Charles Marcil: I repeat the protest I have already made. There is only one wife to be recognized, and here we recognize the "unmarried" wife. If the man dies, his pension may be divided between the woman whom he has abandoned and deserted, and the "unmarried" wife with whom he is living. There is discretionary power left to the commission to do that, and that is contrary to the principles held by the Canadian people and will be condemned by all men who have the interest of this country at heart.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: I heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Perth North (Mr. Morphy). Nobody should be recognized in common law as an unmarried wife. Such a thing is foreign to our ideas in Canada. If this Bill is passed with these words inserted I at least demand that they be not translated into the French version. When I read as I do " Femme non-inariee " -that is " the limit."


Rodolphe Lemieux: This objection is not a new one. We have from the beginning protested against these immoral clauses in the Bill, and I still protest against them. But I am not surprised at all. An ambiant air has been created since the war began, which shocks the common decency of the people of this country, under the pretext that new social conditions exist. Only yesterday I
was reading a review, which can be found in the reading room and which is published in the good city of Toronto, in which free love is advocated. We are coming to that with this legislation.


William Folger Nickle: I have had to take th'e responsibility for a good deal in reference to this pension legislation, and I am quite prepared to assume the responsibility for coining the expression " unmarried wife."


Jacques Bureau: De-coin it now.


William Folger Nickle: I coined it because there was no other word or language that I could, as a draughtsman, use- to express the idea.


Jacques Bureau: Call her a concubine.


William Folger Nickle: We fnust face conditions as they were disclosed by this war. This war had not been going on for a year before the military departments were confronted, not by scores, but probably by hundreds of women who demanded separation allowance and who were unable to produce their marriage certificates because they had never been married to the men with whom they respectively were living. Years before a domestic relationship had been in existence; the man and the woman had simply gone and lived together, each to the other, although there had been no formal marriage, and children to the number of one, two, three, four and even five had been born. They had a respectable position in the community in which they lived, and nothing would have been known about the irregularity of their former life had not proof been requested whether or not they were married. When the casualties began to pour in, the same condition confronted us who are interested in this pension legislation. What was the status of these women to be? It is all very well to raise one's hands in holy horror and to say that these women should not be recognized and that they and their children should be permitted to starve; but it seems to me you have to go further than that, because if you are prepared to take the position that these women are not entitled to pensions, you simply drive on to. the streets, a woman, who has constantly and regularly been living with a man as his wife, to get a living in the only way she can get it, namely, by selling herself to the man who is willing to buy her. I am not prepared to take that position.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member is
going off the subject. What we object to as a matter of respect for the dignity of the women to whom we are married, is the

term " unmarried wife." Change the word and we shall not object to paying the money.


William Folger Nickle: I avoided the term
" common law wife," because I did not want to offend the susceptibilities of certain people who would not wish the woman's position in society to be given even that recognition.


Jacques Bureau: She is a concubine at
law.


William Folger Nickle: They would not be prepared to recognize the legal status of a concubine. A man may have half a dozen concubines, but he can only have one common law wife or one unmarried wife.


Jacques Bureau: A definition can be
given.


William Folger Nickle: If any hon. gentleman
can suggest any word that will absolutely express the relationship of a woman having, through a protracted period, constantly been living with one man and not been living with any other, and not having gone through a formal marriage with that man, I would be quite prepared to accept the word.
Mr. MvANION: Why not put in the definition?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is no such word,
because there is no such thing recognized in the law. Why not say " wife at common law?"


William Folger Nickle: Because many people object to the suggestion.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What do we care if they object? This is worse.


William Folger Nickle: My hon. friend says:
" What do we care if they object?" That is not the position. If the committee, or any member of the committee, can suggest a better word, there is no reason why it should not be incorporated into this legislation. I am taking the responsibility for the language 'because I am responsible for it, and I am telling the committee why I used the word, and I am directing their attention to a condition that has confronted us and that must be faced.
Mr. M'ANION: Why cannot the hon. member put in the definition instead of the word?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sorry I must leave the House as I have to catch a train, so I shall have to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[.Hr. Bureau.]


Jacques Bureau: I have been asked by a good many people when the War Purchasing Commission Bill will come before the House again.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should say, Monday or Tuesday.


Jacques Bureau: Will it be agreed to bring it up on Tuesday, so that everybody will be relieved?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Tuesday, then.
Progress reported.



SCHOOL AND DOMINION LANDS IN TABER IRRIGATION DISTRICT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 154, to authorize certain School and Dominion Lands to be included in the Taber Irrigation District in the province of Alberta, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-schqpl lands may be dealt with as other lands in irrigation district.
Arthur Meighen: The object of the Bill is simply this. In 1916 we passed a Bill to enable certain school lands to be included in an irrigation district, but we did not provide that the district debentures should be a first charge on these lands but only a charge subject to the claim of the Dominion Government in the case of lands sold. Under these conditions it became impossible to organize the district and proceed with the work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that a syndicate owned these lands in the West, but being unable to go on with the work within the time specified in the letters patent, the Government granted an extension of time and even made certain advances to the company. Is not that correct?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that the hon. member has the syndicate idea right. Irrigation districts are formed under provincial legislation. They are, of course, in the nature of a syndicate. They were unable to carry on this enterprise because they could not use the school lands in the same way as the other lands under the provincial legislation, and issue debentures making a first charge against the school lands. I communicated with the Government of the province, and it is their desire that the school lands, in which they are interested as beneficiaries, should be placed in the same position as the other lands, so that debentures wrill form the same charge

upon them that they form upon private lands. That is the purpose of the Bill.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: I would point out that the school lands are actually being benefited by this legislation. In these particular districts where the school lands are left under what we may call "dry" conditions they are of little value, but once they are placed under irrigation their value is increased, I might say, a hundredfold. We have irrigation around the city of Lethbridge, and sales of irrigated land take place there frequently at from $135 to $150 an acre, whereas $40 would be a very high price for what is commonly known as "dry" land. These irrigation districts have been created by the provinces and are somewhat similar to municipalities. They are given certain powers, and it is necessary that these school lands be treated the same as the other lands in the district in order that the irrigation project may be proceeded with. My argument is that it will be of benefit to the school lands to be included in this irrigated district, because it will increase their value; they will be more easy to cultivate, be more productive, and more worth while to the School Lands Fund.
Mr. LEMIEUX; This Bill applies to only one district?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the Taber Irrigation District.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why do you not make the law general?


Arthur Meighen: We could not do so without the consent of the provinces affected, and I do not think the provinces would be ready to consent to. general legislation that would enable us to create a charge on any locality we chose. That would put it out of the power of the province to retain their beneficial interest in any school lands whatever. Before we charge any special set of school lands on the ground that they are going to be benefited by being brought into an irrigation district, I think the province would want to exercise some supervision as to what lands should be so included.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events we are creating a precedent, and if later on any one else applies for the application of the same principle the Government will give them the same privilege.


Arthur Meighen: If the Government's irrigation officers are of the opinion that it is irrigable land, that the project is feasible,
and if the province agrees; I see no other conditions which should be imposed.


John Howard Sinclair: This Bill is a little difficult to understand. It refers to an Act passed by the legislature of Alberta, which Act we have not before us. Will this involve any expenditure on the part of the Government?


Arthur Meighen: No. Otherwise I would have had to bring down a resolution to precede the Bill. The only expenditure by the Government in work of this kind is for survey purposes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Out of the general
fund?


Arthur Meighen: Our responsibility ends with the survey work, that is, investigating the feasibility of the project.


Jacques Bureau: Is the object of the Bill this, that if this irrigation company improves any lands that are set aside for school purposes the debentures shall be a lien on these school lands?


Arthur Meighen: That is the object exactly.	,


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-statutes of 1916, c. 26 repealed.
Jacques Bureau: WThat is the meaning of this?


Arthur Meighen: That is the statute I referred to which enabled this to be done, but did not enable a first charge to be created.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By what authority will the debentures be issued?


Arthur Meighen: The Provincial Government of Alberta.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I spoke of a syndicate. The minister has spoken of a private company.


Arthur Meighen: There is no private
company and no syndicate. It is the province that creates an irrigation district by general statute. It is formed as a drainage district is formed. These districts have certain corporate powers and issue bonds chargeable, according to certain principles, upon land affected, in proportion, to the benefit accrued.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Arthur Meighen: I should like to be able this afternoon to take up the resolution

concerning judges' salaries, and after that the amendment to the Dominion Lands Act; but I see that although this latter measure was introduced some days ago it has not yet been printed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it printed in French?
Mr. MEIOH1EN: I do not even see the English copy. It is anything at all but an important measure, for the reason that it has already been preceded by resolution, carried some time ago, but I did not then go on with the Bill.
Mr. LEMIE'UX: Could you not get it for this afternoon?


Arthur Meighen: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, by
these resolutions it is proposed to increase the salaries of all the county court judges in all the provinces except the province of Quebec. It is also proposed to increase by $1,000 the salaries of the judge of the high courts of the western provinces as well as those of the Maritime Provinces, in order that they may be put on the same level as the salaries of judges of equal rank in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. There is absolutely nothing proposed with regard to the salaries of the judges of the province of Quebec. If the Bill which is to be introduced has for its purpose to equalize the salaries of judges of the same jurisdiction and having the same rank, there are, I believe, fifteen judges of the High Court of Quebec whose salaries should be increased to bring them up to the level of the salaries of twenty-seven other judges of that province having the same jurisdiction and belonging to the same court. There is an anomaly existing in the province in that regard. There are twenty-one judges of the Superior Court appointed for the district of Montreal; those judges have a salary of $7,000 each. There are six other judges appointed for the district of Quebec, and they have the same salary. It is proposed that the judges of the Superior Courts of all the provinces shall have the same salaries, and it will be seen that these twenty-seven judges of the province of Quebec are already getting the maximum. But what about the fifteen other judges of the province who have only a $5,000 salary? There are, for instance, two judges for the district of Three Rivers and Nicolet. They are judges of the High Court and have the same rank and jurisdiction as the judges of the Superior Court of Montreal and Quebec. As a matter of fact, I believe they have more work to do than the judges who preside in the cities of Montreal and Quebec; but they are placed in an inferior position in regard to salary. The same thing may be said of the judges of the district of Sherbrooke. There are two judges sitting in that very important district, and they are also in an inferior position as far as salary is concerned, their salary being only $5,000. The same thing applies to the judges of the districts of Arthabaska, Bedford, Iberville, Joliette, Kamouraska, Pontiac and Rimouski; all those judges have salaries of only $5,000. Why not apply to these fifteen judges the same principle of equalization of salaries which is to be applied to the
judges of the High Courts of all the provinces of the Dominion? I claim in all fairness that those fifteen judges should be put on the same level as all the judges of the High Courts of all the provinces of the Dominion. There is an exception in the case of the judges of Prince Edward Island, who are left in an inferior position; and I believe that this should also be redressed and that the three judges of the High Court of that province should have equal salaries with the other High Court judges of the Dominion.
Now, to illustrate how unfair it is, I will quote the case of a judge of the province of Quebec. In 1914, owing to the surplus of judicial work in the city of Montreal, and the many complaints made by the bar and the bench of the city, the legislature-because the administration of justice and the organization of tribunals belongs to the provinces according to the constitution-made an amendment to the law, providing that the judge of the districts of Beauharnois, Richelieu, St. Hya-cinthe and Pontiac should reside thereafter in the city of Montreal and should sit in the city for the judicial affairs of the district of Montreal while not engaged in their own districts. At the following session an amendment was made to the Judges' Act, placing three of those judges on the same level, as far as salary is concerned, as the other judges of the district of Montreal, and those whose residence was thereafter fixed in the city of Montreal were granted an additional sum of $2,000. One exception was made in the case of the judge of Pontiac district (Mr. Justice Weir). Although he is also obliged now to live in Montreal and to work in the district, he was not placed in the same position, and is only entitled to a salary of $5,000. I noticed that anomaly and I inquired the reasons for such a discrimination. Although Mr. Justice Weir has had to live in Montreal since that law was passed, and is attending to his judicial duties in the city and district of Montreal, he is placed in a position of inferiority.
Certain correspondence was exchanged between the Attorney General of the province of Quebec and the Department of Justice, of which I happened to take cognizance, and I noticed that the Minister of Justice always refused to accept the amendments which had been passed by the Legislature of Quebec as far as the district of Pontiac is concerned, and always refused to grant to the judge of Pontiac district the increase which had been granted to other

judges placed in the same position. That shows the discrimination and unfairness in having judges of the same rank, and of the same court, and exercising the same jurisdiction, placed in a position of inequality. It is a discrimination that tells against those judges, and I do not think it is fair for this Parliament to create such discrimination. Not only should the judge of the district of Pontiac be given a salary of $7,000 like the other judges of the district of Montreal, but that salary should also be given to all the fifteen judges of the Superior Court of Quebec who now receive only $5,000 when the other twenty-seven judges of the province of Quebec receive $7,000, which salary will also be given hereafter to the judges in all the other provinces.
Mr. McISAA'C: If my hon. friend (Air. Ernest Lapointe) has occasion for exception regarding the inequality of judges' salaries in the province of Quebec, I, speaking on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island, have much greater reason for complaint. Prior to the introduction of this resolution a very great discrepancy and inequality existed between the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island and the salaries of like judges in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and in other provinces as well. Confining ourselves, however, to the Maritime Provinces: The Chief Justices in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia received $7,000 and the puisne judges in the same provinces, of courts of like jurisdiction, $6,000. On the other hand, the Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island received $6,000 and each of the puisne judges, or, as they are called, assistant judges-one being the Master of the Rolls and the other Vice Chancellor-received a salary of $5,200. Under the re-adjustment it was expected that this inequality would be removed. Why should there be any difference between the salaries of judges in Prince Edward Island and the salaries of judges of similar courts elsewhere? I must believe that it requires as much of ability, of devotion to duty, and of every other quality that constitutes a competent judge to fill the position of Judge of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, as in the case of judges in the courts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-or any other province, for that matter-particularly when it is borne in mind that in Prince Edward Island three judges do the work which is performed by seven or eight judges in these other provinces. And so far as the cost of living is concerned, it is just as expensive to live in

Prince Edward Island nowadays as anywhere else in Canada. If we take all these reasons into consideration I cannot understand why the existing inequality is not only perpetuated, but accentuated and aggravated under the proposed legislation. Now, what does the Government propose to do under these resolutions? It proposes to advance the salaries of the chief justices in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia from $7,000 ,to $8,000 and the salaries of the puisne judges of the respective courts in these provinces from $6,000 to $7,000. In Prince Edward Island the salary of the chief justice is to be advanced from $6,000 to $6,500, creating an inequality between his salary and the salary of the judges of corresponding courts in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia of $1,500; that is to say the existing difference is increased from $500 to $1,500. That is something I can scarcely understand. And in the case oi the assistant judges of Prince Edward Island, the increase only amounts to $300. This, I repeat, not only continues the discrimination and inequality between the salaries of the Prince Edward Island judges and the salaries of like judges in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and all the other provinces, but even renders it much more marked. I am at a loss to understand why it is, if adjustments were to be undertaken and the salaries of judges were to be equalized, as we expected, that, so far as the province from which I come is concerned, tlm inequality, discrepancy, and injustice which formerly prevailed, as compared with the judges of the other provinces has been increased to the extent of from $1,000 and $800 respectively, to $1,500. The salaries of our judges are not only not relatively improved as compared with the judges in other provinces, but are left in a much worse condition comparatively than they were before. For these reasons, I would like the Acting Minister of Justice to explain -why this very great inequality and injustice is perpetuated and aggravated as regards the judges of Prince Edward Island.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I desire to say, Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Air. Bureau) has the floor.


Jacques Bureau: I will give way to the Acting Minister of Justice if he desires to speak, because I wish to hear his explanation first.


Arthur Meighen: When I see so many hon. members desiring to rise, and being

apprehensive that each of them is opposed to some feature of the Bill, I begin to think that I was not altogether unwise in endeavouring to shelve this measure until the return of the Minister of Justice himself. I have no anticipation that any possible rearrangement of judicial salaries could be proposed to the House which would be acceptable all around.
The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) referred to the Bench of the province of Quebec, and contends that they are not fairly dealt with by this measure as compared with the judges of the other provinces; and the hon. member for King's (Mr. Mclsaac), complains in a similar strain of the salaries paid to the Bench in Prince Edward Island. The province of Quebec has a distribution of judicial jurisdiction that differs from all the other provinces of Canada. The courts to which my hon. friend (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) has referred are manned by judges in Quebec and Montreal, twenty-seven in all, with salaries of $7,000 each, the Chief Justice in each case getting $8,000, and in that respect they are just the same as the judges in the province of Ontario. The other judges in the Superior Court exercising the same functions as county court and district judges in the other provinces receive $5,000. There is no court in the province of Quebec corresponding with what is known as the county court in Western Canada and the district court in other portions of the Dominion. The work done by county and district court judges elsewhere is taken care of in Quebec by judges who exercise, as well, a somewhat higher jurisdiction, dealing, I believe, with larger amounts of money. That being the ease it is impossible to have any measure than can be said to yield salaries to judges in the other provinces absolutely equal to those paid in Quebec. In the province of Quebec there are twenty-seven judges, according to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe), who draw $7,000 a year. That is not the case in any other province in Canada. The number who draw those higher salaries is much more limited even in the province of Ontario. Then there are a number of judges who are drawing $5,000, whereas there are none who perform similar duties drawing salaries as high in any other province of Canada. Our own judges in the province of Manitoba will draw less, very materially less, even under the present measure. In this connection let me say that very strong pressure has been brought to bear to have those salaries
raised and, as well, the salaries of the higher judges in the province of Ontario.
Delegations On behalf of the higher Bench of Ontario have waited upon the Government and urged in the strongest possible terms that the salaries of the judges of these higher courts be increased so that they shall be on a level with those in the province of Quebec. They claimed that by virtue of a different nomenclature the salaries in the province of Quebec were higher in the aggregate than they were in Ontario.
I did not share in that view; it seemed to me that there was not a very great difference in that regard. But it would have been impossible to raise the level of the salaries of the judges in these courts in Quebec without also making some changes in the salaries of judges of the higher courts of Ontario.
Then there was the question whether the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, having regard to the status of that court and to its very great importance, were not inconsistent with the dignity of that court and the ability of the men who must have seats therein. But having regard to the fact that the primary cause of the action now being taken is the increase in the cost of living and in the necessity of enabling those whose salaries were on the lower salary scale to maintain themselves and their families as they should be maintained, I thought that my best course was to increase the salaries of those who were on the lower scale, and not to touch those on the higher scale, who, though not drawing what they did draw in former years, having regard to the 'increased cost of living, still were drawing sufficient to enable them to live in fair comfort. So I decided not to recommend any change in the salaries of the judges in the higher courts of Canada. But that remark should be qualified by one exception. The salaries of the judges of the higher courts in the western provinces and in the Maritime Provinces had never been on a level with those of judges in similar courts in Ontario and Quebec. Every year since I first came to Parliament it has been urged upon me most strongly that an undue discrimination existed there, that it should never have existed, and that it should be wiped away. I never felt that the argument was wholly sound. In the earlier and smaller stages of the commercial and population development of these provinces there was some reason for not placing the judges of their higher courts on a level, as to


Mr. COPP:: How many district, and county court judges have we in Canada, or how many will there be under this arrangement?


Arthur Meighen: I will give them province by province: Ontario has 75 county court judges; a reduction of 25, I believe, is specifically provided for, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, if I understand the legislation aright, has power thereafter to reduce the number of judges by the amalgamation of districts. So the bench in Ontario will be very substantially reduced. Nova Scotia has 7 county court judges, New Brunswick 6, Manitoba 9, British Columbia 14, Prince Edward Island 3, Saskatchewan 18, and Alberta 12. The Yukon has one judge, whose salary is $5,000, and who draws as well a living allowance of $5,000. I have not felt there was any necessity for increasing the salary of the judge in the Yukon Territory.


Jacques Bureau: I want to lay my case before the committee, and I am going to request the Acting Minister of Justice, before I am through, to re-consider these resolutions and grant the request made by my hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe), that the Superior Court judges in the province ot Quebec be put on an even footing. The minister has stated that there must have *been reasons for this difference in salary when the salaries were apportioned. The only surmise I can make, and it seems to me reasonable, is that there must have been one of two reasons for the difference in salaries; first, that the work in certain districts was not as considerable as in others, or second, that the cost of living was higher in the cities than in the country. As to qualifications, it makes no difference whether the judge presides over a population of 90,000 people or 14,000 people; the responsibility is no greater. The minister has given us the number of the county court judges in the different provinces. Quebec was not in that list because it has no county court judges. The only judges of limited jurisdiction in the province of Quebec are four in number, I believe-the exact number I do not know, because I do not practise in their district, but they have jurisdiction to the amount of $200. They are located in the city of Montreal, and their jurisdiction is coextensive with the limits of the district of Montreal. The judges of the Superior Court in the province of Quebec have unlimited jurisdiction, absolutely unlimited, extending from a penny to any amount that the imagination can conceive. Some of

these judges who lived, at the time our judiciary was established, in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, are getting $7,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Three Rivers?


Jacques Bureau: The judge of the district of Three Rivers is getting only $5,000. Other judges, including the districts of St. Hyacinthe, Richelieu, and I think Beau-harnois, all of which are rural districts, feceive $7,000, because their residence is established in Montreal and they help the Montreal judges. If salary is based upon the responsibility and the amount of work done by a judge, I say that the judge of the district of Three Rivers-seeing that that district has been mentioned-ought to receive $9,000, as against $7,000 in other cases, and I will tell you why. If the salary is based on the cost of living, let me say at once that there is absolutely no difference between the expenditure incurred by the man who lives in the city I have the honour to come from, and the man who lives in Montreal or Quebec, in respect of fuel, taxes and everything else. As far as the necessities of life are concerned, they are higher in city of Three Rivers than in Montreal. We have no big departmental stores such as they have in Montreal, and no bargain sales. For these reasons it costs more to live in the city of Three Rivers than it does in Montreal. Kow, as to the work. In the cities of Montreal and Quebec a judge of the Court of the King's Bench presides over the criminal assizes. In the district of Three Rivers the Court of King's Bench during criminal assizes is presided over by a judge of the Superior Court, and the same is true of all the other rural judicial districts. Furthermore, in the city of Montreal you have four judges of the Circuit Court who have jurisdiction to the amount of $200, but you have none in the rural districts nor in the city of Quebec either, and consequently the judge of the Superior Court sits in the circuit court over cases coming before that court. He also sits in review. Under our judicial system our first appeal is to a court of review, composed of three judges chosen by the chief justice from among the judges of the superior court. I am not going to say whether the court of review ought to remain or disappear. The point I am making is that the judge of the superior court also presides at the assizes and sits as a member of the court of review. Then, in all cases under the municipal code, if you are not satisfied with

your assessment, and so forth, the appeal lies to the judge of the superior court sitting as a judge of appeal with final jurisdiction. Under the Cities and Towns Act, and under the municipal code, if you have a controverted election case it comes before the judge of the superior court sitting as a judge, in certain cases, of the circuit court.
Our railway expropriation law has been changed, and mostly all, and I dare say all expropriations are made under the provisions of the Provincial Kailway Act and under this Act, for the last two, if not three years, the judge of the superior court sits as an arbitrator; that is, instead of having two arbitrators, one appointed by either side, and the third agreed upon by those two or appointed by the judge, the judge of the superior court sits as an arbitrator and hears all expropriation cases. He sits also as a court of appeal in all cases having reference to the infringement of fish and game laws.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And election protest
cases.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, of course. Then in connection with the Employers' Liability Act in certain provinces, cases brought under that Act are heard by a board, in our province, instead of having a board of arbitration, you cannot bring an action unless you petition the court, and that petition is granted de jure. There is a provision that when the petition is laid before the court the parties can come together, and although not a regular proceeding with summons and all the requirements of the code of civil procedure, in order to avoid costs and help the employee the judge has the right after hearing them to confirm the arrangement by a judgment which is binding on the parties. Under our Compensation Act any agreement made between the parties themselves is declared null and void. Those are the duties which our judges have to perform.
May I say that at the time the judge was appointed to the district of Three Rivers, I think the population of the city did not exceed 4,000 or 5,000, and outside of Three Rivers there was absolutely nothing. The only industry in the city of Three Rivers then was a small sawmill, which we used to call the American sawmill. Peace reigned among the farmers. In those days the word of a man was worth something; when he gave his word he kept it, and written contracts,. notes and receipts signed and witnessed were not as much in vogue as they are to-day, because they were not as necessary as they are today. So you can well imagine the litigation then could not compare in amount with the litigation of to-day. The city of Three Rivers has grown from 4,000 or 5,000 people until to-day it has a population of 25,000. Besides the sawmill I have mentioned we have three big pulp mills and two shipyards. Not a day passes but two or three cases come before our courts under one law alone. You can easily understand that with the
10,000	or 12,000 men employed in steel and wooden shipbuilding and in our paper mills, accidents are common. A Superior Court judge tries all these accident cases. Within the district of Three Rivers, twenty miles north of that city, is Shawinigan Falls with a population of 15,000 people, of whom I should say from 8,000 to 10,000 people work in industrial enterprises. Among other things we make chemicals at Shawinigan Falls. We have located there the Chemical Electro-Products Company, with a plant * costing over $2,000,000, and accidents there are very, very frequent. I do not know if hon. gentlemen are familiar with the process of manufacturing aluminum. We manufacture that article at Shawinigan Falls.
The things that are manufactured there require a great amount of power, which can be got reasonably cheap. Nature has helped considerably to make conditions favourable. The men who work there are exposed to great perils. They work in intense heat and are surrounded by wires and electrodes and accidents happen every day. Another industry which is carried on there and which is fraught with danger is the manufacture of calcium carbide. I believe it is also made in St. Catharines, and in this industry accidents happen very frequently. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that in this one industry alone there is one accident a week. Now here is one judge who has to hear all these petitions. You cannot go before the court unless you make a petition, and it has to be heard and passed upon by him. The law says that the petition shall be granted unless the parties come to an agreement or unless it is evident, on the face of the petition, that the judge has no jurisdiction or that the case does not come within the compensation Act. But whether he refuses to grant it or not, he has to hear the petition. The judge at Three Rivers has a vast volume of work to perform. My hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe) calls my attention to the Laurentide Pulp and .Paper company, which is quite well known, and which does a considerable amount of work in Grand'Mere.

There is a rural population of over 100,000 people. At Grand'Mere there is the Laurentide Paper company, a very large concern. It is just as well to mention these facts to show what the judge at Three Rivers has to do. There is at La Tuque an important corporation, the Brown Corporation, manufacturing 200 tons of pulp a day, and necessarily numerous accidents occur. Besides that we have large lumber mills, and forestry operations, and under our jurisprudence cases of men who are drowned or receive injuries in various logging operations come under this Act. Now, is it right that because fifty years ago the town of Three Rivers had a population of only
3,000	or 4,000, with nothing but fields surrounding it, a position that was then worth $5,000 should remain at that figure now? In Montreal and Quebec the law societies have large and well-equipped libraries, and the universities of Laval and McGill being located in Quebec and Montreal, more young men go from those cities to the universities to read law than do men from Three Rivers. The fees that have to he paid by students either to be admitted to Tead law or to be admitted to the bar are paid largely in Montreal and Quebec, and practically all young men- go there; at any rate, the number in our district and all other rural districts is so small that we cannot keep an adequate library. Most of the lawyers in our district, and the judge have to buy their own books, and I need only appeal to my confreres in this House who will appreciate the cost. . All the reports must be kept up and subscriptions paid. In Montreal there are twenty-one judges, and if one judge has a case which is difficult or which embarrasses him he consults with his fellow-judges, talks the matter over with them and receives the benefit of their opinions. On the other hand, the man who is alone has more work to do than any of those judges because he has to hunt things up for himself and has to look up every point of law without the assistance of the opinions of other judges. He is absolutely dependent upon himself and has not the assistance in the way of collaboration which the judges in the larger places enjoy. In this way it is obvious that he has greater responsibilities. Take a new district like the St. Maurice valley which, barring British Columbia-because they have high mountains-is one of the best water-power valleys in Canada. The powers developed on the St. Maurice are better than in any of the provinces this side of the Rocky Mountains. Before electricity came general-
ly into use the people did not attach much importance either to the water-powers or to the banks of rivers or the lands adjacent. But the moment the use of electricity spread and became popular these lands increased in value, and what happened in the West happened in the region of the St. Maurice valley. Before the increase in value it was easy to make an arrangement with the farmer who was the riparian owner, if development operations were contemplated. But with the advent of higher prices it became necessary to expropriate because bazaar prices were demanded and the power holders were not willing to accept low terms. The judge of the Superior Court receiving $5,000 had, and still has, to sit day after day to hear those expropriation cases. Although it may be a matter for disagreement, our legislature at all events found that it was cheaper and better, instead of having three arbitrators possessing no knowledge [DOT]of the rules of evidence, and their wrangling for three days over a case, to have the judge of the Superior Court act as arbitrator.
Now, these are the conditions, and I submit that it is only fair that this resolution should be amended so as to put all judges of the Superior Court who have equal jurisdiction and responsibility and who must have equal education and ability and legal acumen, on the same footing.	The reason given by my hon.
friend for this not being done is the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). The province of Quebec, I might say, is unrepresented in the Cabinet-especially in important cases such as this-except by the Minister of Justice. Through no instrumentality of the province of the province of Quebec, has the Minister of Justice, been chosen to go across the seas to sign the Treaty of Peace. Well, it is a great honour and the province of Quebec must be flattered. But because the Minister of Justice is absent, is that any reason why all the other provinces which have not the honour of being represented by a Minister or Justice, are roing to be taken into consideration, while the province of Quebec-which, I must say, has the misfortune this time to have the Minister of Justice coming from its own midst-is ignored? This injustice will continue. My hon. friend said just now that there was no discrimination, but this is discrimination of the worst kind. Indeed, it is not only discrimination but injustice. I will not take the excuse of my hou. friend the Acting Minister of Justice. We did not appoint the Minister of Justice ourselves, and I do not see why there might

to be any discrimination because the Minister of Justice comes from the province of Quebec. If my hon. friend went to the judges of the rural districts and asked them if they were willing to resign the honour of having the Minister of Justice come from Quebec or, on the other hand, take the
82,000	more, there would be no hesitation in their decision. It is altogether a flimsy excuse to say that the Minister of Justice hails from Quebec and happens to be absent rendering service to his country, and that therefore Quebec should be ignored. Now we say that the circumstances have ceased which existed when these salaries were' determined, and we want you now to consider conditions as they are and to equalize these salaries. Therefore I -would ask my hon. friend if he would take that resolution back to Council, and I am satisfied that after hearing just one part of the case, as it ought to be submitted-because I know I forget a great many things in enumerating the work of these judges, and I also forget a good many things that I should say in regard to the increased cost of living, which exists in the smaller towns as it does in the larger-I repeat, I am satisfied that under these circumstances Council will recognize that it is only just and fair that this resolution should be reconsidered and the judges of the Superior Courts of the province of Quebec put on the same footing as other judges of similar rank. I do not want the members of this committee to forget that we have no county judges other than the judges of the Superior Courts, and they have absolutely unlimited jurisdiction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: * Mr, Chairman, I wish to register my protest against this legislation for the reasons adduced by my hon. friend from Three Rivers and Kamouraska. I do not begrudge any increase of salary to the judges of the other provinces, but I say that my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and the Government should have dealt with the judges of the province of Quebec in the same way as they have dealt with the judges of the other provinces. The judicial system of the province of Quebec has been well described by my hon. friend from Three Rivers. We have no seventy-two county court judges as they have in the province of Ontario. We have district magistrates, who have similar jurisdiction to that of the county court judges of Ontario, but they are not paid by the Federal Government-I wish to draw this distinction at once.


Arthur Meighen: What jurisdiction have they?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They have criminal and civil jurisdiction.


Arthur Meighen: What civil jurisdiction? Mr. E. LAPOINTE: Up to $50, as a rule.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Up to $90, I think. At all events they have criminal and civil jurisdiction.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are they magistrates or judges? In Ontario our county court judges have jurisdiction in actions for libel, slander, and all that sort of thing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not speaking of
the ordinary justices of the peace. I am speaking of district magistrates having a jurisdiction covering a large territory and sitting in criminal cases; they have also civil jurisdiction, and they are very busy men. I am not referring now to the police magistrates of the city of Montreal or of the city of Quebec, but I am speaking of the district magistrates as they have them in the districts of the province, and they are paid out of the provincial treasury. As to judges of the Superior Court, as my hon. friend from Three Rivers said a moment ago, they have unlimited jurisdiction. At the time of Confederation,' when the judicial system was organized, it was thought that it would be to the advantage of the people that the judges should reside in their districts. At that time there was no railway communication except by the Grand Trunk, but since then there has been such a multiplication of railway facilities in our province, as everywhere else, that that consideration does not stand; and, besides, it has been felt in the rural districts that there should be an interchange of judges, because the same judge always administering justice with the same lawyers is apt at times to be the unwilling source of injustice. Since the railway systems have been extended the city of Montreal especially, and also the cities of Three Rivers and Quebec, have expanded so much that the business requirements make it incumbent on the chief justice to call on the judges of the rural districts to help in those cities. I remember when a boy that the population of Montreal did not reach 200,000; now it is 700,000. These district judges are men, generally speaking, who enjoyed a very high reputation in the practice of their profession before being elevated to the bench, and they have more to do than the judges of the Superior



Courts in Montreal or Quebec, for they have to preside over the criminal courts at every term, and in addition to that they have to sit as judges of the circuit courts. I have here some figures for the year 1917 of the number of writs issued in five of the districts. In the circuit court of the district of Arthabaska 963 writs were issued; in Beauce, 1,008; .in Joliette, 737; in St. Hyacinthe, 2,200; in Three Rivers, where they have two judges, 1,726; and judgments were rendered in all these cases. In the Superior Courts for the same year the number of writs issued were as follows:- for the district of Arthabaska, 393; Beauce, 452; Chicoutimi, 274; St. Hyacinthe, 699; Three Rivers, 738. Those judges are also called upon to sit in the Court of Review in Montreal. There is no reason why they should not be treated on a footing of equality with the judges of the city of Montreal or the city of Quebec.
For many years an agitation has gone on, the bar has taken up the question and from the various districts resolutions have been passed and sent to the Minister of Justice, praying the Government to treat those judges as they do the judges of Montreal and Quebec. Why should there be any discrimination? I am sorry that my hon. friend has ignored the demands of the resolutions forwarded to the Department of Justice, and I sincerely hope that he will reconsider his decision; because while we do not object to the judges in the other provinces receiving a fair salary as judges, we think that the judges in our province should be dealt with on the same principle. I am confident that if the Minister of Justice had been here, knowing the situation as he does, he would certainly have treated the judges of his own province more liberally than my hon. friend does in this Bill. I do not say that he does it out of any animus against the province of Quebec, not at all.
But it seems strange, when this Bill is being introduced in order to equalize the salaries of the judges in the other provinces with those of the judges in the province of Quebec, that in our province there should still remain an inequality between the salaries paid to the judges in rural districts and the salaries paid to the judges in Montr real and Quebec, and as to which we have been asking the Government for years to carry out an equalization.


Arthur Meighen: I am of the opinion that in the province of Ontario, even after this legislation passes, there will still be some inequality between the salaries paid to 
judges in cities and the salaries paid to judges in the rural districts. As to that I am not sure. I know there has always been such an inequality, but it may have been abolished in that province. But what the hon. gentleman (iMr. Lemieux) does not impress upon the House is this: He says that in order to have equality you must raise the salaries of the rural judges of the Superior Court in Quebec to $7,000, the amount which is paid to judges in Quebec and Montreal. But that would mean that we should have in Quebec forty-two judges each enjoying a salary of $7,000, and I doubt whether we have one-half of that number of seven thousand-dollar judges even in Ontario. The hon. gentleman must remember this. It may be, I believe it is, that the magistrates in the province of Quebec, who are provincially appointed, have certain jurisdiction in civil cases. Well, that is the case in other provinces as well; the magistrates have jurisdiction in civil cases of certain kinds, although not in all civil cases, in the other provinces; it may be, however, Jhat the magistrates provincially appointed have a somewhat wider jurisdiction in Quebec than in any other province of Canada. But it is also true that the province of Quebec does not provide for the trial of smaller civil cases, and less important quasi-criminal cases, by judges of a lower standing and lower pay, as in the other provinces.


Jacques Bureau: We do; there are justices of the peace.


Arthur Meighen: But they have only
jurisdiction up to a most limited figure, up to $50. Whether in all the provinces justices of the peace can determine cases I am not sure, but in some provinces the jurisdiction extends up to $100 if the cases arise from certain causes which embrace most of those cases tried. It may be that the justices of the peace in Quebec try civil cases of greater importance than do justices of the peace in other provinces.
What I say, and I want to impress the fact upon the House, is that the province of Quebec does not provide for the trial of these smaller civil cases by a lower rank of judges, lower paid, as do all the other provinces of Confederation. For example, if a case arises in that province involving $75, as pointed out by hon. members who have spoken, that $75 case must be tried by a judge who is paid $7,000, if it is in the city of Montreal or the city of Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no. The hon. gentleman. will pardon me, but there are four circuit judges in Montreal who try those cases.


Arthur Meighen: What salary do they draw?


Ernest Lapointe: I think $5,000.


Jacques Bureau: An inferior salary.


Arthur Meighen: In Montreal city that is provided for, but not elsewhere in the province of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: Most of these cases are tried by very high salaried judges.


Ernest Lapointe: Just so.


Arthur Meighen: No doubt if the province of Quebec had constituted courts analogous to the courts of the other provinces the salaries would have been the same; but under present circumstances if you are going to raise the salaries <^f the judges in Quebec to the maximum amount paid you are going to have a tremendously high-paid Bench in that province compared with that of the other provinces. That appears to have been recognized always, even when the Minister of Justice was from that province and from the same ranks as hon. gentlemen opposite. The same recognition is continued here, the same difference of salary. But the very same arguments that have been urged by hon. gentlemen opposite were urged all during those years. It may be that the arguments now have somewhat stronger force .as applied to the city of Three Rivers and to other points. I would not say they have not force to warrant an increase in such cases, but I do say that in respect of individual cases of the kind they would be better taken care of later when the Minister of Justice returns to the country. They would be better understood by the minister himself; and the whole local situation can be better understood by him, because, after all, it is now more a matter of domestic arrangement than anything else and of the appreciation of the relative responsibilities of individual judges. Therefore the Bill as it stands should not wait until such subjects as that can be taken into account.
I wish further to call the attention of the House to some observations that the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) made during a recent debate in connection with this question, his remarks having to do with inattention to duty on the part of certain members of the Bench of the city of Montreal. Those re-268i
marks were brought to the attention of" the Chief Justice of the province who took very serious objection thereto and wrote me the following letter which I think I should read in justice to the Bench of the.' city of Montreal:
Montreal, June 10, 1919. Dear Sir,-In the7 Hansard for the 30th May, on page 3064, reporting a speech by Mr. Jacobs, I find the following:-
"Within the last few years there have been made to the Bench appointments of five men, who probably consider that they have been placed there simply as pensioners, because little is ever done by these gentlemen to see that speedy judgments are handed down. I speak about this matter advisedly, and while probably I am somewhat out of order, I hope that bringing this matter to the attention of the committee will make some of these judges understand that they are after all servants of the public as other people in the civil service are, and that they must do their duty as other employees in the Government service do."
The whole effect of IMr. Jacobs' speech was to convey the impression that the Judges in the Province of Quebec were idle, negligent, and careless, either of the duty or dignity of their profession.	[DOT]
Having in charge the administration of justice in the western end of the province, X repel with indignation the charges of Mr. Jacobs; but I am better acquainted of course, with the state of things in the district of Montreal, and I can say that there is only one of the twenty-one judges, who reside and perform their functions in Montreal, who has any case which has been before him en d41ib6r6 more than six months.
The one exception has a few cases beyond a year, but that has been caused by his serious illness. I am personally aware that he has worked up to and even beyond his strength and is still continuing to do so, even against the advice of his medical adviser.
It is, I think, very unfortunate that a member of Parliament, and especially a member of the iBar, should deem himself justified in making charges of the character of those which Mr. Jacobs has made in the House of Commons and under cover of Parliamentary privilege.
I hope you will see your way to notice this matter officially.
I am, yours very truly,
J. F. Archibald.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR:: I want to say a word or two in support of what has been already said in regard to this legislation and against the discrimination that exists in the schedule of salaries contained therein as respects the judges of the province of Prince Edward Island from which I have the honour to come. I wish to deal with the matter from two standpoints. First, let me say that the discrimination in question has always existed in the salaries paid to the judges in Prince Edward Island as compared with the salaries paid: to the judges in other provinces. The minister has told us that this discrimination has


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have so often tried in this House to get something for the men in the country's service who are lamentably underpaid-men who get from $600 to $1,000 a year-that I find myself in a new atmosphere when I have to get up and support a proposal to increase the salaries of those who are in higher positions and getting more money. I was veTy much impressed by the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) with reference to the work done by the judges in the district of which he spoke. I am under the impression that the country is following a wrong principle in the matter of the application, of remuneration in such cases as this. A judge should be paid for the work that he does. The remuneration for all County Court judges in Ontario is $3,000, with the possible exception of judges in Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, and London; though I am not sure that the exception applies now in all these cases. Ontario, therefore, recognizes the principle that I now advocate, the principle that in the larger centres, where there is more work to be done, the judges should get larger remuneration than is paid in the smaller centres where there is less work.
In Ontario there are many judges who are not overworked, who, really, in many counties, have not. enough to keep them going nicely, and yet they must perform the service to the State from one'year's end to the other, and be at their post to adjudicate upon the business that the community sends in to the court for them to preside over. My idea is that there should be a
standardization below which no judge-should be asked to perform his functions. Let that standardization, if you like, be $4,000 as is proposed now-and by the way I do not exactly see why all of the district judges in Quebec should ge't $5,000 remuneration, with the salaries of Ontario judges in past years standing at $3,000. I know many Ontario judges, outside of the cities of Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London, who are very hard-worked and are entitled to more money, but the principle that should be followed is the standardization of judges' salaries at such a sum-and a moderate sum-as will enable them to live properly having regard to the position they occupy in the community.. Beyond that, where in a county there is thrown upon a judge an excessive amount of work-and many counties that I know of furnish such cases-that judge should be paid a reasonable advance over the standard salary commensurate with the business that is sent to him. I appreciate the difficulty of arriving at that, but I believe the returns in the hands of the Provincial Government, showing the number-of writs issued, the number of cases that: come actually to trial and the disposition of them, the criminal work the county court judges have to do, would enable the Government to estimate very fairly and to fix a remuneration for those counties. There are in Ontario certain counties that are known as non-litigous counties; there are others, perhaps including a town of ten or fifteen thousand people, with diversified interests-although in a different style from that referred to by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau),-which produce all kinds of litigation. A county here will have a busy judge, and there right next to it will be a county with, I would not like to say an idle judge, but a judge who is not very busy. A man should be-paid for the work he does; and while I do. not oppose this Bill, it would be worth while taking into consideration for the-future some other principle than that of an absolutely universal increase all along the line. I should like to call the attention of the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) to the fact that the Ontario Government have decided to do away as far as possible with the principle of having two judges in a county, and that is going to throw~ more work upon the judge who remains. Therefore, as I see it to-day in Ontario the Government is going to win on that principle and save a good deal of salary.


Mr. PROULX:: The judge will get a
special allowance from the province.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That does not interfere with the argument I am making because that is a special allowance of $1,000 that the province gives in commutation of certain fees in the master's office, -or something of that kind. But when the judge disappears by resignation or death no other judge will be appointed, and in that way there is going to be a fund available, by comparison with the present expenditure, to give the judges in Ontario a little more salary by virtue of that particular legislation of the Ontario Government. The question, therefore, comes back again to me:	Why has there
been a discrimination in favour of Quebec? For years and years the Quebec Circuit Court judge has been given a salary of $5,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Never.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member means the Superior Court judge, that is the judge of unlimited jurisdiction.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I understood the salary vyas $5,000.


Ernest Lapointe: They are judges of the Superior Court they have equal rank with judges of the High Court of Ontario; they are riot county court judges.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is not very much difference between them and the county' court judges of Ontario because the jurisdiction of the Ontario county court judge, except, say, in case of libel and slander in which the verdict is limited to a maximum of $500, has been extended, and in all actions, commercial and criminal, the county court judge of Ontario is frequently a busier man than many Supreme Court judges, and I venture to say, just as busy as some of the Quebec judges who are drawing the extra $1,000. Therefore, if the salaries of such Ontario county court judges were to be put on the same basis as others, I do not see what hon. members opposite from Quebec have to complain about. The Ontario judges have a great deal to complain about in the fact that the minister, by the proposed Bill, is raising their stipend *only by $1,000, whereas during all these years they have been getting along on a basis of $3,000 from this Government, while Quebec judges have been getting $4,000 or $5,000 with a jurisdiction which may sound superior, but which I do not believe to be so in fact, outside of the few judges about whom the hon. member spoke. I think he

made a good case, if not for the present, at least for the future, for the principle I advocate, that a man ought to be paid for the work he does. To put a blanket figure over the whole Dominion of Canada for county and district judges of $5,000, $6,000, or $7,000, irrespective of the onus put upon them by work in their district or county, is a bad principle. In these times we should be careful; we are going on the basis of fixing salaries because of the high cost of living, but to-morrow the high cost of living may be the low cost of living; it certainly will, in a year or two, go down to normal conditions, and these judges, whose salaries we are fixing now on the basis of the high cost of living, will, during the rest of their lifetime, get the benefit of the figure fixed in war time at war prices, whereas if we wait a year or two, we would not fix it at all on the high cost of living. The Bill on the whole is to be commended, but I agree with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) that there are certain inequalities and inequitable conditions that ought to be specially taken up, I think, by a committee or by the minister (Mr. Doherty) when he returns, at a forthcoming session. The whole thing should then be gone into and ripped up and put on a common, practical, sound basis, so that a man should be paid for the work he does.
Mr. PRiOULX: On a few former occasions in this session requests have been made by some hon. members to increase the salaries of county court judges on account of the high cost of living, on the ground that their present salaries do not afford them a sufficient living allowance. I do not know that any request has been made to increase the salaries of Superior Court judges. As the hon. member for North 'Perth (Mr. IMorphy) has just said, we are fixing salaries now on the basis of the high cost of living. If that basis changes-and I believe it will soon change, because these are abnormal times- the salaries will be much higher than the cost of living would then warrant.
I submit that there was no necessity for increasing the salaries of the Superior Court judges just now; they could have waited for another year at least, particularly in view of the finances of the country. We have a very large deficit, and our expenditure is increasing, and I sympathize with the Minister of Finance who has to provide the money for all these increases. He must worry at times, and I think his sleep is interfered with occasionally when he sees all these increases mounting up.
I should like to know whether the Acting

Minister of Justice consulted him before drafting this resolution. I do not think he did, because I do not believe^ the Minister of Finance would have consented to these increases. There is another point we should consider, especially in connection with the Superior Court judges, and that is the question of retiring allowances. If you increase the judges' salaries, their retiring allowance is proportionately increased, and I think there have been abuses in the past in the matter of retiring allowances. There are some members of the bench who have retired after fifteen years' service in full physical and mental strength, and have gone back to their practice or taken up some other vocation while continuing to draw two-thirds of the salary they received while on the bench. Personally, I do not think a judge should be allowed to retire from the bench after fifteen years' service if his health is good enough to permit him to continue to serve on $ie bench. If he is invalided or incapable of performing his duties on account of old age, he could be allowed to retire, but I submit that we should change the law so that no judge shall be allowed to retire and draw the retiring allowance after fifteen years' service if he is in full physical and mental strength. I see by section 6 that the minister proposes to make a change. It provides :
That no annuity shall be granted to any judge under the provisions of sections 19 and 24 of the Judges Act relating to pensions and retirement unless the Governor in Council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such judge should resign his office.
I do not like that provision very much, because it leaves too much discretion to the Governor in Council, and we know how that discretion has been exercised sometimes in the past by this and previous governments'. ^Et leaves the matter too much open to political influence, and I would like to see the provision changed so that a judge shall only draw his retiring allowance if he is incapacitated by reason of illness or old age. I think an age limit should also be fixed. We should not leave it to the discretion of the Governor in Council, because the Governor in Council is the Government and we know that Governments are often imposed upon by influential parties seeking favours. The judges are, in a sense, a privileged class, and we know that those who enjoy privileges sometimes ask for more. We have had experience of that in this country in connection with not only the manufacturing class but other classes also.
There is another question. The judges claim to be exempt from income taxation on account of constitutional limitations. We have passed an Act 'this session making judges appointed in the future liable to income taxation. The increases that are granted to the present judges will be exempt from taxation as their jsresent salaries are. I do not think that is fair, it is giving them undue privileges, and if this House is going to vote these increases in salary we should at least make the increases liable to federal taxation. There is another point. There is a difference of $1,000 in salary between the Chief Justice and the puisne judges; that is not new; it has existed for a long time, but I have never seen any reason for it. The Chief Justice does not do any more work than the puisne judges; sometimes he does less, and I think the honour of being Chief Justice should be sufficient.


Jacques Bureau: Will the honour of being Minister of Justice be sufficient?


Edmond Proulx: Some ministers do more work than others. As my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) has said, we should pay a man for the work he does. Now some puisne judges do more work than the 'Chief Justice, but receive $1,000 less salary I believe that is another privilege that should be abolished. This is the age of democracy, and everybody should be given a square deal; everybody should be paid for the work he does, 'but not more. 1 repeat that the honour of being Chief Justice should be sufficient without an additional $1,000
salary.	.
I have not much objection to the increase for the County Court judges, but as my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) has said, there will be quite a few of them in Ontario who will be getting a large salary for doing little work. Provision has been made by the legislature for decreasing the number of County Court judges, but it will be some time before they are reduced to the required number. We cannot expect those in office to be patriotic enough to resign their positions. The legislature has also made provision for a special allowance of $1,000, and in some cases more than that, so" I submit that the County 'Court judges will be amply remunerated. I have less objection, however, to increasing their salaries than I have to increasing the salaries of the 'Superior Court judges at this time. There was no request from members of this House to increase the salaries of the Superior Court judges, and I believe they

could have waited longer, for another year at least.
Considering our comparatively small population in Canada, I think we should be very circumspect in the matter of the salaries paid our judges. It is true that in Great Britain the salaries of judges are higher than they are here, but each judge there has a jurisdiction over ten times the number of people that a judge in Canada has; and considering the number of the judges we have in this country I think we should be very sparing in the salaries we pay. We not only pay salaries to the judges while they are in office, but after fifteen years some judges retire on an allowance of two-thirds of their salaries, and after twenty-five years others retire on full pay. The public accounts will show that some judges receive $7,000 and $8,000 retiring allowance, and I know of one judge in Ontario who was receiving a salary of $7,000 and retired, not because he was incapacitated as a result of his duties; the law allowed him to retire on full salary; and now he is at the head of a large trust corporation and receives from' that corporation, in the way of salary, as much as his allowance, if not more. In the legal profession some men may receive larger incomes, but they have no retiring allowances; they themselves provide against old age. I am opposed to the principle of a retiring allowance for a judge unless he is incapacitated. With the salary he receives a judge can make provision, for the future. He can purchase an annuity the same as any member of the profession or a person in any other vocation; so that when old age overtakes him he may find himself provided for. If we are to continue the system of retiring allowances we should provide that judges should receive retiring allowances only when incapacitated through illness or old age, and we should not permit a judge to retire after fifteen years and resume practice or enter any other vocation while the country pays him a large retiring allowance.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) is often right in his contentions but sometimes he is wrong, and his argument of to-day comes under the latter description. I do not change my views in that regard, even when my friend is supported by the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx). His suggestion that the judges ought to be paid according to the amount of work that devolves upon them in. their own respective districts would be 
absolutely unworkable. It would involve a classification, and I suppose we would have to engage experts the same as we did in connection with the Civil Service. Such a classification, however, would be utterly impossible if fairness were to be aimed at. My hon. friend from North Perth is also wrong -when, he says that the county court judges of Ontario have absolutely the same work to perform as the judges of the Superior Court of Quebec in the rural districts. The mere fact that there are seventy-five judges of the county court in Ontario who administer justice in the rural distridts, while there are fifteen judges of the Superior Court of Quebec for the rural districts, shows that there is no similarity in their functions.


Arthur Meighen: That is not quite correct. The county court judges of Ontario exercise jurisdiction everywhere.


Ernest Lapointe: Even so, the difference in the number of judges-shows that they have not the same duties to perform.
I do not wish to repeat the argument I made at the opening of the discussion, but I must point out the anomaly that exists. You pay only $5,000 to each of fifteen judges of the higher court of Quebec having the same rank and jurisdiction as the judges of the cities of Montreal and Quebec, and those fifteen judges sit tour de role in review of the judgments rendered by the judges of Montreal and Quebec who are paid $2,000 more than they are.


Arthur Meighen: You have an appeal court as well.


Ernest Lapointe: We have two sorts of appeal in civil cases in Quebec. There is the court of King's Bench sitting in appeal in all cases in which over $500 is involved, and there is the Court of Review, composed of judges of the Superior Court, sitting tour de role and called by the chief justice. They sit on appeals in cases under, as well as over, $500, because litigants have the right to inscribe their cases before the Court of Review as well as before the court of King's Bench, and the costs are much higher before the court of King's Bench than before the Court of Review.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You go from the Court of Review to the King's Bench?


Ernest Lapointe: In certain cases. When the judgment of the court of first instance is confirmed by the Court of Review you cannot go to the court of appeal; you have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

When the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed by the Court of Review, you have the right to appeal to the court of King's Bench. Therefore, you have this condition-which I wish to impress upon the minister-that the fifteen judges . of the Superior Court, which is the high court of Quebec, who are appointed for the rural districts, have to go to Montreal or Quebec and sit there in review of the judgments rendered by judges of the cities of Quebec and Montreal who are paid $2,000 more than men sitting on appeals from their own judgments,
That constitutes an absurd anomaly. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice pleads that in the absence of the Minister of Justice-who comes from the province of Quebec and who has been a judge of the province-he does not feel justified in making any change as to the Quebec conditions. Well, for the last few years the answer of the hon. Minister of Justice to the claims and complaints of the Quebec bar with regard to the change I am now advocating was that if he attempted to equalize the salaries of the Quebec judiciary, or to increase the salaries of some of the judges, it would open the door and he would have to increase the salaries of the judges in all the other provinces.


Arthur Meighen: He has said that time and again to certain representations made to him.


Ernest Lapointe: He said, "If you present a Bill this year, you will have to listen to the claims of all the other provinces."


Arthur Meighen: The minister did open the door and did increase those salaries in 1916, and, I think, in the previous year.


Ernest Lapointe: He did it in the year mentioned with regard to the four judges who have been called upon to sit in the district of Montreal, although they were appointed for other districts; but he did not equalize the salaries of judges sitting in the other districts.


Arthur Meighen: He could have dealt
with Three Rivers on the same principle precisely.


Jacques Bureau: He promised he would do it when he dealt with the other judges. That is in Hansard.


Ernest Lapointe: He said he would do that when he increased the judges' salaries in the other provinces. Now that is being done, but Quebec is ignored because the Minister of Justice is not here. I submit that it is not fair. Next year I suppose
my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, or the Acting Minister of Justice, will answer, "Well, we cannot reopen the door.'' The door is closed to the province of Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: It is never closed to Quebec.	t !


Ernest Lapointe: According to the views which are expressed by the members of the present Administration.


Arthur Meighen: The latch string is out.


Ernest Lapointe: We have no representation in the present Government-we have nobody at the Council table to speak for our province. We do not complain at all-conditions will change. But we are here to have the views of the province heard, and I say that it is not fair when you are equalizing the salaries of the judges of the high courts in all the other provinces that you should ignore the judges in our own province. The minister says: "We want to give to the judges of the high courts of the other provinces the salaries that the judges have in Ontario and Quebec." Very well. The minister should have applied the same principle to some of the members of the high court of Quebec. In other words, if you equalize everywhere else you ought also to equalize in Quebec itself and place the fifteen judges of the high court on the same level as the twenty-one judges who have salaries of $7,000-on which basis the salaries of judges in the other provinces are now being adjusted by the proposed resolution.
My hon. friend has not said anything about the case of Mr. Justice Weir, to which I alluded at the opening of my remarks. This is a most glaring case. Four years ago the judge of the district of Pontiac, by an enactment of the Legislature of Quebec was compelled to remove to the city of Montreal and to sit there and administer justice in that district as well as in the district of Pontiac. He was not the only one affected; the judges of St. Hyacinthe, Beauharnois and Richelieu were also required to reside in Montreal and to administer justice in that district owing to the pressure of business there. Those three judges had their salaries increased the following year by the present Government-my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice alluded to that a few minutes ago-'but the judge of the district of Pontiac was not given the increase of salary which was given to the three others. I do not know whether he applied for it or not. That is a most unfair discrimination. Nothing can be said against

Mr. Justice Weir personally. He was Speaker of the Legislature of Quebec for many years, he was provincial Minister of [DOT] Public Works for many years, and he was Provincial Treasurer for many years. Surely we are not going to let people believe that the political affiliations of members of the judiciary before their appointment ought to be considered when the question of salary is raised? But we are liable to make people believe that. There is no reason in the world why the judge of the district of Pontiac should not be placed on the same level as the other twenty-one judges who administer justice in the district of Montreal, and the whim of the Minister of Justice should not be the basis on which to make a readjustment of salaries.
My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice said that I had endorsed the demand of my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Mclsaac) that the three judges of the high court of that province should be given the same salary as the judges of the other provinces, and he added that this discrimination has always existed and that I -have approved of it. I have never been entrusted with the duty of readjusting the .salaries of the judiciary of the several provinces. Ther are two provinces in which the judges of the high courts are higher-salaried than the judges of the high courts in the other provinces. To-day, by this resolution, that anomaly disappears except as to the province of Prince Edward Island. I submit that this is not fair to the province. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice says that the population is not so large as that of the other provinces. Well, that should not be taken into account. If three judges are too many for the administration of justice there, appoint only two, but pay them for their qualifications. They have to be as well, qualified, and to be of as high standing as the Judges of the other provinces, and the fact mentioned by my hon. friend from Kings (P.E.I.) that the present Chief Justice of Canada was a lawyer of Prince Edward Island, shows that the legal men of that province have at least the same standing and* the same qualifications as their confreres in the other provinces. But I say that the moment you introduce a law to equalize the salaries of the judges of the high courts of this country, you should put them all on the same level,- the fifteen judges of the province of Quebec as well as the three judges of Prince Edward Island who are at present being discriminated against.
[Mr 11 Lapointe. ]


Mr. J. A. STEWART:: I would like to say a word, Mr. Chairman, with reference to the point raised by yourself in connection with the exemption from income tax of the salaries of the judges. I realize that it is a matter it may not be possible to deal with in connection with the Bill which is to be founded on this resolution. .


Mr. FIELDING:: Why not, it is quite in order?


John Alexander Stewart: If it is, then I submit it should be dealt with. When the income tax Bill was before the House the point was raised, and perhaps rightly so, that so far as the judges already appointed are concerned there was really a contractual relationship between them and the country. That is that they accepted the positions which they occupy under the law as it stood at the time of their appointment. That would possibly give them what has been termed so frequently in the House of late, a vested right. Whether that vested right is any higher than the right of municipalities and of provinces, about which we heard so much yesterday in connection with the Railway Bill and which the altered condition of affairs was felt to give to the Parliament of Canada the right to interfere with, is not a matter which I intend to discuss today. The income tax law has at least established this: That judges hereafter appointed will be liable to the payment of income tax, and if that is so it seems to me that the point raised by the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) was well taken. That is, that if the relationship between this Parliament or the country, and the judges already appointed is changed by increasing the remuneration to which they were entitled at the time of their appointment, and if that is based, as the minister has explained, on the high cost of living, then I submit to the House it would be fair to assume that part of the high cost of living of to-day is the income tax which people are obliged to pay. if it is right to impose on men earning $1,000 a year an income tax and the tendency is downward- the tendency is to reduce the exemption rather .than increase it-then I submit that the judges, particularly those whose remuneration is being increased should be made liable to income tax, and it should apply to those already appointed and who fire having their salaries increased. The income tax in such cases should apply not merely to the amount of the increase but to the whole of the salary received. I submit further to the Acting Minister of Justice that the Government should take

into consideration the question of placing all the members of the Bench upon such a salary basis as would enable them to pay their share of the income tax the same as other people. I think it is unfortunate that the law as it stands should make it possible in this House, as well as in the press and in the country, to be continually referring to the fact that the judges on the bench are not contributing the same as other people in the way of income tax. This position is particularly important under the conditions as they exist to-day. Now, if it is felt that the law as it existed at the time of their appointment should exempt judges for all time from the payment of income tax, then it would be a good thing for the general conditions in the country if the salaries of the judges were put upon a basis that would enable them, or would justify the country in coming back and assessing them the same as all other members of the community for their fair share of the income tax.	,


William Stevens Fielding: I desire very cordially to endorse what the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. Stewart) has said, and what you yourself, Sir, speaking from your seat a while ago, said on this question of exemption. I offered a suggestion a few days since on the same lines.
I presumed that these resolutions had been drafted before that, otherwise it seemed to me the suggestion was so natural and proper that the minister would have provided for it. When the tax exemption privilege was embodied in the Judges Act there were no direct taxes imposed in this country, and consequently we were giving the judges no favour or consideration; there was no such tax to be exempted from. If ait the time the income tax was applied it had been made to apply to judges as well, there really would not have been any very serious breach of faith, because you would not have been imposing upon them something in regard to which they had been previously exempted. But the view was taken, and I concurred in it myself, that there was some contractual relationship between Parliament and the judges, as said by my hon. friend (Mr. Stewart); I was one of those who thought we should not interfere with the rights under that relationship, although some hon. gentlemen held a different view. However, another Income Tax Bill for the present year has provided that as respects all judges appointed hereafter they shall be liable for income tax. That is a very proper step to take. Now I
want to respectfully urge upon the Acting Minister of Justice that he put a clause in this Bill that as respects all the judges whose salaries are increased by it, they shall not get the benefit oi that"exemption.
If they have a vested right in the exemption, they have not a vested right in the increase, and I submit that they should not have both the exemption and the increase,
I therefore hope that before the minister gets his Bill through he will insert a clause providing that. as respects those to whom an increase of salary is given they shall not be exempt from income tax. Surely, there can hardly be any division of opinion in that respect. I would like also to concur in the view which the member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) expressed with regard to the retirement of judges on pensions. There has been a good deal of fine pleading as to the meaning of the provision in the existing law respecting the retirement of judges. We all recognize that the basic principle of any pension to a public servant is that he is only entitled to a pension when he can no longer discharge his duties. When he has arrived at an advanced age -and that age is fixed at seventy-five-it might in fairness be said that he has a right to his retirement; but up to that time, so long as he is physically and mentally able to discharge his duties,
I claim he has no right to a pension at all. And, if he is to receive a pension to suit his convenience, or to suit some party convenience, or to make a place for somebody else, all I can say is that that is an evasion of the true principle of a pension. I would therefore strongly urge the minister to consider, in dealing with the annuity clause, making provision for the retirement of a judge when he reaches an advanced age, because only in such a case should a judge have any right of retirement unless he is physically or mentally disqualified for the performance of his duties.


Arthur Meighen: Before dealing with the points raised by the hon. members who have just spoken I will refer to what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite regarding the province of Quebec. I would not like any hon. member to be so influenced by the persistency of the presentation by my hon. friends opposite as Ito feel there was really discrimination against the province of Quebec in this Bill, because such does not exist. If what these hon. gentlemen are asking for were to be done it would mean that any province in Con-

federation that chose to denominate all its courts "Superior" courts, no matter what class of cases they try-though they went from the top right down to the lowest class of cases tried-must as a result receive the maximum salary of the highest court of any otner province that classifies its jurisdiction. That is their argument, there can be no escape from it.


Jacques Bureau: That is not the argument at all.


Arthur Meighen: Then there is no argument on my hon. friend's part.


Jacques Bureau: The argument is that you are discriminating because you do not equalize the salaries in Quebec as you do in other provinces.


Arthur Meighen: We do not Taise them all to the maximum in every other province.


Jacques Bureau: Of the same jurisdiction, you do.


Arthur Meighen: There is only one jurisdiction in Quebec; the courts have the same jurisdiction throughout. If an addition were made to-day to the salaries of all the judges in the province of Quebec, it would be found that those salaries would be well up

-Mr. BUREAU: You are discriminating to the extent of $134,000 in favour of Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: Ontario is larger than other provinces.


Jacques Bureau: You are paying more for your judges in Ontario in proportion to population.


Arthur Meighen: I had not given close attention to this phase of the question because I believed that the ground I was standing on was sound. But counting the judges of the province one by one, I make a total of fifty-one Superior Court judges in Quebec, inclusive of four Circuit Court judges, who receive, I understand, $4,000 a year. There is nothing like that in any other province.


Jacques Bureau: You have seventy-two County Court judges in Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but a very small Superior Court Bench. If my hon. friend's argument is sound, it means that any province that chooses not to classify its jurisdiction, or chooses to extend the jurisdiction of its King's Bench, its Superior Court, right from the highest to the lowest, is then entitled to call upon the Dominion Treasury

to give to the entire Bench of that province the maximum salary provided for any other province.


Jacques Bureau: You cannot twist it about to make an argument of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: There is no twisting at all.


Jacques Bureau: There is; I will show it to you.


Arthur Meighen: Show it to me now.


Jacques Bureau: Go on; finish your argument.


Arthur Meighen: There are no intermediate jurisdictions in Quebec, as there are in Ontario and Manitoba. The great majority of the cases that are tried in Ontario and Manitoba-there are few of the very large cases; the majority involve only such amounts as $1,000, $500 and down-are tried by the County Court judges, whereas in Quebec they ar-e tried by the Superior Court judges. What will be the result if all the Superior Court judges of that province are to get the maximum salary given to the judge of a Court of Appeal in Ontario? This will indicate the real nature of the argument made by hon. gentlemen, although they put it this way: Do not discriminate between Three Rivers and the rural districts of Quebec. In view of the course that has been followed, I know of no other way of overcoming the difficulty inherent in the fact that the constitution of the courts of the province of Quebec differs from the constitution of the courts in other provinces.
I do not argue that as time advances additions should not be made to the salaries of judges Who receive the higher remuneration. It may be that Three Rivers has advanced to the point where it is so entitled; it may be that one or two other points have also arrived at that point; I do not know. Of that others are better qualified to judge than I am. But to say that all salaries should be raised, as has been suggested, is to argue against the plain facts, is to argue something that would result in an absurdity if the suggestion was adopted. On scarcely a single occasion when the Judges -Act has been changed in recent years has the door not been opened that hon. gentlemen have talked about and additions made to the Bench of the province of Quebec and to the salaries of judges there. I do not think the Judges 'Act has been amended once since I have been in this House without that being done; so that it is unfair for hon. gentle- [DOT] men opposite to try to persuade members

of the House who are not so well acquainted with conditions as they are, that there is anything in the nature of discrimination here, or that there ever has: been anything of that nature. The facts are all against that argument.
The subject of income tax is one to which I have not given special attention in connection with this measure. The purpose of this Bill is not to raise a revenue but to increase the salaries of some of the lesser paid and more deserving judges of the country. It is true that by striking out a clause of the Judges Act so far as it is applicable to those now receiving an increase of remuneration, an addition to the revenue could be made. But would that be fair? I see some objections to it; at all events there are some things that should be taken into account. If the income tax provision of the Judges Act is. made applicable from now on to all judges whose salaries are increased by the present resolution there will still be discrimination between those whose salaries are raised and put on a level with others and those whose salaries have always been at the level to which this former class approaches. I believe that the Income Tax Act which was passed this session provides that as to future appointments, judges shall be liable to that tax. It would appear to me that whatever is done would be better done by amendment to the Judges Act. I do not like the idea- of selecting certain judges who are already on the Bench and making them liable to income tax while certain other judges who are on the Bench and who have received higher salaries all along are not liable. It seems to me that for all it is worth, it would give rise to certain heartburnings on the part of those who have had the lower salaries all these years. At the same time, I realize that the argument that has hitherto prevailed, namely, that to exact a tax after appointment is in a measure a breach of faith, does not apply so strongly, if at all, to those whose salaries are at the same time increased. But chiefly for the reason that taxes are better dealt with by a Tax Bill, it occurs to me that the better way to arrive at the same result would be to make such amendments to the Income Tax Act this session or next session as may be considered equitable all round.


Mr. GLASS:: Would it be possible to
make such amendments to the Income Tax Act without breaking faith with the judges?


Arthur Meighen: Well, so far as breaking faith goes, it would be exactly the
same under the Income Tax Act as under this Act. But I do not think there would be anything in the way of breaking faith, no matter how it was done.


John Alexander Stewart: If it were not for the special exemption provisions of this Act, would the salaries not come under the Income Tax law without any special amendment?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


John Alexander Stewart: Then I submit
that the taking away of this exemption would not make it a matter of raising revenue; we are simply taking away an impediment to the raising of revenue.


Arthur Meighen: But by the Income Tax Act we take away an impediment already as regards future appointees; we simply state that notwithstanding this provision, the Income Tax Act shall apply in the case of future appointments. There is no reason ,why, if it is considered just, there should not be an amendment to provide that it should apply all round, or that it should apply in the case of all whose salaries were increased by the present Bill. What I argue is that it is better done by the Income [DOT]Tax Act than by this measure.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend adheres to that view, it means this, that it will not be done at all, whereas, by this suggestion, it will be done. I cannot understand the logic of my hon. friend when he says that it cannot be done in this Bill; that it ought to be done in an Income Tax Bill. The exemption provision is not in the Income Tax Bill; but in the Judges Act, and if it is right and legitimate in the law of the country to have the exemption in the Judges Act, what can be wrong in dealing with abolishing the exemption in the present Bill? Surely my hon. friend can see that his argument in this respect must fail. This is the right time and place to do this. It is a condition we attach to the increase of salary. I am not opposing the increase in salary; I am strongly of the opinion that the judges of the country should be generously paid, so that they may be able to uphold their dignity in the matter of their financial position and in other respects, and if the impression goes abroad that the judges of the country are going to be exempted from these burdens we do not increase the respect for the judiciary. There will, indeed, be a disposition to complain and grumble and say: While the common man in the country is taxed, the well-paid judge is not taxed. Therefore, I think my

hon. friend's argument is not strong in that respect. Then he says: There will be discrimination. We have already discriminated in respect to the future, so that there is a good precedent. There will be some discrimination in any case. The judges whose salaries are not increased by this Bill will still be exempted from tax. I would be very glad to remove the exemption altogether,-except that that would be regarded as a breach of faith. But we must be practical. If the minister approves the suggestion which has been brought forward by the hon. members for Lanark (Mr. Stewart), and Prescott (Mr. Proulx) and myself, he should deal with this matter in this Bill, and the amendment would come properly as an amendment to the Judges Act. I would strongly urge the minister to take this into consideration before the Bill reaches its final stages, and that he draft an amendment.


Arthur Meighen: The point, as I stated, was brought to my attention only last night, I think, and I have not had time to give it any thought since. I realize that what the hon. member says is right, that it would be impracticable now to amend the Income Tax Act. That is quite true. But it could be done next session and made applicable just the same, and there would be no difference whatever in the amount of the taxes collected. The question is only one of method. On principle, I am not opposed to the suggestion at all; I approve it; I do not think there should be any exception from income tax at all to judges or to anybody else; and the argument as to breach of contract makes little or no impression on my mind.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no breach of
contract in what I suggest.


Arthur Meighen: I realize that. As regards the resolution, there is no need of anything being contained in the resolution as to the amendment of the exemption clause of the Judges Act. There would be no need of a resolution to that effect at all. The Bill that will be introduced may contain a clause modifying the exemption, if it is thought fit to do so, without any reference to it in the resolutions whatever. Therefore, I suggest that the resolutions pass in their present form, be put through their readings, and I will give consideration to a modification of the exemption clause in the Bill that will be brought down as a result.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: Before that is done, I should like to make one suggestion 
with regard to what the minister has said. It would be a mistake, providing that we are doing away with exemption, to adopt the form he suggests of having that exemption referred to in the Income Tax Act rather than in this; for this reason, that a vested right is established here if we pass this Bill as suggested; and we have no moral right to do away with that vested right; the contract is just as binding on us for the additional $1,000 as it was for the former amount.


Arthur Meighen: The man is already appointed.


Levi Thomson: There is no
reason why we should do a thing a wrong way instead of a right way. If we are to do it at all, the right way is certainly to do it in this Bill. I, therefore, think it well to suggest that to the minister before we get past the resolution stage, so that he may bear the matter in mind.
As regards the question of increased salaries and those salaries being based upon the high cost of living, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) at all. The present proposed salaries are not based on the high cost of living; if they were based on that, they should be very much higher. It is an outrage that the salaries have not been in creased before this, and if any change is to be made, the increase should be greater rather than less. We are not going in the future to get the class of judges we want unless we pay them according to the services we expect them to render. If we expect to get the very best men, the only way to get them is to pay them properly. Even if the cost of living does decrease very greatly, the salaries will still not be any too high.


Edmond Proulx: I would prefer to see this exemption taken out and see it in the Tax Bill, because these judges are already appointed, and they may, therefore, contend that when they were appointed they were not subject to taxation, and that this increase is no more liable to taxation than their present salaries. As regards the question of discrimination against those appointed in the future, they are not compelled to accept the position; if they are not willing to accept the salary because it is liable to income tax, they need not accept it. It would be much better to provide for the exemption in the Income Tax Act.
M. BUREAU: The acting minister has just read a letter from the Chief Justice in

Montreal with reference to the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). It would be unfair to let this letter go on Hansard as read, without calling the attention of the committee to the fact that, subsequently to the statement made by that hon. member in this House, he rose in his place and gave an explanation and asked to have Hansard correct the report as Hansard had not reported him Tightly. I note that in the letter-I am subject to correction-the words put into the mouth of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier are "the last five judges appointed." The hon. member corrected that and stated that it should be "some of the judges appointed," instead of "the last five judges appointed." The wording "the last five judges appointed" just exactly puts the finger on a certain number of judges to whom he did not want to allude at all and who did not belong to the category of judges of whom he was then speaking. On the 19th of June, as reported on Hansard, page 3845, the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier said:
Hansard has me reported as saying " five " judges instead of " some " judges, and as a result X understand that five of the most recently appointed gentlemen have taken this to mean that my remarks were intended to apply to them. These judges are: Justices Allard. Tellier, Duclos, DeLorimier and Loranger. I wish to say that I did not have in mind any of these gentlemen. They are expeditious in the handling of their cases.
And so on. He explains the whole situation. I say this in justice to that hon. gentleman so that nobody will remain under the impression that he was still subject to the corrections contained in the letter which the minister read, and that he did not make any explanation to the House.
The minister states that we have allowed this matter of judges' salaries to pass from year to year when the Estimates were going through, and that, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, he does not want to take the matter up. Hansard will show that year after year I have raised this question of discrimination against the judges of the rural districts in the province of Quebec, and that the present Minister of Justice has stated: We do not want to open the question at this time because it would mean that we would have to equalize the salaries of the judges all over the Dominion, but when the matter comes up your request will be taken into consideration. He admitted, as the Acting Minister of Justice has admitted, that I had a good case. You may say that the district
of Three Rivers is an isolated case. I speak of Three Rivers because I practise there, and I know all the ins and outs of the judicial system in that district.. From hearsay, and from the general expansion of business that has taken place, I would judge that the same might be said of Sherbrooke, and the district of St. Francis, but I could not give details in those cases because I do not practise there. I know, however, that water-powers are being developed on the St. Francis river and case after case is decided in that district of the same kind as are decided in the district of Three Rivers. I plead for Three Rivers not because the district is exceptional, but simply because it is the district where I practise and I know everything about judicial matters there. The reasoning of my hon. friend-what I call the twist-is this: He assumes that all that need be done to get a salary of $7,000, is for the province to say: W'e will consider all the judges as belonging to the Superior Court. Is that correct?


Arthur Meighen: I said that that would be required to be done if the argument presented was sound.


Jacques Bureau: At the time of confederation there were judicial systems established in the province of Quebec and Ontario and those systems, it was taken for granted, would continue on the same basis, with this modification, that the number of judges required to administer justice under those systems should be increased as required by the development of either province. When this matter was discussed the Fathers of Confederation knew very well that we had one court of unlimited jurisdiction. They knew on the other hand that Ontario had county court judges. My hon. friend wants to give the impression to the committee that all the province has to do is to legislate. But that is not all the province has to do. We have the right to create additional judgeships, but we cannot fill them until the Federal Government says it is necessary to make the appointments. No legislation can be taken seriously that would destroy the basis upon which confederation was established. No reasonable man would judge the standing of a court simply by the name which the Provincial Legislature chose to give to that court. It was not because the judges bore a certain name that their salaries were fixed; it was on account of the very foundation of the judicial system which existed in the provinces at the time of Confederation. This is the system that has existed

with us. The test to apply is very easy. Take the population of Ontario and the population of Quebec, and see how much it costs to administer justice in the respective provinces. I venture to say that the cost of administering justice in the province of Quebec is no higher than the cost of administering justice in the province of Ontario, and if this legislation is passed the cost of administering justice in the province of Quebec is going to be less than in the province of Ontario. I shall refer to these figures again in the House. What I am objecting to now is the fact that my hon. friend proceeds on a hypothesis which is not reasonable. It is not reasonable to suppose that by changing the name of a court you change the functions of that court.


Arthur Meighen: I said, change the jurisdiction, make it unlimited.


Jacques Bureau: Change the jurisdiction, if you will; that makes no difference at all. I do not know what the jurisdiction of the county courts in Ontario is, but you have seventy-two judges there to look after these cases at a salary of $3,000 each, and it is now proposed to increase their salaries by $1,000 each. The combined salaries are $288,000, at $4,000 each, or $216,000 at $3,000 each.


Arthur Meighen: Before any attempt was made to increase the salaries, a letter was addressed to the Attorney-General of the province of Ontario, and a request was made that provision bp made for reducing the bench of Ontario, because we were convinced that it was much larger than there was any need for. That provision was made and is going into effect now; it is partially in effect already, because certain judges have passed away, and there are several vacancies in Ontario now. It will go into effect continuously, until the number will be reduced to forty-five.


Jacques Bureau: We do not ask for any reduction. You were willing to pay those judges in Ontario whether there was work for them or not. You cannot decrease the number of judges in the province of Que-bee because we have hardly enough now for the work there is to do. If it is necessary to put aside so many judges in the province of Ontario there must have been something wrong in the appointing of these judges, or with the legislature. Of course, I know nothing about it, but perhaps the reason is that Ontario is going backwards so far as litigation is concerned; I should be sorry to see that. But that does not

affect our system. You paid this money whether services were rendered or not, and I thinik if you reduced the number of county court judges in Ontario by half you would not be any worse [DOT] off. It is not a question of name or jurisdiction, but a question of carrying on the work of the country. I say that the judges in the province of Quebec who reside outside of the cities of Montreal and Quebec "are treated with discrimination in the matter of salary. I am not asking for any increase in salary. My point is this: Here are these men doing just as much work, more work in fact, being handicapped in the exercise of their functions. They have not the same facilities and the same advantages as the judges who get the higher salaries; and we ask that they be put on the same footing. The answer is: No, the Minister of Justice is not here. That is not fair. I for one feel that in the interests of the country I should not vote for the resolution as it stands, although I want to be understood that I am in favour of everything in it; but what is omitted from it I consider just as important, if not more important, as a matter of equity and justice than what it contains.
These men have to keep up a higher standard of living than men of ordinary rank, and I do not see why, when every one else from the foot of the social ladder to the top is being increased, these particular persons should not also receive increases, if for no other reason ithan the high cost of living. Our legal system as regards salaries was established at Confederation and has not changed. The salaries were based on conditions existing then, but conditions have changed considerably. Can my hon. friend tell me why it is thalt the judge for the district of Pontiac, when conditions are absolutely the same in every detail as those of St. Hyacinthe, Beauharnois and Richelieu, should not be put on the same footing and his salary increased to $7,000 the same as the others? This man is just as qualified, and the only reason that will appeal to any rational man is that the discrimination is made on account of his political activities and clashes that he may have had with the present Minister of Justice in former years.


Arthur Meighen: Is that Mr. Justice Weir?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I must say that I did not know, until I heard the hon. member speak, what the political proclivities of that gentleman were.


Ernest Lapointe: I told you a few minutes ago that he had been provincial treasurer of Quebec, and speaker of the legislature, and had been active in politics.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I did not catch that remark when it was made. The hon. gentleman is quite wrong in that regard. The only reason was that I did not think it was for me as Acting Minister of Justice to pass upon the relative merits and duties of judges of Quebec. If it had been a matter of general increases all round I should have put it into the Bill; but as it was a matter of a particular advancement I thought it was more appropriate to leave it to the minister.


Jacques Bureau: Every province receives the benefit of the Bill except Quebec. My hon. friend just now said-when the member for Kamouraska made the statement that it was because we were not represented -that the latch string was out. We do not want to have any string on this Government, nor do we want the Government (to have any string on us. We do not complain about not being represented. We just present our case on its merits and urge the fairness of it. Whatever the reasons may be, the conclusions have to be drawn by every member of the House and every individual outside. It can be shown by Hansard that the Minister of Jusltice (Mr. Doherty) has always said that when the general revision of judges' salaries was made this matter would be taken into consideration. My hon. friend took it up this session for the purpose of availing himself of the excuse that might exist that the Minister of Justice being from Quebec, he would leave it to him to decide this question. If he brought the matter up to take advantage of that excuse, I can draw my own conclusions. On the other hand, the hon. gentleman knows very well that the Minister of Justice, or any Minister of Justice, wTill not open up the question of judges' salaries for the purpose of dealing with one province.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very anxious that this resolution should go through, and if there is any further discussion it can be had on the Bill. As far as I am concerned, the resolution has some disappointments for me, but taking it all in all it is not. so very bad. I hope the resolution will be permitted to go through to-night.


Ernest Lapointe: There are many gentlemen from Quebec who are not here today and who desire to express their views on the resolution.
269	%


Arthur Meighen: The Bill will be up and will have three readings, and there will be the committee stage.


Jacques Bureau: It has not been the custom this session, at least so far, to have a discussion on the second reading of a Bill. The Bill is just read the second time and the House goes into committee on it, and you cannot discuss certain matters when you are going through the Bill clause by clause. My -hon. friend the minister and other lawyers know better than others that when you discuss a Bill in Committee you are bound by the rules to confine yourself to the clause under consideration. On second reading you have to discuss the principle of the Bill and keep to generalities. We are in favour of the principle of the Bill, but the only time you can have a discussion such as would cover the matters hon. members desire to deal with is on the resolution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am supporting the passing of the resolution on the understanding that whatever any hon. member has to say can be said later on.


Ernest Lapointe: Our point is that the judges of Quebec should be given the same increase, to equalize their salaries, with those of other judges. That cannot be done except by way of resolution before the introduction of the Bill. If the resolution is permitted to pass we shall be precluded from changing the Bill in that respect, and to remedy the matter another resolution would have to be introduced.


Arthur Meighen: If this resolution passes the hon. gentleman will be quite free when the Bill is under consideration to move an amendment if he chooses.


William Stevens Fielding: You could not increase the salaries-.


Jacques Bureau: We will not fall into your trap.


Arthur Meighen: There will be no trap.


Jacques Bureau: You cannot increase the salaries without a resolution.


Arthur Meighen: If hon. gentlemen have any doubts I am prepared to continue now and hear the amendment so that the committee can pass upon it. Hon. gentlemen have spoken all afternoon and presented no amendment. We have made no progress-, but have had a repetition of one phase of the argument.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you. That is very fair on the part of the minister.


Jacques Bureau: We can carry it over to Monday.


Arthur Meighen: I am prepared to go on now. My recollection is that we were not to sit to-night, but I am prepared to stay.


Jacques Bureau: The Prime Minister said that the House would not sit after six o'clock.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen, the House adjourned at six o'clock.
Monday, June 30, 1919.