1927-03-25

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on railways, canafe and telegraph lines.-Mr. Young (Saskatoon).
Fourth and fifth reports of the select standing committee on standing orders.-^Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville).
Second report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.

Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi) moved:: That the second report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	,


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 216 (from the Senate), for the relief of Queenie Isofoel Parks.-Mr. Both-well.
Bill No. 217 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Shedrick Phillips.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).

Bill No. 218 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lavina Harrison.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton
West).
Bill No. 219 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marretta Isobelle Grose Leach.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 220 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mabelle Amelia Bulmer.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 221 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Lauron Garfield Evans.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 222 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ernest Arthur Kingston.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 223 (from the Senate), for the relief of Norah Louise Patricia Campbell Chauvin, -Mr. Garland (Carleton).

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Will the government inform the
House when they contemplate holding the byelection in North Huron?
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I am sorry I cannot give any information to my hon. friend, but I will submit the question to the Prime Minister.



CARILLON PALLS POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Will the government tell us what its intention is with respect to the renewal or otherwise of the lease to the National Hydro of the Carillon water-power, and if the lease is to be renewed will the government give the House an opportunity of studying the terms and discussing the matter?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways):	I hope all these matters
can be discussed when a certain bill goes before the committee on railways and canals, and I will be prepared then to indicate the intentions of the government.



OLD AGE PENSION BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Following up an item appearing in the Ottawa press this morning to the effect that the Old Age Pension Bill was passed in the Senate yesterday, will the minister inform us if he is aware of it, and if he has received any official notice in any way other than the press report that such is the case?


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: My information is that the Old Age

Supreme Court Act
Pension Bill has received the third reading and that not only has it passed the Senate but it has reformed the Senate.



ALLEGED POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: I
wish to quote an item appearing in the Vancouver Province, which reads:
Ottawa, March 19, 1927.-Alexander I. Fisher, Fernie, B.C. has been named commissioner to investigate charges of political partisanship preferred against government employees in British Columbia. Official announcement of the appointment of Mr. Fisher is made here. Mr. Fisher was formerly provincial member for Fernie.
Will the minister inform me what the duties of this man will be, at whose recommendation he was appointed, and if it is possible, may we have the correspondence leading up to his appointment laid on the table?


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: Mr. Fisher was asked to act as commissioner to investigate certain charges of partisanship in the service. I may inform my hon. friend that Mr. Fisher has not found it convenient to act and that another commissioner will be appointed to make the investigation.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: I beg to lay on the table of the House a resolution passed by the municipal council of Burlington, Halton county, Ontario, against the renewal of the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company and opposing Bill No. 78.
SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 141, to amend the Supreme Court Act.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I desire to say a few words with respect to this bill. Bills [DOT]Nos. 139, 140 and 141 all contain the same subject matter and are really collateral amendments effecting the main purpose which the government has in view, and I trust I will be excused if I make one statement with regard to the three of them. I think every member of this House will be in favour of any efficient measures which are taken to create public confidence throughout the country in the constitution and administration of the Supreme Court of Canada. I notice in the report of the Imperial conference that it is suggested-and in
fact the assent of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Justice to the recommendations of that report would seem to imply,-that, tentatively at least, they have agreed to the appointment of a sub-committee of the Imperial conference to inquire into, report upon and make recommendations with regard to amendments to certain imperial statutes, which give the statutory right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to hear appeals from the appellate courts of the various provinces of Canada, and from the Supreme Court of Canada. A few years ago this parliament passed an amendment to the criminal code which now appears as section 1025. It provides that:
Nothwithstanding any royal prerogative, or anything contained in the Interpretation Act or in the Supreme Court Act, no appeal shall be brought in any criminal case from any judgment or order of any court in Canada to any court of appeal or authority, by which in the United Kingdom appeals or petitions to His Majesty in Council may be heard.
It was contended in this House at the time and subsequently in some of our courts that section 1025 did prevent the king in council from granting special leave to appeal in Canadian criminal cases. The constitutionality of the enactment recently came before the Privy Council in the ease of Nathan vs. the King, which is reported in 1926 appeal cases, page 482, and the Privy Council decided it was void ab initio. They declared that the ancient prerogative right of each citizen of the British Empire to appeal to the king in council had been embodied in certain statutory enactments of the Imperial parliament, notably the Judicial Committee Acts of 1833 and 1844, which expressly provided for the admission of any appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from any judgments, sentences, decrees or orders of any court of justice within any British colony or possession abroad. Those acts also empowered the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, by sequestration of real and personal estate, goods, chattels and effects wheresoever lying within the dominions of His Majesty, to enforce obedience to orders of the Judicial Committee. I infer from the report of the Imperial Conference Committee that this government, at least as its views were expressed at the conference by the Prime Minister and by his colleague the Minister of Justice, contemplate amendment by the British parliament of those Judicial Committee Acts in such wise as to restrict, if not abolish entirely, the right of appeal from the Dominion courts to the king in council.
I do net think, that I would object to very decided restrictions upon the'right of appeal to the Privy Council in criminal cases; nor in commercial cases, nor involving ques-
Supreme Court Act


Ernest Lapointe: Based, not upon his
present salary, but upon his salary as it was before the last increase.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, based upon the salary
which he accepted at the time of his appointment.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know anything
of the domestic affairs of the Supreme Court of Canada; but if, for instance, it is intended to remove that judge at eighty-six years of age. it seems to me that chapter 29 of the statutes of 1922 fully covers the case and provides the machinery necessary to effect that judge's abdication of office. Let me read section 26a:
Any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court in Canada, or any local judge in admiralty of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or any judge of a county court, who is found by the governor in council, upon report of the Minister of Justice, to have become, by reason of age or infirmity, incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office, shall, notwithstanding any tiling in this act contained, cease to be paid or to receive or to be entitled to receive any further salary, if the facts respecting the incapacity or disability are
Supreme Court Act

first made the subject of inquiry and report in the manner hereinafter provided, and the judge is given reasonable notice of the time and place appointed for the inquiry, and is afforded an opportunity by himself or his counsel of being heard thereat and of cross-examination of witnesses and of adducing evidence on his own behalf.
The act also provides for a commission of inquiry', and makes further provision that His Majesty may grant unto-
-any judge who has been so found by the Governor in Council to be incapacitated or disabled by reason of age or infirmity as aforesaid, and who resigns his office, the annuity which he might have received if he had resigned at the time when he ceased to be entitled to receive any furthr salary.
Simply because a few men become incapacitated at the early age of seventy-five, why should we provide that all men, no matter what their physical or mental capacity may be at that age, shall be retired from these high judicial positions? I find that another judge who has been sitting on the Supreme Court for nine years, a very estimable gentleman and a personal friend of mine for many years before he accepted his high position, will be seventy-three on September 30 next; two years more and that judge, right in his prime, will be compelled to retire on a pension. I find that another justice of the Supreme court who has served two years will, in seven years, be seventy-five years of age, and he will then be retired in like manner.
For my part, I think that in the retiring' of these two judges to whom I have referred we will be retiring a great portion of the judicial experience and intelligence now controlling the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The bill also provides for the appointment of an extra judge. At .present six judges hold office; if I remember correctly five constitute a quorum, leaving one spare judge. Would it not be far better to restrict the number to six and to increase the salaries of the remaining judges? I know there is some hesitation on the part of certain members of the House to increase the salaries of those who hold high judicial positions, but the fact is that in the United States they pay higher salaries to the judges sitting on many of their state courts than we pay to the judges sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada. My ideal would ibe to have a Supreme court bench constituted of the very best legal intelligence that this country can produce, and I submit that the lawyers of Canada are not inferior in intelligence to the lawyers who plead before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council I Mr. Cahan.3
or to many of the judges who sit on that great court in London.
Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada should be kept entirely non-political if possible. I am not advocating that I should receive such an appointment even if I were qualified and entitled to it, because under the reasonable conventions which exist in our province no English-speaking Protestant from Quebec has ever sat on the Supreme court, and in my opinion none will ever sit on that court for years to come. Therefore I have no personal interest in the matter, but I would like to see the salaries of the judges of that court made higher, so as to afford adequate inducement to the very best practising legal talent in the country to accept such appointments. Until we render that court entirely non-political and until we offer inducements which will bring to that court the very best legal talent Canada possesses, the country as a whole will not have the entire confidence in that court it should have, and therefore I would like to see its position improved in every possible way.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would the hon.
gentleman permit [DOT] a question? Am I to understand that the only way of securing the best legal talent is by means of a very large salary? Are there none who would be willing to contribute their services for the good of the country?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no doubt there are,
but sometimes those who are most vociferious in offering their services for the benefit of the country are the least qualified to perform these duties. Nevertheless, there is a further point which might be considered by my hon. friend. The practising lawyers in our large cities undertake very onerous responsibilities, and in many cases the cost of living in those large cities and the cost of carrying on their life work render their financial burdens very heavy. Sometimes it is very difficult indeed (o induce men of high standing in the profession, in view of his personal commitments to accept the very meagre salaries that we now grant to members of the Supreme Court of Canada for judicial services.


Mr. HEAPS:: AVhat is the meagre salary
now?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I remember correctly the salary as fixed by this bill is $15,000 for the chief justice and $12,000 for the other justices.


An hon. MEMBER:: You think that is
meagre?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do think that is meagre.
I do not wish to be personal, but in the pro-

Supreme Court Act
fession in. the city of Montreal those who are by public opinion the better qualified for that service, those whose professional services are in constant demand, would average a net salary of at least $30,000 or $40,0G0 a year or more. No man who occupies a high position in his profession in Montreal, Toronto or in any other large city can live and maintain his position in the professional and social life of the city on a salary of $12,000 a year.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Does he not think that other people than those engaged in this very lofty profession may have the same desire to maintain a certain status? Would he not feel like extending this same generous spirit to all the other classes in Canada?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I venture to say to the hon. member for Southeast Grey that if she is mak-' ing her inquiry in a personal sense, I have given of the very best of my life, as much as any other man living, to the service of the very class of people to whom she refers.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I was not thinking of the matter in a personal way at all. I certainly did not mean my observations to apply personally but to the class for whom the hon. member is solicitous. The hon. member speaks of " the meagre salary of $15,000." I am sure the people of Canada would be much amused to hear that. I suppose even those people having this meagre salary must have a pension in order to tide them over their old age.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so; they should have a pension. I still think, notwithstanding what my hon. friend has said, that the best service this parliament can perform for the class of people to whom she refers is to ensure that the highest intelligence this country can produce will qualify the judges who sit on the appellate tribunals of Canada.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Do you not think that an easier and quicker method would be to so frame the laws of the country that persons of common sense can understand them?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is very much better to have the laws written so that persons of common sense may understand them, but it has not always been found possible in the history of the country to provide sufficient intelligence for the readers so that they can understand laws however plainly they are written.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Do you not think that having so many lawyers make the laws has something to do with the fact that they are framed in such a way that it takes a lawyer of acute mind to read them?
Mr. CAHAjN:	I have no douibt those
opinions are entertained by the hon. member for Southeast Grey-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: They certainly are.
Mr.' CAHAN: It simply discloses, I think, a lack of profound reflection upon the matter. My hon. friend has admirable common sense, we all know that, but I have seen very few speeches in which her common sense has elucidated the questions at issue before this parliament in such a way as to provide more plainly written statutes than we have at present. This is my plea and I think a grave responsibility rests upon the Minister of Justice who is leading the House this afternoon. The need is for the very best Supreme court that we can provide. It is absolutely essential for the welfare of Canada, and it is still more essential if, in the coming years, we are to limit, or restrict or abrogate appeals from our courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I believe for one that in respect of purely criminal matters, in respect of many classes of commercial matters, the sooner appeals to the Privy Council are restricted the better it will be for the litigants of this country. I do not include constitutional questions in that, T do not include questions arising as between province and province either, because I do not think that we have reached that development of the spirit of unity in this country which would warrant us at the present time in limiting or abrogating appeals to the Privy Council in the last two classes of cases named. Confidence is a plant .of slow growth; and we who sit on this side of the House all look forward to the time, we hope in the not distant future, when such confidence will be created between all sections and all classes of this country, that we will not have to look abroad for a judicial arbitrator to decide in respect of our own local or political differences.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: When this bill was last before the House I think the minister promised to bring down certain information. I suppose he has that information here to-day. He stated, I think, that representations had been made to him by bar associations, and by members of the judiciary asking that this legislation should be passed. I think the minister promised that he would furnish information in regard to those representations.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I said that I would make a statement as to the number of cases in which it had been found necessary to call in judges ad hoc to sit in recent years, and I intend to do that when the bill is in committee.
Supreme Court Act


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand that one of the judges of the Supreme court has been unable to act for over two years, one of the judges referred to by the last speaker. I was under the impression that on a previous occasion when this matter was discussed the minister did say that representations had been made to him by bar associations and members of the judiciary.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend had better let the bill go to committee if we are to have these mutual conversations. They cannot proceed on a second reading of the bill.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand the minister promised to do exactly what I have stated.	,


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no. I said that the matter had been .called to my attention many times by both members of the bar and of the judiciary, and I have been considering it and have discussed it with various people. I never said I would bring in anything official and I do not intend to.


William Garland McQuarrie: I must have misunderstood the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: May I ask if any
representations in this connection have been made by the Canadian Bar Association?


Ernest Lapointe: Not officially.


William Garland McQuarrie: I did not catch the answer.	[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: I said "no", not as to that.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the minister
care to say-


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is a motion for the second reading of a bill at which time only one speech can be made by an hon. member, and there can be no icross-examination. The hon. member may put such questions as he desires when the bill is in committee.


William Garland McQuarrie: I was simply asking
a question.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Before the motion is put and the bill goes to committee perhaps it would be very appropriate for me to make a few observations with respect to' a matter that I think sometimes is much misunderstood. It is alleged that the legal profession is more or less a close corporation, and that there is a very great desire on the part of its members to ensure large salaries for judges. I think those

who hold that view have an entirely erroneous impression with respect to the matter. I have no intention of ever becoming a member of the bench and therefore, although I am a member of the profession, I think I can speak with some degree of fairness with respect to the matter. The real difficulty lies in the fact that judges are apart really-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: sometimes has been; and so it has been found desirable that you should relieve them of any possibiliy of temptation, on the one hand, and get men of the highest qualifications, on the other, men of professional rectitude, men of character, men of the highest attainments to grace the positions they occupy not only by reason of t'heir learning and ability, but by reason also of their character.
That is, the effort that is being made in this country. Sometimes we have made appointments that have been political in their character. That is true; both sides have done it. It has been the reward sometimes for candidates who have run elections. Men have run elections, gone into a campaign, faced a constituency and said:	Well, this is
the only sure way by which I can get a judgeship. I know of cases like that, and so does my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and I regret to say that in every province in Canada you will probably find on the bendh one or two meD whose appointments have been made solely because of the services they have rendered of a political character. But if we make the salaries, the emoluments and the pension that attaches to office adequate then with the realization that work well done for the state will be recognized not only by the state but by the community in which the judges live, we may be able to break diown slowly the pull and the pressure that comes from political considerations in appointments of this character and get our best minds on the bench.
What the 'hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) said with respect to some men having done their best work at an advanced age is certainly very encouraging to one of my years, and1 I heard his observations with the greatest interest and pleasure, but I do sometimes think that when men have attained the age of seventy-five or eighty years there is a strain upon their mental powers in a country such as this that makes it undesirable for them to continue the administration of justice. I have held that view for a great many years. I do not say that seventy-five is the age; it is difficult to fix, because we have striking examples in every part of the country of men who at seventy-five and perhaps over have done their very best work. But these are the exceptions.
I should like further to say that it is not fair to institute a comparison between a judge in an older civilization and a judge in a country such as this. Judges in England are appointed from t'he barrister branch of the profession. They have had none of the drudgery of solicitors. Men in Canada who practise the profession usually practise both 
branches; they are both attorneys, solicitors and barristers, and if you appoint these men to the bench I think in most cases it will be found that before they reach the age of eighty there is a conscious or unconscious failing of t'heir mental powers. I do know that one distinguished member of the bar in this country declined judicial office because he said to me he felt that at his age-he had not attained eighty, but he was over seventy-he would not be able to discharge his duties in such a way as would be creditable either to himself or to the country. A former Minister of Justice declined to appoint to the bench anyone over seventy years of age, because he felt that it was improper to appoint to the bench anyone over that age, which may or may not have been correct. I do not desire to express a definite opinion with regard to the age, as between seventy-five or eighty, but I think you will find there is a general concensus of opinion among litigants in the country that when a judge has attained the age of seventy-five he has, not wishing to be unkind, outlived his usefulness. There are cases where this condition does not apply and there always will be such cases. But speaking generally when men have discharged the difficult duties and borne the wear and toil of professional work to the extent to which a successful practitioner does, at the age of seventy-five I think they should be willing to take a holiday and enjoy a well-earned pension. Whether seventy-five is the exact age or not, I am not prepared to say, but I do feel from my own observation that at the age of eighty no gentleman should be occupying a seat on the bench. That is my personal view.
Now with respect to this particular measure which will have the effect of retiring at once a member of the Supreme Court of Canada, I have had grave doubts in my own mind as to the soundness of legislation that terminates, in terms of age, a contract between the state and a judge which was not a condition of the contract when it was made. I mentioned my view to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice yesterday, because it will be remembered that under the British North America Act a judge is appointed during good behaviour or for life and when his commission is issued one of the terms of the commission is that very provision that he should hold office during good behaviour or life.
Now to add to that contract in reference to an existing judge a term whereby at the age of seventy-five he vacates office, or if he has already attained that age, he must vacate office, is really to create a breach of that contract by legislative authority, and

Supreme Court Act
it may well be that the question, of compensation will be alleged to be involved, I, myself, presented that view to the Privy Council in connection with a icase that arose in the province of Alberta, and the court then held that it was competent for the appointing power to select, because of the terms of that particular legislation, without involving a breach of contract, a particular person to be chief justice of the court in question, although there had been a chief justice under the previous legislation. That was a matter arising under a particular statute. This parliament has power undoubtedly to pass this legislation. It has not power to limit the age of provincial judges, because it is provided in the statute itself that no limitation of age shall involve their removal from office. That is altogether different from the federal court. This parliament could, if it so desired, abolish the Supreme Court of Canada, it could abolish the Exchequer Court of Canada, and it could provide by reorganizing the constitution of the court, that no person could hold office after he reached the age of seventy-five, but that would involve the destruction of the court. What we are now doing involves a breach of the contract between the individual who holds office at the present time and the state, because his patent of office declares that he shall hold office during life or during good behaviour. He is still alive. His behaviour is not questioned, and the state has now said that because he attained the age of seventy-five years some time ago, he shall now forfeit or surrender his office-that by virtue of the statute his office is abolished, notwithstanding his patent. I suggested that it might be desirable to consider the question as to how far this parliament was committed under these circumstances to pay him during his lifetime the salary attaching to his office. I only mention that. I do not suggest it in any sense as being critical of the measure, but I suggest it because it is involved in the discussion of this matter. I think the minister should carefully consider that point. He was good enough to mention it to me yesterday and I have given some thought to the matter since.
May I say to my hon. friends to my left, do not imagine for a moment that those who belong to the legal profession urge large salaries and retiring allowances to the judiciary in order to advance their own interests. This is not a dose profession. It is a profession to which you will find, in the west particularly, that young men who have made their way by dint of toil and study have been attracted. It is important from the 32649-99
standpoint of the men who toil with their hands that there should be at all times in the country the utmost confidence in the courts of justice and confidence is begotten of a recognition and realization of knowledge, learning, ability and character. These attributes are of importance to judges. They are the instruments in the administration of justice. The essential quality of the Goddess of Justice is impartiality and justice is an attribute of God. If you are to have justice administered efficiently and faithfully, if you are to have confidence in the judges of our courts, to rely upon their judgments and to feel that the differences between labour and capital and the great issues involving property and men's liberties, privileges and lives are honestly and justly dealt with, it can be done only by attracting to the bench men with the qualifications and attributes to which I have alluded. It is for these reasons and not for any monetary consideration that those of us who have any hope and desire to attain judicial office do urge as strongly as we may that this high court of parliament should recognize that those who administer the law should be beyond suspicion and should be amply protected by sufficient salaries while they are able to discharge their duties and ample pensions when they are unable to do so.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: My hon. friend referred to political influence at times affecting the appointment of judges. Does my hon. friend think that if the judges to be appointed were at least nominated by the bar association it would tend to eliminate that undue political influence which at times creeps in?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
Wetaskiwin has raised a most interesting point in his question, and I am bound to say that one former Minister of Justice considered it his duty in connection with his appointments to the bench to consult the attorney general of the province and in one or two instances was good enough to consult the local bar association of the respective provinces. There is no doubt-and I can say this without giving offence to anyone-that every man who has held the onerous position of Minister of Justice-and I held it for a few weeks or a few months-can well realize how difficult it is to escape the pressure of politicians urging the appointment of a man whose sole qualification was that he ran an election and lost it, and having run one election did not desire to run another. That is one of the difficulties a minister of justice is faced with;

Supreme Court Act

therefore we must have sympathy with the Minister of Justice in those circumstances. He usually shields himself behind the excuse that he has consulted his colleague from the province from which the appointment is to be made, and that colleague, not being a lawyer,' yields to the line of least resistance, and appointments are made about which it would not be well to say too much. But I think it would aid in securing the type of appointment I have mentioned if recourse were had to the bar associations or the law associations in the various provinces in respect of matters of that kind. It will be remembered that almost a scandal arose in connection with some judicial appointments in western Canada during the last ten years by reason of public protests being made against those appointments. Nothing is better calculated to lower the standard of the judicial office and its efficiency and effectiveness than to have that happen. We all know that and will agree upon it. For instance, it is difficult to get the public to believe that a man who has occupied a position in politics during which he has been proven to have been interested in transactions of a doubtful character, should be rewarded by appointment to the bench. That is one of the things with respect to which my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin has spoken publicly, and I am sure my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) will make some observations along the same line.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, two of the
most eminent legal gentlemen in this House have taken the opportunity of passing a eulogy upon the bench and making a plea for adequate remuneration of the men who accept judgeships. Perhaps it is not out of place that one who has been endeavouring to represent the interests of that class which the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) denominates the " common people " should have a word or two to say in this matter. For while the judges may find it necessary to accept the very meagre salary of $15,000 a year, it must be remembered that it is the " common people " who pay the bills.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my friend pardon me? He refers to judges receiving salaries of $15,000 a year. As a matter of fact only the Chief Justice of Canada is paid that salary. He also acts as administrator in the absence from Ottawa of the governor general, for which he does not receive any additional remuneration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly the Minister of Justice would explain the nature of

the functions exercised by the chief justice for which he receives an extra $5,000 as deputy governor general.


Ernest Lapointe: He takes the place of His Excellency the Governor General when the latter is absent from the capital as he is at the present time. While acting in that capacity the chief justice has to read over all the orders in council and sign them and to exercise the prerogative of mercy. I think my friend will admit that this is >an important function.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Of course I presume he is able to do this because his other duties are not too onerous. We have had the doctrine stated in this House very clearly that you cannot possibly attract legal gentlemen enjoying a lucrative practice without offering very large salaries. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a rather deplorable condition if such men when needed for the service of their country refuse to render that service except in return for eight, ten or fifteen thousand dollars a year. We were told during the war that every man was exjpected to devote his time to the service of his country for $1.10 a day. For the life of me I cannot quite see why the service required from privates during war time should be so very different from that which is supposed to be rendered by men of high moral ideals during peace time.
The member for West Calgary suggests it is essential that work to be well done should be well remunerated. I agree with that principle. But I would point out that that is not the principle commonly applied to the everyday affairs of life. For instance, the average wage paid in Canada is less than $1,000 a year. Will anyone say that with the cost of living what it is to-day $1,000, a year is an adequate sum on which a man can bring up a family? The evidence given before one of our parliamentary committees last session was to the effect that an annual income of $2,200 was necessary to maintain an ordinary family according to recognized Canadian standards.
Why is it that we are asked on the one hand to give these comparatively large salaries to a few individuals on the principle that otherwise we cannot possibly attract the right class of men, and on the other hand to allow large numbers of people to live below the standards of a decent subsistence? It is easily accounted for, of course-these poor people are driven to accept what they can get. They do not take up carpentering, railroading, farming or any other work because they are attracted to it, but because

Supreme Court Act
they cannot earn a living in any other way. It is quite possible that if the large salaries paid to lawyers could be cut down a little in the first instance some of them might be induced to become judges.
We are told that our judges have social and other obligations. Well, I have no objection to their trying to maintain as high a standard of' living as possible, but I would point out that there are large numbers of people in this country who have not even the means to secure the common necessities and amenities of life. It may be all very well for the judge to live in a highly restricted residential area; but on the other hand I would urge that the ordinary workingman ought to be assured at least a decent cottage, if you like, where he can live with his family in comfort and send his children to school. It is said that a great deal depends upon the proper dispensation of justice; but if children are forced at a tender age to go out on the street to earn a living because of the abominable conditions in their homes and the low standard of living there prevailing, why, I wculd say that we are pursuing a policy that inevitably will make work for our judiciary. If it is suggested that it might be a good thing to do away with some of these undesirable conditions immediately We are told that that would be paternalistic legislation. That term paternalistic always amuses me. If this proposal for judges' pensions is not paternalistic,-the caring for these poor gentlemen who have to maintain social and other obligations,-I do not know what it is.
It is further stated by the member for West Calgary that we ought to give good salaries in order that judges may overcome the temptations incident to their position, that otherwise they might be induced to accept bribes for the subversion of justice. Well, it is only two or three years ago since we revised the Bank Act, and at that time representations were made to us that the bank clerks were living on such small salaries that they were not even permitted to marry. And yet those clerks hold fairly responsible positions. I think we might then have passed legislation to enable those men to form an organization which would secure to them adequate salaries. But no, we could do nothing for them, even although we were told that some of them by reason of their meagre remuneration were tempted to commit acts of theft.	All I am asking for, Mr. Speaker,-and I am serious in this-is that we in this House should seek to legislate equally for the well-to-do and for the poor people of this country.
I cannot allow an opportunity of this kind to pass without urging that those of us who are trying to represent the common people and their interests must not permit legislation of this kind to go through without calling attention to the special pleas that have been advanced, and the principles that have been enunciated. I would say that when other cases come up these hon. gentlemen in ordinary fairness, ought to recognize that they should be decided according to the selfsame principles which they have been advocating in this chamber. It is of course quite understandable that if many lawyers receive emoluments amounting to $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year, they would hesitate to take the smaller remuneration offered to judges. But that is only the beginning of the question. Again I would ask seriously why lawyers who are in what the labour men would call a union, a closed shop, should be permitted to receive such large salaries. I know it is very desirable that they shall maintain certain social standards and all the rest of it, but the point is that they are allowed to receive these large salaries and to maintain these social standards because of laws which are placed upon the statute books by this parliament and because of certain privileges which are granted to the legal profession in this country. I do not quarrel with them for trying to maintain high standards, but again I ask: Why should they unite with others to prevent other classes in the community from obtaining even the moderate standards which would quite satisfy most of them?
The hon. member for West Calgary made special reference to the men "who toil with their hands," and suggested that they ought to have a great deal of confidence in the judges. I am tempted for a moment to suggest that it is not by giving judges large salaries that you are likely to secure the confidence of those men who toil with their hands. One of the fundamental difficulties with laws to-day is the fact that those who make the laws, those who administer the laws, and those who sit on the bench are so far removed in their manner of life and indeed in their whole conception of life from the ordinary people that they are thereby almost disqualified from judging a case where on the one hand there is the ordinary man on the street to whom reference has been made, and on the other, the big corporation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the hon.
member with his classical education will remember that Justice is always pictured as being blind.
Supreme Court Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. But I
think in quite another sense than that intended by the classical authors, justice is often blind, blind to a whole range of the newer factors that have developed in our modern life. I must not go back to the old age pension debate. In the viewpoint that was advanced by some hon. members in connection with that debate, we had an illustration of my point. Hon. members urged the encouragement of thrift at a time when the older ideas have necessarily passed away because of changed conditions that prevail in our modem economic life. A judge might urge thrift in the old way. There are those who still urge that the employer ought to have a paternal relation to his employee, absolutely ignoring the fact that under modern conditions there is very little of the close personal touch that once existed between the employer and the employee. As Carlyle said many years ago, there is only a "cash nexus" uniting them. It must be recognized that under modem conditions a man passes from one occupation to another until before he has reached the age of sixty-five he has perhaps been in hundreds of different occupations. Many of the gentlemen who by their manner of life are so far removed from the ordinary people, seem to be absolutely incapable of understanding the struggles of the poorer people in our community.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Most of them were poor once.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member may have been poor once and underlying that is another fallacy to which I might well call attention. Because the hon. gentleman may have been poor once, because he may have struggled upwards and by his ability shoved his way into positions, or because he may have had certain privileges which others have not enjoyed, or because he may have been more fortunate in this, that or the other way, he thereby quietly and in a self-satisfied way assumes that it is all coming to him. I want to challenge that statement and the underlying position. In the first place we must remember that since most of us were children the pioneer days have passed, and under modern competitive conditions it is not so easy as it was in the days of our childhood, for a man to make his way. We must remember that we older Canadians who have had a chance in this country, have had it because we were, as we say, on the ground floor, and the newer immigrant who arrives has nothing like as good a chance as those who were here at the beginning or Whose fathers were here before
[Mr. Bennett.l	. v
us. I do not want any of us to forget that we have had special privileges, and many gentlemen to whom wealth has come forget that they have obtained their wealth because of organized society and because of the cooperative work of thousands of their employees. It is merely an accident that now, because of the present conventions they have been able to claim as their own a considerable amount of that wealth.
If tlhe hon. gentleman wants quotations, I would like to refer him to one whose authority he would recognize. I refer to Mr. Keynes in his introduction to the Economic Consequences of Peace, a gentleman whose writings I 'have no doubt the hon. member for West Calgary has read and who very clearly points out the vast changes that have come in the last few years. But some of these gentlemen have been so far removed, not intellectually alone but in their whole manner of life, that they can hardly realize the real needs of many of the struggling masses of the common people. I think it was Marie Antoinette who, when told that the people could not get bread to eat, asked why they did not eat cake. Many of our judges are almost as innocent of the real life of the people as was Marie Antoinette. They would reply:	If
they cannot get bread to eat, why do they not eat cake? There should be some valid reason Why judges should be so far removed from the ordinary pepole. It is all very well to talk about justice in the abstract. In this House we very frequently hear the expression used:	"Every legal gentleman ought to
know"; I would vary this and say that even my lawyer friends ought to know that abstract justice does not get us very far; that in the consideration of any case the concrete relationships that exist at the present moment are the considerations that decide the case. When we come to the question of justice there are many new conditions that have developed in recent years and that must be taken into consideration.
Reference was made, as I said, to the necessity of maintaining the confidence of the men who toil with their hands. The very reason that the men who toil with their hands are losing confidence in the decisions of the courts lies in the fact that the justice which is given in the courts is very often a one-sided justice, a justice based upon the status quo, upon a well defined system of society, and really inadequate to meet the needs of the present day. If I might take as an illustration the conditions existing in the time of slavery in the southern states, the white judge who sat on the bench could easily dispense justice but it would not particularly appeal to the

Supreme Court Act
slave. The justice that he would be dispensing would be the justice that permitted slavery as an institution and which made the state responsible for the maintenance of that institution.
Many men who toil with their hands are now beginning to question the very foundations of our social order, and those who are placed in positions of responsibility are not going to maintain the confidence of the masses of the people unless they realize the changed standard of ethics that are gradually developing in the minds of the masses of the people.
There is just one other suggestion that I would like to offer to the minister. It does seem to me that when this act which seeks to amend the Supreme Court Act is brought forward the minister might very well remember the Imperial conference. Since Canada is acknowledged to be of equal status with Great Britain I do not see why we should not have the final decision of all cases made here in Canada. Surely the gentlemen who qualify in accordance with the very high standards and ideals set for them to-day should be able to decide even the most complicated and serious cases which come before our courts, and I cannot see that there is any necessity at present for appeal to a final court in Great Britain. I would respectfully submit to the Minister of Justice that it might have been well if he could have included some sort of an amendment looking towards this result.	[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker* I do not desire to
delay my own legislation, but I feel it incumbent upon me to say a word or two in regard to an aspect of the question which has been considerably discussed during the debate; that is, the salaries of the judges. 1 did not want to discuss it to-day, but in view of certain statements which have been made I wish to quote certain statistics, because the question will certainly come before the House if not this year then within the next two or three years. I might say that during the recent months I have received resolutions adopted by various bar associations and other bodies in Canada urging the advisability of increasing the salaries of the judges, and when my hon. friends are studying this question for future discussion they may find that the statistics I am about to give will help in reaching a decision.
I have no fault to find with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-wrorth) except when he says that all the lawyers fail to appreciate the difficulties of the other classes. My hon. friend and other
members of labour organizations and other bodies in Canada have been urging that the conditions of their own professions or employments should at least be equal to the conditions of the same professions or employments in the other countries of the world. So I think my friend will admit that there should not be cheap labour in the judiciary of the country any more than there should be cheap labour in the industrial world, and that what is paid the judges elsewhere should be paid the judges in Canada. That should apply as well as the principle that the wages paid railway emploj^ees or other members of labour organizations elsewhere should be paid to the same classes in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Following that
argument, I wonder if the lawyers would consent to the introduction into this country of twice their present number from England or the United States?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not quite see the relevancy of the question, but I think they would be willing. The bar association of any province is not a close corporation as my hon. friend seems to intimate; all those who can qualify for admission are welcome to join that association.


Mr. STEVENS:: If those lawyers came into Canada from England or the United States they would probably starve.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That applies to federal
judges only.


Ernest Lapointe: To federal judges only. Chief Justice Taft goes on to say:
I think the absence of power in congress to do this is a defect. There is no doubt that there are judges at seventy who have ripe judgments, active minds, and much physical vigour, and that they are able to perform their judicial duties in a very satisfactory way. Yet in a majority of cases when men come to be seventy, they have lost vigour, their minds are not as active, their senses not as acute, and their willingness to undertake great labour is not so great as in younger men, and as we ought to have in judges who are to perform the enormous task which falls to the lot of Supreme court justices. In the public interest, therefore, it is better that we lose the services of the exceptions who are good judges after they are seventy and avoid the presence on the bench of men who are not able to keep up with the work, or to perform it satisfactorily. The duty of a Supreme court judge is more than merely taking in the point at issue between the parties, and deciding it. It frequently involves a heavy task in reading records and writing opinions. It thus is a substantial drain upon one's energy. When most men reach seventy, they are loath thoroughly to investigate cases where such work involves real physical endurance.
Well, this is the opinion of a man of great experience, and really it should have much weight with those who consider the question at issue here. My hon. friend has alluded to the Imperial conference with regard to appeals to the Privy Council. I think I will wait until that debate comes on to make a few comments on his remarks, if he will permit me to do so.


Mr. LADNER:: May I ask the minister
a question before he takes his seat? There is an impression in western Canada-I know it exists in Saskatchewan and British Columbia -that either this bill or some other proposed legislation will make the retirement of county court and Superior court judges automatic attaining the age of seventy-five. I think the minister should make a statement on the subject, because letters and petitions have been circulated with respect to it. Perhaps many members have received communications;
I know that I have.

Supreme Court Act


Ernest Lapointe: That is a mistake. I
dealt with the matter referred to when the resolution was in committee. We have no power to interfere at all with the judges of the Superior courts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the provincial
courts.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, provincial courts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would it not be opportune for the minister to explain to the House in what respect chapter 29 of the statutes of 1922 is not efficient for the purpose of removing judges who really, at any age, are physically or mentally unfit to perform the duties of their office?


Hewitt Bostock: I think that is a matter Which might be dealt with more properly when the House is in committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
On the preamble.


Mr. CLARK:: I think I can make my remarks, which have to do with the number of judges, on the preamble. I cannot say that I am in agreement with the increase proposed. I am open to conviction in the matter, but I can see no reason why any court should have seven judges. I am in full agreement with the principle of paying judges adequately. Nothing could be sounder than that, but I do not think it is necessary to tax the resources of Canada for the services of another judge. I see serious objection to a court of six judges, if six sit, and what I should like to propose to the minister is that there should be a provision that an unequal number of judges should sit-that is that five judges should sit.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Or seven.


John Arthur Clark: Or seven if there are seven. With a court of six judges five could sit and the extra judge write judgments in cases that have already been heard. That would meet the observation of my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) that there are too many judgments written in the various cases that come before the courts. If one of the judges in each case was detailed to write the judgment for the court, the court could approve that judgment and-


Ernest Lapointe: That is what is largely done at the present time.


John Arthur Clark: It is not done in all our
courts.


Ernest Lapointe: It has been done for the last few years, I think.


John Arthur Clark: If that course is followed so much the better. In any event there is a real objection to having an equal number of judges sit. As an illustration I might cite a case which happens to be one of my own experience but still is more or less typical of what occurs. In this case I succeeded in the trial court. It was taken to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. There were four judges sitting, and on an equal division of that court I won my appeal. The other side appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. I entered a motion to quash the appeal, because in my opinion there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia to give leave to appeal. My motion to quash was heard before the Supreme Court of Canada, and by an equal division, three to three, I lost. The court then decided against hearing the merits of the appeal because there were three judges who must necessarily dismiss the appeal because in their opinion the court had no jurisdiction to hear it. The appeal was therefore dismissed and I won after three equal divisions. Now I think this illustrates a serious defect in our judicial system and that we should provide against an equal number of judges sitting in our courts.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend think that will be remedied to a large extent now, because in cases where the bench feel there ought to be a full tribunal there will be seven instead of six judges sitting?


John Arthur Clark: I would say no, because with seven judges there will always be somebody sick or somebody perhaps unavoidably away, and in a very large number of cases there will not be seven judges sitting. I see it in my own province, in the court of appeal. There are five judges, and I give them full credit for their attention to their duties, but very often there is an equal number of judges sitting, or not a Ml court. I would like to see a provision introduced into this act which would make it (Obligatory that an unequal number of judges shall sit. If the number is retained at six, that objective can be accomplished. Five will nearly always be available, and the extra judge can be engaged in writing judgments.
I think the minister will probably point out that it is the desire that the different parts of the country be represented on this
Judges Act Amendment

court. I have the same desire that he has to see the different parts of the country represented. That is important in one sense, but in another sense it is of no importance at all because the laws of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island are practically the same as the laws of British Columbia or of the prairie provinces, with the exception of the statute law of the various provinces. That statute law is easily available to the court. The statutes are all collected here, and there is nothing easier than for the judges to look them up. The common law is the same in all the provinces. If it is the desire of the government that the various parts of the country be represented, that desire could be met by appointing, as vacancies occur, judges from different parts of the country, passing the appointments around, so to speak, so that Canada as a whole would be properly represented on this court.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 140, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 139, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On clause 1-Salaries.
Mr. RYCKMAN:: I am quite in accord
with those who think that our judges should be well paid. If they are not, they cannot be got to serve, because no man, whether he be in this House or on the bench, is inclined to take very much less than he can earn. I think there is a great discrepancy between the salaries proposed to be paid under this act to the judges of the Exchequer court and the Supreme court, and those now paid to the judges in the appellate division of the Supreme court of Ontario. This Dominion, I understand, pays the ordinary judges of the 
appellate division in Ontario $3,000 less than they pay to a deputy minister. That is not right, Mr. Chairman. I believe in economy, in rigid economy, but-


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
speak of the county court judges?
Mr. RY'CKMAN: No, I am speaking now of the members of the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely they are not paid $3,000 less than the deputy ministers. .


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They are paid $3,000
less than is paid to a deputy minister, because the ordinary run of salary for a deputy minister is $10,000.


Ernest Lapointe: No, $8,000.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Some get S10,000.


Ernest Lapointe: I think only two get


Edmond Baird Ryckman: More, I think. This
Dominion of Canada pays to these gentlemen who sit on the bench, and whose great solicitude it is to measure out intelligent and evenhanded justice, a salary of $7,000 per annum.


Ernest Lapointe: It is $9,000.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Not by this government.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. With the last
increase made two or three years ago they are paid $9,000, and $1,000 more from the province.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not know that we
should take the benefit of that, because that $1,000 is paid for other services specially rendered.


Ernest Lapointe: I quite agree with that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The salaries of the
judges have been commented upon this afternoon. We must, in common with all thinking men, realize that it is a question of what a man is worth in the market of judges or of the law, if I may put it that way. All who are familiar with the conditions know that these gentlemen who are appointed to the bench and are giving their service to the country-and it is a most painstaking service -would be able, if they were not serving the public, to receive very much more through the application of their ability in offering their services to other interests. I wonder if anyone who has had a case in court has felt himself shackled and his interests prejudiced by the fact that the judge who was to try the case, although probably a very

Judges Act Amendment
fine man indeed, was not sufficiently mentally equipped to try the case intelligently; in other words, that the government of the country, in making the appointment, had not selected a man who could qualify properly for the position of a judge. I must say that I think in Canada those cases are few. But we are all familiar with the fact that those cases do exist in our courts, and the only way in which the best men will be got in these important positions-than which in my opinion there is none more important-will be by offering a sufficient return to the gentlemen whom we ask to serve. While anxious for economy and to curtail expenditure, I believe those who unfortunately have to go to court would feel that the government itself was acting in the best interests of the public if they increased the salaries of the judges and appointed to these high positions only the very best men obtainable.
The large fees and emoluments received by lawyers have been referred to this afternoon. I know of a case, although not in law, where an engineer was paid a salary of $1,000,000 a year. The people who employed him were glad to pay him that money because he was worth it. I know of other engineers who have received salaries of $50,000, $60,000 and $75,000. Those cases have come within my own knowledge. What is the reason these large salaries are paid? It is simply because the gentlemen concerned can command them. Their services are wanted and they are offered at a price. If you do not wish to retain them you need not do it. It is a question of the condition of the market in relation to that particular matter and walk in life. That being so, there should be no objection raised to the payment of a reasonable salary to our judiciary. I submit that , our judges today are not paid what this Dominion of Canada can afford and what the Dominion' would be well justified in paying if it wanted to provide for the needs of the people in the best manner possible so far as their relations with the courts are concerned.


Mr. HAY:: I do not entirely agree with
the hon. member who has just spoken. I do not say that it is a good thing to commercialize the position of the judges. In other words, I do not believe it is a question of supply and demand. I do not believe either that the people of Canada will censure this government for providing adequate salaries so that qualified and competent men will be members of the judiciary of Canada. I am not a lawyer and do not speak as a lawyer. The people themselves were quite content in years gone by with the judiciary and had
a great deal of confidence in the judges of Canada. I do not think that the question of salary will always bring to our services perhaps the men we desire, because occupation creates a desire as well as the salary. But there may come a limit to the salaries which we can offer in this country, and at the present time, for the salary mentioned, $15,000, I think we would be able to find many capable lawyers with all the qualities of a real first class high court judge who woulc} be willing to serve.
I listened attentively this afternoon to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and also to the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George combed all America and all Europe for very able men and women, keen of intellect and of great service to the community in which they lived, who had gone beyond the age limit. Our county court judges deal with minor cases, and when the act we recently passed becomes law it will apply to them. There ought to be no reflection on any man or woman in Canada on the score of age, but when we find that the minor court judges are required to retire from active service at the age of seventy-five, I think that provision ought surely in all fairness to apply to high court judges as well. We must all respect the judiciary of Canada, and we do. Fortunately or unfortunately we sometimes have to reflect on whether their appointment was by a Conservative government or a Liberal government, but I think in the Dominion of Canada we must congratulate ourselves on the high standing of our judges throughout the whole country and also in the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa. Many young men are coming forward in Canada who will be anxious to fill these positions which will be vacant before very long, and while I have no doubt the Minister of Justice will give every consideration to the suggestion made by his friends and also by those who sit on the opposite side, it is our desire and the desire of the country that the minister will take into consideration the appointment of lawyers of high standing in Canada, so that the judiciary may be respected, as we have had great respect for the judges throughout Canada in years past.


Mr. MARCIL:: I have no objection whatever to the present bill. I have had to do in the past with the question of increases of salary of some of the judges. Public opinion in my province is that when a judge has served on the bench a term of years and becomes mentally and physically incapable of
Judges Act Amendment

further service he should be entitled to a pension. We have in the province of Quebec a number of judges who have taken up other occupations and are still in receipt of pensions from this government. That has occurred by virtue of certain laws enacted by this parliament and which we have discussed over and over again. I think when the Minister of Justice again takes up this subject he should provide that in the superior courts of Quebec a pension will be allowed to a judge only when he is physically or mentally unable to act, not to one in enjoyment of all his faculties and who retires in order to take up some other remunerative calling. That is the grievance of the people in my province, and I have heard it voiced on this floor. Indeed, we have such cases at the present time.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the condition my hon. friend refers to has been already met. In 1919 it was enacted:
That no annuity shall be granted to any judge under the provision of section 19 or 24 unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such judge should resign his office.
Prior to that, a judge after a certain length of service had the right to retire and receive his superannuation unconditionally. Now it is in the discretion of the governor in council either to grant or refuse such a request.


Charles Marcil: Is it open to a judge who retires to take up some other profession, such as a university professorship, at a salary?


Ernest Lapointe: If he is still able to take up other work I think his request for retirement would be refused.


Charles Marcil: That is the abuse to which the people of my province object.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved,
1. That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the tariff of tolls to be charged on certain lines of railway now operated as a part of the Canadian National Railways and situated within the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and the lines

of railway similarly operated in the province of Quebec extending from the southern provincial boundary near Metapedia and near Courchesne to Diamond Junction and Levis.
2. That for accounting purposes the revenues and expenses of the said eastern lines shall be kept separately from all other accounts respecting the construction, operation or management of the Canadian National Railways, and in the event of any deficit occurring in any fiscal year in respect of the eastern lines, the amount of such deficit shall be included in a separate item in the estimates submitted to parliament for or on behalf of the Canadian National Railways at the first session of parliament following the close of such fiscal year.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Chairman, this is the financial resolution preceding the introduction of a bill respecting maritime freight rates. It is quite usual for a discussion of the whole matter to take place on such a resolution, but I wish to suggest to the committee that in this case it will be much more convenient for members if the discussion is deferred until the bill is introduced. This I hope to do immediately and to have it distributed later on for second reading in order that the members of the committee may have before them the complete scheme proposed before they discuss it. It will then be possible to deal with the sdheme much more intelligently than upon the resolution itself, which of course deals only with the financial part.
I should say, however, and I have no doubt it will be noticed, that financial provision is made only for the Canadian National Railways. Of course my attention has been called to the fact that in the report of the royal commission headed by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan the following occurs at page 23:
We are not overlooking that the other great railway system operating in the area would be entitled to equitable consideration if they find themselves prejudiced as a result of the reduction proposed.
The other great railway system referred to there, of course, is the Canadian Pacific. The Duncan report does not so state, but nevertheless it is a fact that there are several railways within the area referred to in addition to the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific lines. This creates a problem for consideration, and at this stage I desire to say that the government agrees entirely with the principle set out in the sentence which I have just read from the Duncan report. I hope as the bill proceeds further to be able to introduce a provision satisfactory to the House and equitable in its terms which will ensure that other railways within the area will not be prejudiced as a result of the

C. N. R.-Eastern Freight Rates
operation of the proposed legislation. Of course, I may require to introduce a new financial resolution in order to bring that about, but whatever form may be necessary we can deal with later. I am merely advising the committee now that it is the intention of the government to make provision in that regard.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister speaks of
other railways. I suppose he refers to the St.. John Valley railway and the Kent railway. Are there others?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The St. John
Valley railway is now under lease to the Canadian National, and presumably would be included in any arrangement made for the Canadian National. The other lines that I have in mind are the Inverness railway-now under lease-tlhe Quebec Northern, the Quebec Oriental, the Quebec and Northwestern, and another railway the name of which I forget. It runs up the Matane.


Charles Marcil: The Matane railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: There may be others,
but these are the railways which are directly affected as being within the area dealt with in the Duncan report. My hon. friend will, I am sure, recognize the difficulty of providing adequately and fairly for a condition sudh as that. It is now being carefully gone into and applies, as I say, not only to the Canadian Pacific but possibly to several other railways. The position is further complicated by the fact that these local railways now have special tariffs approved1 by the railway board, but which are higher than the prevailing rates in the territory concerned. That again adds emphasis to the difficulties of drafting a section which can be placed in the law and which will deal properly with this complicated matter. I hope, however, before the bill gets through the House, to be able to produce something which will be satisfactory. In the meantime if it is possible to defer discussion upon the whole question of maritime freight rates until that scheme is before the House in the printed bill that will, I am sure, facilitate the matter being dealt with.


Mr. GARDINER:: Does the minister wish to give any information to the committee as to the probable cost of this proposed scheme?


Charles Avery Dunning: To some extent that will depend upon the financial provision for railways other than the Canadian National, but as regards the Canadian National the provisions of the bill will involve approximately
$2,000,000. I do not want to be too positive with respect to a figure for the reason that it depends somewhat upon the volume of traffic in any given year.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has stated that in order to complete what they have in mind, it will be necessary to include some other lines which are not included in this resolution. I would suggest to him that instead of going on with this resolution, it should be taken off the order paper and that the whole proposition should be included in one resolution so that, when the bill is introduced, the House will know exactly what we are facing.


Charles Avery Dunning: I adopted this procedure really with the object of facilitating matters before the House. It was not proper to discuss with other parties who might be affected legislation which was in course of preparation, and until notice of this resolution appeared on the order paper, the other parties affected had no opportunity of discussing fully with the government the effect upon their railways or upon their business. It must be remembered that in the report itself there is this statement:
We are not overlooking that the other great railway system operating in the area would be entitled to equitable consideration if they find themselves prejudiced as a result of the reduction proposed.
My hon. friend can well understand that when this resolution appeared on the order paper, other parties commenced to make representations to the effect that they were prejudiced. At that time it was necessary to choose between placing the principle of the matter before the House as soon as possible, and withholding the whole matter in the manner now suggested by my hon. friend, until that could all be ironed out. I might state that this resolution constitutes by far the larger financial burden, very much greater than any addition to it can possibly be. The bill itself, together with the statement which I am now making about the necessity of taking care in some way of the other situation, has the effect that my hon. friend desires, namely, of putting the whole matter before the House, and I think I can promise him that before the bill reaches second reading the proposed amendment in that regard will be available. In that way I hope to facilitate discussion and the passage of the measure through the House.


Robert Gardiner: In view of the fact
that the Duncan report has been for such a long time in the hands of the minister and
1568	COMMONS
C. N. R.-Eastern Freight Rates
the members of this House, I should have thought the minister would be well aware of the possibility of prejudice to the other railway system by proceeding along this line, and he would be eager to find out just to what extent that prejudice would apply. It is unfortunate, I think, that he has introduced the resolution in this form. I would like to have seen the whole matter included in the one resolution, because this means simply that we shall be adding to the provisions of the bill piecemeal while it is passing through the House and the House will not know what we are dealing with until the bill is finally through. In view, however, of the fact that the minister has stated that before the second reading this matter will be cleared up, and all particulars will be before the committee, perhaps it is just as well to acquiesce in his request.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to obstruct my legislation, but my hon. friend apparently does not quite grasp the predicament in which the minister finds himself in connection with drafting legislation of this kind. To leave the door open and simply to invite the Canadian Pacific or any other great railway corporation to come in with you and help you to draft a statute is not the proper way to proceed. The Canadian Pacific or any other of these railways affected by this legislation had no intimation of what was contained in this resolution until it appeared on the order paper and the method of dealing with the Canadian National and the Canadian National alone became public. If one proceeded on any other basis I am afraid only confusion would result, and in any case it is not the part of wisdom for a minister of [DOT] the crown to discuss with interested parties proposed legislation prior to its outline being presented to the House.


Robert Gardiner: I think the minister
has taken very weak ground. I did not for one moment intimate that the minister would approach all these railway companies to find out whether they were likely to be prejudiced or not. The report of the Duncan commission makes certain recommendations, and the minister when he read that report must have known whether it would affect all the railway companies doing business in that area.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is quite right.


Robert Gardiner: He has in his department officers who could have given him the information whether or not these other railways would be prejudiced under this recommendation.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is Where my hon. friend is wrong.


Robert Gardiner: Does the minister now say that he has no means through his department of getting that information?


Charles Avery Dunning: Nor through any other department of getting any accurate information as to the extent to which other railways would be affected by this recommendation of the Duncan commission. That is one of the difficulties we faced in drafting the legislation.


Mr. EVANS:: I am rather surprised that the government has seen fit to implement one part of the Duncan report in this way. When we appointed the Duncan commission to inquire into maritime conditions, they evidently found some underlying cause for the hard times in those provinces. The government by taking the report up piecemeal in this way has already given the House the impression that it has in toto accepted the recommendations of that report. I would rather, before dealing with the report piecemeal in this way, have had an opportunity of discussing the maritime report in its entirety and of finding out the real cause of conditions in the maritime provinces.


Robert Gardiner: It is proposed to bring down in different pieces of legislation the remedies for the situation existing in the maritimes. Will the government agree that on any one of those pieces of legislation which might be accepted on all sides, a full discussion of the maritime report will be permitted?


Charles Avery Dunning: I feel sure if an agreement can be reached as my hon. friend suggests, the government will have no objection to a discussion on the maritime report. That must of course be a matter of arrangement between the various groups in this House. The government has no hesitation in saying that it has no desire to avoid a discussion of the Duncan report, except in so far as discussion of the report as a whole overlaps discussion of the legislative measures which are necessary to implement the report and which are coming along from the various ministers concerned, I have no doubt that if sudh an arrangement is desired dt can be made, and I will direct the matter to the attention of tihe Prime Minister if my hon. friend so desires.


Robert Gardiner: I think it would be desirable to discuss the report in full, and as I have stated before, under the method proposed by the government in bringing down these resolutions the House would be de-

C. N. R.-Eastern Freight Rates
barred from discussing the Duncan report in full. If we can select one piece of legislation on which the entire report might be discussed I think it would satisfy all parties in the House and would meet the situation at the same time.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I agree with the other
speakers that it is highly desirable that the House be given an opportunity to discuss this report in its entirety. There is no particular recommendation which can be considered apart from all the recommendations, and as far as I can see we can only discuss the whole thing together with clarity. I think the minister would be well advised if he permitted this resolution to stand until we are given a chance to discuss the whole question. I notice that the resolution suggests that provision be made to keep the accounts of the eastern section of the Canadian National Railways entirely separate, and I just wonder if the officers of the department or of the company consider that this can be properly done. The minister is probably aware that in various committees of the House and at different times the officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway made it clear that it was practically impossible for them to keep separate accounts for the different divisions; that is, properly to proportion all the costs of the terminals, the rolling stock and the labour which are switched from one division to the other. These officials made it clear that it was practically impossible to allocate these costs to the different districts. I wonder if the officers of the railways in this case think it will be possible to keep the accounts entirely separate.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I cannot
agree with my hon. friend with respect to the desirability of letting this resolution stand until a general discussion on the whole report takes place. I am attempting to deal with a specific matter, a specific recommendation for which particular reasons are given in the report, and while it may interlock with the rest of the report, as all economic matters do interlock, nevertheless it is an intensely practical part of the* report. I am taking this method of placing before the House a complete scheme to deal with the freight rate recommendations; this bill will be before the House as soon as I am permitted to introduce it, based on this resolution. I submit, Sir, that the House will be in a position to discuss the freight rate recommendations of the Duncan commission much more intelligently if they have before them on their desks the means by which this government proposes to carry out that
resolution, much more so than would be the case if we merely discussed the form of the recommendation^ contained in 'the report. It is one thing for a commissioner to recommend certain things to be done, but it is quite another thing to set up the often very complicated machinery to accomplish that end, taking into account all the factors which the commissioner had in mind in reaching his conclusion. If the House will permit this resolution to pass and wait until the bill is placed before the members, as will be done between now and early next week, everyone will then have full information as to the proposals of the government implementing this particular recommendation of the commission.


Milton Neil Campbell: In view of the explanation just given I will withdraw any opposition I may have expressed to the resolution. In that way I will make it clear that I am not opposing the measure itself, my only thought being that it would be much better to consider the Duncan report as a whole.


Hugh Guthrie: I am entirely in accord
with the proposals of the minister; we want to expedite this matter in every way, and I think we can have a far more intelligent discussion when the bill is introduced and we have the various proposals before us than we could have if we merely discussed the resolution. I think it will save time and will lead to a better discussion if we let the resolution pass and discuss the bill.


Robert Gardiner: I would not like the
House to conceive the idea that we desire to hold up a proper discussion of this legislation; we desire to expedite the business of this House in common with all other groups, but I must repeat that I hope the government will see its way clear to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Duncan report in full, and I trust the leader of the opposition will approve of that suggestion. There are many things contained in the Duncan report which naturally will not come within the scope of the legislation proposed by the government and consequently members of the House will be debarred from discussing these particular points unless it is agreed between all parties that an opportunity for such discussion will be given. If the minister will assure the House that we will have that opportunity there will be no objections. Personally I am quite willing to let the resolution go through now.


Hugh Guthrie: Even if no such assurance is given that opportunity still remains; the government cannot control us to the extent
Private Bills

suggested by my hon. friend. If we so desire we can bring up this matter in any form on the motion to go into supply, but I think the measures in the report can be more intelligently discussed as we come to them.


John Evans: Since the Duncan report
has been in our hands for some time and since this commission was appointed to find out what is wrong with the maritime provinces, I would ask if the government have come to the conclusion that the railway rates are all that is wrong there. If not, why do they pick out this one recommendation and bring it before us in this way?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Prime Minister made a statement-my hon. friend surely could not have read it-in which he dealt with the whole report, and a number of the measures recommended in it in addition to the one now before us are now on the order paper ready' to be proceeded with. I simply happen to be the unfortunate minister having the first of these measures in hand,'and as to the order of importance I feel sure that some of my friends from the mari-times regard the question of freight rates as possibly the most important.


John Evans: I would point out to the
minister that this House has never discussed the statement of the Prime Minister, and that we have not come to the conclusion that this question of freight rates is the cause of the whole trouble.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 224, respecting the Canadian National Railways and the tariffs of tolls to be charged on certain eastern lines.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the House took recess. * After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 69, respecting Dominion Electric Protection Company.-Mr. Marcil.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Amy Humphrey Lowe.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Erik Herman Deil'ing.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Samuel Stanley McNeely.-Mr. Lang.

Bill No. 84, for the relief of Edna Mary Stevens.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Beatrice Maude Cammell.-Mr. Ryerson.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Stanley Moor-house.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Blanche Evelyn Parkinson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Lillian Franklin Boddy.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Minna Louise Bryant.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 90, for the relief of John Thomas Fray.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Cornelia Mosca Cristoforetti.

Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Florence Emaline Hind.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Dorothy Helen Elliott.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Myrtle Blanche Weeks.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Dorothy Olinda Tew Phillips Lawson.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Nelson Douglas Longfield.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Susanah Ivy Y. Cave.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of James Arthur McNish.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Elizabeth Maud Maitland.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Agnes Seeds. -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of James Sharkey. -Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Lawrence Raymond Sinclair, otherwise known as Lawrence Reginald Sinclair.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Ruby Pearl Northam.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Leila Beecher Smith Kerman.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 78,. respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when the hour for private members' bills expired on Monday last, I had shortly reviewed the circumstances in connection with the incorporation of this company, and the various extensions that had

Georgian Bay Canal Company
been granted whereby it became possible for the company to continue in existence thirty years after its incorporation.
I had endeavoured to point out that the second reading of the bill affirmed the principle of the measure and that the principle affirmed by the House could not be varied in committee.
I had also endeavoured to point out that the granting of the -chanter involved the losing of large sums of money to this country in the way of annual rentals that might otherwise have gone to the exchequer. When we left that order of business I had 'been endeavouring to ask this House what was the principle of the measure under consideration, and I had not then concluded.
If hon. gentlemen are desirous of understanding what the principle of this measure
is,	it will only be necessary for them to look at the marginal note opposite section 1 of this bill, where they will find the words " Extension of time for commencement and completion ". Nothing is clearer than that unless some legislative action is taken by this parliament before the 1st day of May next, this company will have ceased to function. It will no longer be enabled to carry on its undertakings; it will no longer be a factor in the development of canals or water powers. If that be so, and I think you will admit that it is so, we have to ask ourselves, I submit, but a single question. We lawyers, about whom we heard something this afternoon, sometimes have a fashion of testing a problem by making certain inquiries with respect to
it.	I have an inquiry to address to hon. members in this House to-night, and it is this: would you in your place as a member of this House of Commons at this time-that is the year 1927-pass an act incorporating this company with the' powers indicated? That is the question. If you say yes to that, then you should vote for the second reading of the bill. If, in your conscience and by your reason, you could not say that in the light of the knowledge you now possess, you would rise in your place and vote to create a company wdth the powers that are given to this enterprise, then you should not vote for the second reading of the bill. Is that not fairly clear and obvious to everyone? Why? Because the bill-and I wish to bring it home to the minds of hon. members-divides itself into two separate and distinct undertakings; first, canals, and then power. If hon. gentlemen will look through the bill they will find that the principle of this proposed legislation -is: To enable this company, the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, hereinafter called the company, to commence
the construction of its canals, or any of them. That is the first. That is, that it may commence the construction of canals from the port of Montreal to Georgian bay, a distance of two hundred miles, through lakes, rivers and detours, and by the building of such canals make a waterway between those two points. That is the first branch of the undertaking. Go a step further, and we find the following:
-and subject to the provisions of this act, may, in connection with such construction and operation, exercise all the powers granted to the company by chapter 103 of the statutes of 1894 and amendments thereto.
And I read to this House the other evening, Sir, the section as placed in the act of incorporation when it was amended, by which the company was enabled to carry on its business as a power company. Therefore the powers of this company are divided -into two branches: (a) Its canal undertaking; (b) Its power undertaking; and the principle of the measure is to renew the life of, revivify and resuscitate a company whose life will expire on the first day of May next. Unless you are prepared, as members of -this House, to say that you would vote for the bill incorporating this company as it was in 1894 and subsequently amended, you should not vote for the revivification and resuscitation of the enterprise.
Let me go a step further. I am asked how I can establish that it is really intended that power should be the basis of this revivifying statute. - All I can say with reference to this is that apart from what was said by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) the other night, and to which I referred in answer to a question by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), if my hon. friends will take the trouble to read the language of the memorandum submitted by the applicants for this legislation they will realize that it is alleged in terms that it is power they propose to develop, and it is by the sale of power that they propose to pay the cost of putting through this undertaking. They say:
Therefore the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian bay canal have the exclusive and overriding right to the use of water on the Ottawa river, a right which, when put into force, destroys all other claims. Any existing users of water in the Ottawa river are, to the extent to which they interfere with the right of development and control of that river for navigation, interlopers with no legal status whatsoever.
Therefore this House is asked now to revivify and resuscitate this enterprise, with the promoters alleging that any existing users of water in the Ottawa river are, to the extent to which they interfere with the right of de-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
velopment and control of that river by the company, interlopers with no legal status whatever.
I submit the Minister of Railways will hesitate before he will involve the country in that form of litigation. He says there are power rights on that river granted to other companies in days gone by. The promoters have brought before tihe House a memorandum in which they have stated that they are the overlords, and that nobody can be permitted to interfere with them on that river, and that if they do so they are interlopers without any legal status whatever. Is it the policy of the House of Commons to involve this country in litigation for tlhe purpose of having it declared, as the promoters have said, that they are the overlords upon that river? And this charter, in the language of these gentlemen, gives them supreme control over the Ottawa river, over two hundred miles of lakes and waterways, and they themselves allege that-it is not what I say in this House, it is what is alleged in tihe memorandum under which they seek this legislation-
By the special acts respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian bay canal company, the parliament of Canada has authorized that company to develop the navigation of the Ottawa river.
By so doing the parliament of Canada exhausted during the currency of these acts, the rights of the Dominion in regard to the granting of the use of water on the Ottawa river. Any executive authority granted by the Dominion for the use of water on the Ottawa river for any purpose except navigation and shipping is invalid as being ultra vires.
Therefore this company, that now seeks the sanction of parliamentary authority to breathe the breath of life after the first day of May next, alleges that this parliament has exhausted, during the currency of those acts, the rights of the Dominion in regard to the granting to anybody else of any powers whatever. Let there foe no misapprehension. Every hon. gentleman who gives the sanction of his vote and authority to this measure is stating his willingness to call into being a body, an entity, a corporation, with the authority and privileges and powers which the promoters say belong to their company. I ask any hon. gentleman on either side of the House if he will do it in face of that consideration.
In the face of thirty years experience, in the light of the knowledge we have gained, would any hon. member vote to call into being a company clothed with these powers, powers which I say they do not possess but which the promoters allege they possess? Why call into existence the canal company under these circumstances? There are two reasons why

we should not do it. It is not the policy of this country and has not been its policy to grant to a private enterprise the right to build canals and charge tolls. That is number one, and number two is that in view of our commitments with respect to railways and other means of transportation we cannot afford to lessen the revenues of our owi} enterprises.
And lastly we know that under the admin

istration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier nearly a million dollars was expended on surveys. I well recall when I first came to this House that Sir Robert Borden, yielding to the pressure put upon him with reference to this canal undertaking, granted the application for a royal commission. Investigations took place; the commission made reports and I say that nowhere in any report made upon this matter, nowhere in the notes of surveyors, will you find a single word that indicates that that enterprise may ever profitably or successfully function as a canal company. Then what are we doing? We are asked to give the breath of life to a dying enterprise that no single engineer says may be successful. We are asked to resuscitate a corporation that is dying, to which Sir Wilfrid Laurier gave its oongb, when the surveys were completed after spending nearly a million dollars, and of which we have not heard as a living enterprise since the days of the reports of the Sanford Evans commission. So none of us would give it power or life as a canal company for the reasons I have indicated.
How many hon. members would vote to give it being as a power company? Would any hon. members hand over 200 miles of lake and river waterway with the million and a quarter potential power development to a private enterprise without a single dollar return to this country? Where is my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Euler) -he who did so -much for public ownership in the province of Ontario, he who lent his great power of intellect and the influence of his press to develop that enterprise in his province-where is he to-night? Does he say for a single moment that he would vote to give to this private corporation the authority to control 200 miles of waterway with the possible development of a million and a quarter horse-power without a dollar being .paid to this country?
I pointed out to this House the other evening that under the initial lease made by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1908 to Mr. Crawford Ross the country was to receive two dollars per horse-power. It was subsequently reduced when it was provided

Georgian Bay Canal Company
that the development should be greater. I observe that 25 cents was named by the solicitor for the new interests that took over the charter. But the rental was fixed at $50,000, to be increased to a higher figure.
If a full development of the million and a quarter horse-power on this 200 miles of lake and river waterway takes place the country is sacrificing not less than $500,000 per annum. Last Tuesday I put the loss at a quarter of a million dollars, but I find that figure is entirely too low. We get not a sou from the exploitation of these great natural resources.
I challenge any member to point to a single instance of the resources of this country having been alienated without some compensation. Not a dollar, not even a cent, is to be paid by those who are asking for a renewal of this charter, although those who had the lease in the early days were to pay two dollars per horse-power at Carillon. That is the position. Therefore I do submit with confidence, Sir, that there is not an hon. gentleman in this House who, if he had to consider this act of incorporation de novo, would at this date vote to create this canal or power company.
I said on Tuesday that I hoped my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) would be here this evening. I understand he is absent by reason of a social engagement, but perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) will consider the legal argument that I propose to submit to the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought that might
engage his attention for a moment. It has not been noted as a salient feature, but it is a matter of great importance to observe that three years after we became a confederation the parliament of Canada by chapter 24 of the statutes of 1870 passed an act declaring the Ottawa a navigable river, and that all works then existing or that might thereafter be built thereon should be works for the general advantage of Canada and should be subject to the exclusive power of the federal parliament. In 1898 we find a reference made to the supreme court as to the respective legislative powers of the Dominion and the provinces with regard to fisheries in navigable waters, and the Privy Council decided, Lord Herschell having delivered the judgment affirming the Supreme Court of Canada, that with respect to a river such as the Ottawa the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada extended to all matters, relating to the use of the waters for navigation and allied purposes. In fact, the Privy 32649-100



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
Council answered the questions submitted in the same sense as did the Supreme Court of Canada.
The matter is too familiar to members of this House for me to deal with it at length except to say that in the year 1925 the Privy Council had again to consider the whole question with respect to the ownership of navigable waters and of river and stream beds. Perhaps hon. gentlemen from Montreal will recall the decision in the Montreal harbour commissioners case. It was there decided-and I think it is very important that we should keep it in mind in this matter- by the law lords of the Privy Council that under the British North America Act the effect was to vest the harbour of Montreal as it existed in 1867 in the crown in the right of the Dominion; but to vest the bed and foreshore of the harbour in the crown in the right of the province. I find in the case, Montreal City vs. Montreal Harbour Commissioners, the principle is stated in these words at page 311 of the appeal cases for 1926:
Under section 91 exclusive legislative authority is given to the Dominion parliament in the matters of navigation and shipping. Under section 92, head 10, lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other province, or extending beyond the limits of a province, lines of steamships between a province and any British or foreign country, and such works as although -wholly within a province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more provinces, are all taken out of the legislative authority of the provinces and placed (by section 91, head 29) exclusively under that of the Dominion parliament.
Then the judgment proceeds:
But the question remains whether section 91, head 10, of the act, which empowered the Dominion parliament to legislate as to navigation and shipping, empowered that parliament to authorize the extensive works undertaken by the commissioners on the banks and foreshore and in the bed of the river. In considering this question it is necessary to bear in mind the nature of those works. They include, not only dredging operations, but an embankment and railway on the shore of the river, quays, a dry dock and ship repairing plant, and it would appear to be impossible that works of this character and extent could be constructed and used without an exclusive occupation of the soil equivalent to possession. Now there is no doubt that the power to control navigation and shipping conferred on the Dominion by section 91 is to be widely construed. As was pointed out by Lord Herschell in the judgment which he delivered on behalf of the board in Attorney-General for the Dominion v. Attorney-General for the provinces-namely, the first of the three Fisheries cases-the terms on which those powers are given are so wide as to be capable of allowing the Dominion parliament to restrict

[Stage Direction]
Georgian Bay Canal Company
very seriously the exercise of proprietary rights in a fashion which, to a great extent, depends on the discretion of that parliament. What was said in that case about the enactment of regulations and restrictions in matters relating to fisheries being excluded from the competence of the provincial legislatures applies not less to matters relating to navigation and shipping. But while this is so, it does not appear to their Lordships that the right of the Dominion extends so as to authorize them to vest in a body like the commissioners an exclusive right to occupy property of the province without compensation and to erect upon it permanent works, such as quays, docks and railways.
There we have the last authoritative statement in respect of the matter. As was pointed out by Lord Herschell in the first of the three fisheries cases, the exercise of legislative power is one thing, the exercise of a proprietary right is another; and the proprietary right in respect of the river bed of the Ottawa, which is a navigable stream, declared so by parliament, is vested in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and not in this parliament. I want to point out a very significant thing, because it is of the utmost importance that in considering-
Mr. POULIOT:: What does the hon. member think of the Maclaren case which was decided by the Privy Council in the early nineties?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That case is not at all
in keeping with this. The ease I am referring to was decided, as my hon. friend probably knows, in the closing days of 1925 and is reported in the 1926 appeal cases. It determines definitely, until legislation to the contrary is passed, that the legislative power regarding navigation and canals resides in this parliament, but that the proprietary right to the bed of the river and the foreshore is with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: My friend knows that in
the Maclaren case the Privy Council decided that the bed of the Ottawa river belonged to the riparian owners to the medium Slum aquae.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. CHEVRIER:: I held no brief such
as the hon. member has mentioned. I did not use the brief which the hon. member has mentioned nor any of the arguments to be found in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "brief'' was
used by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). I did not use the word in any offensive sense. The hon. member for Bow River stated that the document had been given to him by the hon. member for Ottawa, and it was placed on Hansard in that way.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: With the legal learning
which the hon. gentleman has he will understand that it has no binding effect on my argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that
it bound my hon. friend. I suggested only that it should bind the promoters.
Let me go a step further in this citation. The present Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) intervened, saying:
Mr. Forke: The minister's statement is simply an explanation; it does not alter anything?
Mr. Graham: Matters stand just as they did before.
Mr. Caldwell: How much development has taken place under this bill?
Mr. Graham: So far as I know, there has been just the preparation of plans.
Mr. Ryckman: What rights are maintained or contended for by the government?
Mr. Graham: No rights which the federal government has ever had are being interfered with by the extension of the charter. If my hon. friend wants me to go into a discussion of the question as between federal and provincial rights I am afraid I shall have a considerable task.
There it ended. That was the last extension. Since then, with the decision of the Privy Council in the Montreal harbour commissioners' case, can this House, in view of the contention made by the promoters of this measure, give its consent to the second reading? Can the Minister of Immigration, in the light of the very pertinent inquiry which he then made, do so? Can the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Euler), under those circumstances, do so? I venture to hope not.
I leave that matter with the House with one additional fact not referred to at that time by the then Minister of Railways, namely, that in 1870 the Ottawa river, with all improvements, past, present and future were declared works for the general advantage of Canada. In the light of those facts, how can this House treat this as a private bill?
In view of my desire to conclude what I have to say, I will refer to only one more matter. Should this House pass legislation, should it give its assent to the principle of a measure such as this, should it send to committee a bill which invites litigation against the Dominion? In terms the bill does that. Why? Because from information given to us the other evening by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) and from the three sessional papers to which I have already referred, we now know there are rival power interests contending for rights in the Ottawa river. We now know there is a rival power company which contends it has large rights upon that river. We know further, that those rights expire on the first day of May of this year. The Minister of Railways alleged that this was done practically for the purpose of having them synchronize. Unless this parliament intervenes, the rights of this canal and power enterprise expire on the first day of May and the rights and privileges of this

Georgian Bay Canal Company
private power company also expire on the first day of May. What then is the duty of parliament? Far be it from me to suggest what that duty should be for others. What is my duty? My duty is, so far as my vote and voice are concerned, to see to it that this parliament gives no new life to an enterprise that we would not in this day create if we were called upon to do so, and that we leave the river Ottawa free, by permitting this charter to lapse and by refusing to renew the license to the private company, reserving the vested rights of the owners of the 250 horsepower development.
The hon. member for Bow River this afternoon asked the Minister of Railways what he proposed to do, and the minister said that he was waiting for this bill to go to committee. The minister in his speech the other night had the hardihood to suggest to this House that the matter could all be threshed out there. He knew, or he should know, that the only thing that can be dealt with in that committee is the right of this company to a renewal of this charter. That is the principle of this measure. Therefore the committee could not there deal with the extension of the lease of a private enterprise, which lease has been extended to the first day of May next.
I know not what may be the duty of each individual member to his own mind, reason and conscience, but I know what my duty is. I know it is my duty on this occasion to vote not to send the bill to committee; to declare that it is, as it is indeed, a public measure fraught with the gravest possibilities of danger to the public interest and bringing no revenue to this country. I know it is my duty to say, so far as my vote, and voice are concerned, that this company has had its day and ceased to be; that this company shall not be revived; that it shall not foe resuscitated; that it shall not foe a menace to the government of this country by preventing the bringing of revenue to the exchequer from the development of power on the Ottawa river.
But I do not stop there. We know that a small company with a development of 250 horse-power was licensed, and that that 250 horse-power development with one wheel may possibly be extended to 650 horse-power if desired. Let us instruct our Minister of Railways-if necessary I am prepared to move a resolution to this effect-that this House is resolved that this lease shall not be extended beyond the first day of May. Then what happens? We then leave the Ottawa river free; we leave the province of Ontario with its rights to the soil to the middle of the stream to deal with the situation as it pleases,
I Mr. Bennett.]
to make arrangements with the Dominion government and with the government of Quebec for the development of electric energy. We leave the province of Quebec free to deal with its share of the soil under that stream as it pleases, to license private enterprise if it so desires or to provide for public development. We leave the two provinces free to pursue the course they desire as their interests may determine; we leave provincial rights untouched; we leave the right of this Dominion untouched, and we save to the people of Canada 200 miles of river and lake waterway with a million and a quarter horse-power of electrical energy, the revenue from which will come to the country. In times past we have leased these powers as we have developed our railways and canals, and they have brought much money to the exchequer of the country. Now we have a chance which rarely comes in the life time of men; this parliament, in the plenary exercise of its authority has the right to say, "We will not again call into being this enterprise; we will let it die the death it has merited, die from inanition, die because for thirty years it has done nothing, and because for that long period, more than half the life of this confederation, it has not exercised its functions, its powers and its privileges." We have an opportunity to say, "We will give you no new lease of life in the light of the knowledge we now possess."
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been silent. This is not a political matter; there are men of the Liberal faith who are stronger supporters of the doctrine of public ownership than any man on this side of the House, even any man to my immediate left. My friend the Minister of Customs is 6ne. The great province of Ontario which now has nearly $300,000,000 invested in hydro-electric enterprises-provincial, municipal and civic-[DOT] contains many men who are earnest supporters of public ownership. Through ill repute and good my friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Euler) has given the great undertaking the assistance of his pen, his mind and his voice, and he is a Liberal. I have not been noted for my strong advocacy of public ownership but, Sir, this is mor* than that; it far transcends that principle. The question is whether or not I shall vote to hand over to private interests 200 miles of waterways and a million and a quarter horsepower of electrical energy without a dollar of compensation to the people of this country whether I shall invite the possibility of litigation between Quebec, Ontario and this Dominion. The time has now come when for the first time these two things synchronize; we have the expiration of the lease and the

Georgian Bay Canal Company
disappearance of the company; let them die the death together.
One word more, Sir, and I have concluded. It has been said that we on this side of the House among others have during all these years voted for the renewal of this charter without making a protest. I have shown that that is not quite so; I have shown that there were members alive to the importance of this matter in 1924 and that my good friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) was alive to its importance although it was not a matter affecting western communities. But, Sir, this is the thought I would leave with the House. Shall we blindly follow what we have done in days gone by or, in the light of wider knowledge and new experiences, mark out a new place upon the statute books? That is the question. Shall! we be statesmen or politicians? Shall we be placemen or legislators? Which shall we be? I cannot conclude better than with words which have been ringing in my ears during the last few days as I have been thinking of this question, the words of a great American poet who, in the light of knowledge and experience said:
New occasions teach new duties: Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who -would keep abreast of truth.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
before the hon. member for West Calgary takes his seat I would like to ask him a question in reference to some remarks he made in the opening part of his speech; I was not in the House at the time or I would have asked him then. His remarks had reference to my visit to Atlantic City in the latter part of last month and the early part of this month. His words are to be found in Hansard of Tuesday the 22nd inst. at page 1445. I wish the hon. member would explain now just what he meant by the remarks made in respect of myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I stated it in very good
faith; all that was meant was that the right hon. gentleman had gone to Atlantic City to recuperate his health; that he was accompanied by one distinguished senator and that a senator from Ottawa also visited Atlantic City at the same time. I pictured an imaginary interview, and I trust in so doing I did not do violence to my imagination. I also pictured the fact that a gallant knight passed through that city on his way from Washington to New York. I pictured the visit, and I pictured the anxiety with which that gallant knight passed through that community and his zeal for the public good at Newmarket contrasted with his efforts to secure this charter here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the concluding part of the hon. member's speech tonight he made some distinction between statesmen and politicians. As a statesman I wish he would tell us just what his present remarks mean?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whom does
he say passed through Atlantic City at the time I was there?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The gallant knight who
is backing this enterprise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Clifford Sifton.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I will
say to the hon. member that I have never spoken to Sir Clifford Sifton with respect to this bill at any time, directly or indirectly; I was not aware that he was at Atlantic City, and in the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to retract everything he said in respect of myself and Sir Clifford Sifton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gladly accept the statement of the right hon. gentleman and I gladly withdraw the statement that he saw Sir Clifford Sifton at Atlantic City or talked with him in respect to this bill. But we have a quotation in law, Qui facit per alium facit per se, which means, "the knowledge of the agent is the knowledge of the principal," and the sons speak with quite as much authority as the father.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reference
to the last insinuation of the hon. member I will also say that so far as the sons are concerned, I have had no conversations with respect to this bill save that on one occasion in December or January Sir Clifford Sifton's two sons asked for an interview with the government. They desired that interview because the government had failed to approve plans which under the charter they had submitted in connection with the construction of the Georgian bay canal, and they wished to know whether, when a private bill was presented at the approaching session the government would obstruct the bill and prevent it from receiving the same treatment as that accorded other private bills. I intimated that I saw no reason why the government should treat one private bill differently from another. That was the sum and substance of the interview I had with the sons of Sir Clifford Sifton. During the course of this debate I have on one or two occasions, by chance, met Mr. Winfield Sifton. He said to me that he understood the government were taking the position of
Advancement oj Bills

trying to prevent this bill from going to a committee, and asked me if that was correct. That was the substance of the intimation that he made. Concretely it was that the Liberal whip was giving Liberal members to understand that the wish of the government was that this bill should not go to the committee, and he wished to know from me whether or not the government had given instructions to that effect. I said that the government had not. That is in respect of this bill the sum and substance of any interviews I have had with Sir Clifford Sifton or his sons or anyone directly or indirectly connected with them, and now I ask the hon. member to retract hi9 last insinuation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. After the last statement the Prime Minister has made I will no longer make an insinuation; I will make the statement based on his observations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement is that assurances were given to the son of Sir Clifford Sifton that this motion would receive consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what you said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In conclusion
I will merely say this: The hon. member ended his speech with an elaborate peroration and a quotation with respect to the regard that should be had for truth. I leave you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, to judge how close a regard in his remarks the hon. gentleman has had for the truth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will leave the right hon. gentleman, who is a master at judging truth in the light of hi3 past record, to deal with the matter.


Mr. HOCKEN:: What has the whip got to say?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I will speak when it is necessary.
On motion of Mr. Auger the debate was adjourned.



ADVANCEMENT OF BILLS

Hewitt Bostock: In view of the representations which have been made to me that a number of private bills should be advanced a stage notwithstanding the fact that the hour for private bills has expired, I should like to get an expression of opinion from the House.
[Mr. Mackenzie King.1


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I should like to urge upon the House that unanimous consent be given to the furtherance of the remaining .private bills. I am particularly interested in Bill No. 177, to incorporate The Free Methodist Church in Canada. This bill has been before the House on two previous occasions in two past sessions and has fallen by the way. This is therefore the third time it has been up, and the promoters of the bill are anxious that it should be proceeded with and brought to a successful conclusion. I would urge the House to grant unanimous consent that at least Bill No. 177 receive a second reading.


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand that the House grants unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Granted.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 175, to incorporate The Independent Order " Fior d'ltalia."-Mr. Odette.
Bill No. 177. to incorporate The Free Methodist Church in Canada.-Mr. Carmichael.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Helen Pettit Bruce.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Hugh Devlin.- Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Charles Wilson. -Mr. Kaiser.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Josephine Rae Ennis.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Della Laurel Cox.-Mr. Kaiser.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Rose Glucks-berg.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Murray Richard Minler.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of John Leslie MacLellan.

Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Elizabeth Brown.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Matilda Emily Cantrell.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Mary Ellen Walker.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 190 for the relief of Edwin Walter Wood.-Mr. Matthews.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Harriett Robinson.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Homera Emilie Hodgson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Paul Elester Scarr.-Mr. Luchkovich.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Ronald Lome Johnston.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Eva O'Neill.- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Mabel Beatrice Nash.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa)

St. John Harbour Commission
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Isabella Emily Blue.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Cherie Amy Aston.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Ida Gertrude Le Fevre.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Inez Mary Pitcher.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Charles Murray Mutch.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Estelle Henrietta Cartwright.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Ronald Ross File.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Grace Mantle.
[DOT]-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Emma May Ryan.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Muriel Martha Hammond.-Mr. Ryekman.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Anna Mae Francis.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Harold James Hubbard.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Indiaetta Muriel Taylor.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of William Arthur Dillabough.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No, 211, for the relief of James Alfred McCabe.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Frederick George Jones.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Manford York.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 214, to incorporate Guardian Trust Company.-Mr. Kay.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to incorporate the Halifax harbour commissioners, and to make provision for the improvement, management and regulation of the harbour of Halifax, in the province of Nova Scotia.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. CARDIN:: The object of this resolution is simply to incorporate the harbour commission of Halifax, acting upon the recommendation of the Duncan commission on maritime province rights. We propose to give to that commission the same powers that are enjoyed by harbour commissions already existing in Montreal, Vancouver, and other ports. The powers granted in this case will be absolutely the same as in other cases. The
bill to be founded on this resolution is practically a copy of the bills which have been enacted for the incorporation of the other harbour commissioners.


Robert Gardiner: How many members
will the commission consist of?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The bill will provide for
the appointment of three members.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 225, respecting the Halifax harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read the second time?


Hugh Guthrie: Next sitting of the
House.



ST. JOHN HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to incorporate the St. John harbour commissioners, and to make provision for the improvement, management and regulation of the harbour of St. John, in the province of New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This resolution provides
for the introduction of a bill to incorporate the harbour commission of St. John, New Brunswick. The bill will be along the same lines and exactly on the same principle as that relating to the Halifax harbour commission, although it will differ in certain details.


Robert Gardiner: There is just one
observation I wish to make to the minister. It is quite possible that it is necessary to have commissioners at the ports of Montreal and Vancouver, but the work of a harbour board at ports like St. John and Halifax will not be so extensive as at these other two ports, and I would ask the minister to take into consideration between now and the second reading of the bill the possibility of appointing at Halifax and St. John one chief commissioner who would give his whole time to the work of the harbour commission, with two assistants who might work only part time or be called into consultation as required by the chief commissioner. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre the other evening made a similar suggestion with regard to Vancouver,
1580	COMMONS
Compensation to Government Employees
and I think in view of the possibility of obtaining men at St. John and Halifax who would be able to give a good deal of their attention to harbour works and still be able to look after their own, business, we might in that way get a better functioning commission than if three full-time commissioners were appointed. I merely throw out that suggestion for the minister to take into consideration between now and the second reading of the bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 226, relating to the harbour of St. John in the province of New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the act respecting compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties (1918, c. 15), to provide that compensation) to iemployees in Prince Edward Island shall be the same as to employees in New Brunswick, and that any compensation awarded and any remuneration and expenses payable to any board, officer or other authority in this regard may be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the ^consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Motion, agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: I think I understand the meaning of the resolution, but perhaps the minister	had	better	give	us a	word of
explanation.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is at the present time no workmen's compensation board in the province of Prince Edward Island. Government employees under the legislation now existing	are	dealt	with	by	provincial
machinery in the other provinces, and it is desirable to create in some manner machinery which will deal with injured government employees in Prince Edward Island. The government of that province does not intend to set up any workmen's compensation board, and this amendment to the act is designed to make the same scale and terms of compensation apply as would be the case if the employee were a native of New Brunswick instead of Prince Edward Island. So far as the machinery of operation is concerned, it

is intended to work through the machinery of the government of Prince Edward Island. I shall be glad to furnish particulars as to the details of cooperation with the government of the island in this matter on the second reading of the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: Have the employees asked for this?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, for many years.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Are these Dominion
government employees?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concuned in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 227, to amend an act to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Fruit Act (1923, c. 15), to provide by regulation for the inspection of fruit intended for export, and the issuing of an export certificate or permit therefor, and for the fees for such inspection, certificate or permit.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister explain
this measure?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This bill is a very short but a very important one. It provides for the regulation of the export and grading of fruit in the same manner as cheese and butter are graded for export. For the last two years an inspector has been employed voluntarily by the fruit men at the various points to do the inspecting. An inspector was appointed in British Columbia and the result was very satisfactory, so much so that a large proportion of British Columbia fruit has either gone into the interprovincial trade or has been exported under government certificate. I think a very large percentage of the fruit has gone forward under government inspection. The province of Ontario has adopted a system of government inspection, and the maritime provinces have come to the conclusion that if they were to get the best results with their export fruit they would have

Live Stock Act
to make provision for the inspection. This bill provides for such inspection. The inspection has been done voluntarily for two years in the same way as we inspect our grain for export and our butter and cheese for export.	.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 228, to amend The Fruit Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read the second time?


Hugh Guthrie: Go ahead.
Mr. MOTHERWELL moved the second reading of the bill.


Robert Gardiner: The bill has not been
printed and distributed. I object to it.


Hewitt Bostock: The objection is well
taken. The second reading will be set for the next sitting of the House.



LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS ACT, 1923, AMENDMENT .

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1923, and to make further provisions, as to membership in live stock exchanges, the inclusion of cooperative associations, the rules, regulations and by-laws to be applicable to such exchanges, and penalties for violation of the act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: Has the bill been before
the committee on agriculture, and have they adopted the resolution?


William Richard Motherwell: The resolution has not been before the committee on agriculture, but the bill will go there.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I would like an
explanation of the resolution.


William Richard Motherwell: As a result of certain differences that arose last spring between one of the live stock exchanges and a cooperative marketing association, it was drawn to the attention of the department that no provision was made for the cooperative marketing of live stock. It is true there was no special mention of the cooperative associations, because since the act was first drafted and since it got its last revision in 1923 the
cooperative marketing of live stock has come into such prominence that probably from fifty to sixty per cent of the live stock that is marketed and delivered at our exchanges comes through cooperative sources. In addition to that the act has grown obsolete in some other respects; consequently it has been decided to make a general amendment of the act by giving more recognition to cooperative associations and giving the producers their representative on the exchanges through the live stock associations, introducing provisions that would give more control to the exchanges themselves, and also making certain provisions in regard to penalties. The bill is printed and I expect it will be on the files on Monday morning. On the second reading I propose to ask that the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization, and every oportunity will be given for all interests to be heard.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Was a conference held between the various live stock exchanges before the bill was printed? I understood the conference was to take place and all parties given a chance to express their views.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. In order to get at the will of the people as nearly as possible with regard to this important question, a conference of the cooperative live stock associations was held, and representatives of the agricultural departments of the four western provinces and all other parties interested in the question of live stock selling was held in the city of Regina on the 17th and 18th of February. A conference was also held of representatives of the five eastern provinces in the city of Ottawa on the 2nd day of March, composed of representatives from similar bodies-provincial departments of agriculture, the eastern live stock union and all other bodies interested in this matter were represented. The views and conclusions of each body were reconciled as far as it was humanly possible so to reconcile them. Their differences were ironed out and the results are embodied in this bill.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Have the various societies had an opportunity of reading this bill?


William Richard Motherwell: The purpose of this resolution is merely a warning that the bill is coming. I cannot very well give my hon. friend the contents of the bill, but it provides for what I have indicated-recognition of the principle of cooperative marketing, more control of exchanges, certain penalties for infractions, and so on.
Special War Revenue Act


Mr. NEILL:: Is not this the act concerning which there was a legal decision last year throwing some doubt upon its validity as applied to the provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but since then eight of the nine provinces have passed a concurring bid, and the government of Ontario has already given second reading to a similar bill.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: When will these bills be
available?


William Richard Motherwell: I think it will be
on my hon. friend's file Monday morning. If he is going away he might borrow a copy.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 229, to amend The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, to provide for a more adequate enforcement of the act; to prevent evasion of taxes; to impose additional penalties for neglecting to file returns and for default in payments or the destruction of records; and to make provision for the recovery of amounts due.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: Briefly, what does the
minister propose under this resolution?


Mr. ROBB:: The bill is intended to speed up collections. It will impose interest charges on outstanding and accruing arrears, and provide penalties where necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: How do you propose to speed up collections?


James Alexander Robb: The bill will be tabled at once. It is based on the recommendations of the committee appointed last August, consisting of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the Auditor General and the gentleman who has charge of the Taxation branch.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Up to December last how much was in arrear in respect to sales tax collections?


James Alexander Robb: The arrears of sales and
excise tax amounted to $4,856,393.13, and covers 1792 licenses.


James Dew Chaplin: That is up to what time?


James Alexander Robb: The statement does not say.
I will get the information for my hon. friend
before we proceed with the bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 230, to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924, and to make such further provisions respecting allowances, benefits and contributions as may be deemed necessary for a better administration of the act.	.
Motion agreed to and the House went into _ committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I want
to ask the minister if the bill which he proposes to base on this resolution makes any provision for temporary employees. There are a large number of temporary employees in the service, and for the last two years in particular I have brought to the attention of the government from time to time the anxiety and desire of these temporary employees to be made permanent. Many of them have been in the service for several years, and yet they are unable to secure the benefits accruing to permanent employees. If they are not covered, I would ask the minister to consider making provision for them.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I should not
like to make a commitment as to incorporating the temporary employees in this act without having some more information before me from the superintendent of insurance. I am not sure whether my hon. friend means temporary employees who have been in some of the regular departments for many years or temporary employees who are in certain branches that for a time it was considered were temporary. I know the superintendent of insurance has this matter under consideration and when the bill comes down we might be in a better position to discuss the matter. As my hon. friend knows, the Superannuation Act was passed three years ago. In the administration a number of defects have been

Civil Service, Superannuationa Act
brought to the attention of the Department of Finance which is charged with the administration of the act. The amendments contained in the draft bill are for the purpose of removing these defects and making the act better serve the conditions it was designed to meet. Incidentally I may say to my hon. friend that I think it extends the period of election to July, 1927." That was in the bill as presented last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I refer not to men who are hired by the day for odd jobs, but to employees who are classified as temporary but who are really just as permanent as others except that they do not receive these benefits.
I hold under my hand a communication from Mr. Knowles, National President of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, and I will read a clause or two which will indicate the condition which, I think, is one that should be rectified:
Following up our communication regarding the "temporary employee" problem we are submitting the case for permanent appointment of the employees of the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment.
With few exceptions the majority of the staff have served from seven to nine years with the department, and in a large number of cases the civil service appointment was made immediately after discharge from war service, others are indirect victims of war service, thus further adding to the term of public service.
Practically every male member of the staff is a returned soldier of good record, as for the female employees, many have served overseas, while others are indirectly victims of war service brought about by a loss of near relatives in war areas.
And so on. Then there is another group. This is in another communication from the same gentleman:
Cleaners in public buildings with fifteen years' service are classified as temporaries and others doing the same class of work in the same building with less than two years of service are classified as permanent.
Thus we have employees who have been for many years in the service still carrying on as temporaries, while others in the same building and doing the same class of work are on the permanent list and enjoying or having the prospect of enjoying the privileges that accrue to permanent employees. There are other cases: for instance all the employees in the Income Tax branch who have for many years been asking to be recognized as permanent employees. I am not at the moment arguing with regard to appointment by the civil service. What I am asking is that these employees, who are obviously regular employees of the government as much as any others who are ranked as permanent, should enjoy the same privileges and* advantages as
their fellow employees enjoy. That in a nutshell is my point and frankly I think this condition ought to be rectified. For the last three years and prior to that, but particularly during the last three years, they have been asking very urgently for this redress; they have been waiting from time to time, assured that redress would in all probability be afforded w'hen certain consideration was given to the various acts affecting this. I am informed by these officials that they have during the last few weeks been anxiously awaiting the introduction of this legislation expecting that their grievances will be remedied under it. I would take this opportunity of urging the minister to make provision in this bill to take care of these various classes of temporary employees.


John Arthur Clark: This is an opportune time for the Minister of Finance to take this matter under consideration, and, in connection with the legislation now proposed to introduce a measure which will make permanent employees who have had a long service not only in the public departments but in branches mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), and service overseas for a period of years preceding their service in the branches. Some of these men have now been serving the country for thirteen years. This matter has been brought repeatedly to the attention of the govern' ment. I myself have brought it to the attention of the government on at least three occasions this year and each time I have received an assurance that the matter was under consideration. Furthermore, on one occasion, I am not sure in what year, this matter was dealt with by order in council so that the claims of the cases referred to were in that way recognized.
One class not referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver is that of employees in the Soldier Settlement Board, who are to-day, I believe, carrying on work in connection with the empire settlement scheme. This is clearly not a temporary work such as the soldier settlement scheme might have been considered. They are being used now for the general work in connection with immigration, a very important work. The claims of these men should be recognized; they should be put on the same basis as other members of the civil service. I hope when this bill is introduced the minister will have dealt with these claims. It is not a difficult matter because it has been investigated before, and the claims have been recognized. I feel certain it is a simple matter to deal justly with them at this session.
1584	_	COMMONS
Civil Servants Widows Annuities


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I also have a large file with letters on it from various departments of the civil service, especially from western Canada. I did not know that this matter was coming up to-night, and so I am not able at this time to discuss it. I would like to ask the minister whether, when, he brings down his bill, it would be opportune to discuss this matter. I suppose it would not be too late then to offer some suggestions and to have the minister take them into consideration.


James Alexander Robb: When hon. gentlemen have the bill before them they will be in a better position to discuss the whole bill.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Will the bill to be founded upon this resolution take care of the promise made by the Prime Minister the other evening as to the extension of time which employees in certain departments would be given for election?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the House a few minutes ago when I made the explanation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 231, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVANTS' WIDOWS' ANNUITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide annuities for the widows of certain civil servants.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister explain the class of civil servants included in this measure?


James Alexander Robb: The widows of certain civil servants retired under the provisions of the old Superannuation Act have petitioned that provision be made for annuities to them to the amount of one-quarter of the allowances drawn by their husbands. This provision for widows is the same as is contained in the new Superannuation Act for the wives of persons still in the service who transferred to the new act and did not elect to pay arrears to bring their contributions for their whole service up to five per cent.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 232, to provide annuities for the widows of certain civil servants.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BONUS TO COKING PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide encouragement for tlie production of a domestic fuel by heat treatment from coal mined in Canada, by means of cash payments made to those who produce such fuel in new plants from Canadian coal.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Before this motion is agreed to I would like to have some explanation from the minister in respect of this particular resolution.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The bill will speak for itself, and I would much rather make the explanation on the second reading, it would be more appropriate. However, I would say to my hon. friend that this is practically the same bill as that introduced last year, to give assistance to coking plants.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this done in connection with the maritime report?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it is fulfilling part of the Duncan report.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. GU1HRIE: I would like one word of explanation on this. What does the government propose to do?


Charles A. Stewart: This is part of the provision to meet the recommendations of the Duncan report, and merely provides for the same assistance provided in the bill introduced last year to new plants for the transformation of Canadian coal into coke.


Hugh Guthrie: On what basis is the assistance to be given?


Charles A. Stewart: Assistance will be given to those who construct plants on the basis of the cost of the plant.


Hugh Guthrie: W'hat does that amount to?


Charles A. Stewart: Four per cent on the cost of the plant in the case of

Pension Act Amendment
private interests and five per cent in the case of municipalities. It is rather difficult to explain an intricate measure of this kind until the bill is before the House.


Hugh Guthrie: I just wanted a general explanation.


Charles A. Stewart: Those are, in general, the provisions of the bill.


Robert Gardiner: That will extend over a period of years?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, a period of fifteen years.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 233, to encourage the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee to considered the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the provisions of the Pension Act relating to the Federal Appeal Board, and to designate the number of members of which the board shall consist, the duration of their term of office, and their eligibility for reappointment.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. MANION:: Would the minister be
good enough to explain the purpose of this resolution?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: This resolution,
and the bill to be founded on it will permit of the reappointment of some of the Federal Appeal Board commissioners in order that they may continue their work. There is this further change: whereas the act to-day reads that there shall be from five to seven members, it is proposed under the bill that there shall be three to seven members, thus permitting the government to reduce the number if they find it necessary to do so.


Robert James Manion: Are these appointments
at the present time only temporary?


John Warwick King: The last amendment to the act gave the government the right to make appointments for two years. That period will expire this season, and it is now proposed to extend the time or to grant power to reappoint if necessary.


Robert James Manion: Is the government reducing the number to three instead of five?
Mr, KING (Kootenay); It will be in the government's power to do so, if the legislation passes, but it will be dependent upon the amount of work to be done. As it is now the membership may be five to seven; we are taking the right to make it three to seven. The number will probably be lessened if and when the work gets less.


Robert James Manion: For how many years are
the members of the board to be appointed?


John Warwick King: In the bill the
period proposed is five years. It will be within the power of the government at any rate to fix a time within this period. We think it better to have a fixed term rather than to be bringing in amendments every second year.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There is no idea of
changing the personnel of the board?


Mr. PRICE:: This is an opportune time
to interrogate the minister in regard to some question which I placed on the order paper at least ten days or two weeks ago-to be precise, on March 9. Those questions read:
1.	Will legislation be introduced at this session of parliament providing relief for disabled and partially disabled war veterans at present excluded from pension benefits owing to the existing regulations?	'
2.	When will the bill be introduced for the said purpose?
Now the minister has had ample opportunity to reply to these questions, and seeing that the matter involved is one of very great importance to returned men who have been unable to qualify under the present regulations, I should like to ask the minister what he has to say about it. I should like the minister to intimate, if it is possible for him to do so, that he is prepared to bring down legislation to provide for these men who are unable to carry on and to look after themselves. They should be well provided for, in view of their services at the front.


John Warwick King: I must apologize to my hon. friend and to the House for not answering his questions earlier. An answer was prepared but it was not sufficiently direct and on that account I withheld it. I hope to give my hon. friend a reply within the next day or two.


Mr. ESLING:: Is it not a fact that at the present time it takes almost a year to get a case before the appeal board, and is not that delay due to the fact that the board has to cope with such a volume of work?
Pension Act Amendment


John Warwick King: I did not hear my hon. friend's question.


William Kemble Esling: Is it not a fact that it requires almost a year for the appeal board to dispose of a case, for the reason that there are so many other cases awaiting decision? Yet this resolution proposes to reduce the number of members of the appeal board at the government's discretion, and that, apparently, will create further delay.


John Warwick King: No, I think not. It will be within the discretion of the government to reduce the number of members if they find .the work is slackening off. There are many appeals yet to be heard, and the desire of the government now is to make it possible to reappoint the members of the board in order that the work may go on. If later it is found that the work is lessening and that it would be desirable to reduce the number of members, it will be within the power of the government to do so.


William Kemble Esling: Are you not in receipt of complaints to-day that these appeals are just about one year behind? Have not representations to that effect been made to the minister? If that is true, and if you reduce the number of members of the board, it will mean that there will be that much longer delay.


John Warwick King: We do not propose to reduce the number now; we are taking power to do that in the event of the work slackening. What we have in mind is that the work shall be properly carried on. As to the number of appeals coming before the board, my hon. friend will admit, I think, that the task they have is a very difficult one. They can only accomplish so much work and the cases coming before them must be dealt with in turn. I understand the board are travelling east and west trying to overtake the work entrusted to them with a view to cleaning up, but in view of the number of appeals it will take some time to do that.


Robert Gardiner: There is just one point upon which I should like to ask the minister for information. Some little time ago a case was brought to my notice in which it was proposed to apply for an appeal. This case will be heard in western Canada, Now I was notified by one of the officials of the appeal board that when the board reaches this particular point in western Canada in the spring, some time in April or May, no more appeals will be accepted for the present. That will mean that this particular appeal will not be heard until a year later. Is that the method 
of transacting business followed by the board? Is it not possible to arrange that they shall hear all pending appeals from that particular point when they get there this spring?


John Warwick King: I am not familiar with the case my hon. friend speaks of, but I shall be very glad to bring it to the attention of the chairman of the board. I think when the board go west they should try to clear up all the cases that have been presented to them.


Robert Gardiner: I merely make the
suggestion that when the appeal board is sitting in any particular district it should stay there long enough to clean up all these appeals.


John Warwick King: I think so.


Robert Gardiner: It is a waste of time
and a great inconvenience to men appealing to have their cases put off for another twelve months.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What is the minister's
information as to the real necessity for this board? That is to say, are there many findings of the pension commissioners that are found, upon appeal, to be unjust to the soldiers, in the view of the appeal board?


John Warwick King: I have not t'he
figures before me that would give the information for which my hon. friend asks; I did not know the resolution was coming up tonight. But when the bill comes up for second reading I shall have the figures here, and' I think it will be shown that the creation of the appeal board has been justified; they have heard many cases. Some have been consented to and in other cases the judgment has confirmed the decision of the pension board. In the majority of cases the decision of the pension board has been confirmed, but in other cases a contrary finding has been brought in. Taking everything into consideration we think the creation of the appeal board has been justified and that they have performed a useful service.


Peter McGibbon: On what particular
grounds are most of the appeals based? Is there any regulation covering the matter?


John Warwick King: I understand that
the soldier who has been refused a pension by the pension board on the grounds of non-attribuitability to service may appeal to the appeal board, and many cases have been appealed.


Peter McGibbon: I had a case before the
board a few years ago where the appeal board-I am speaking from memory-found

Pension Act Amendment
an aggravated disability, but could not award any pension because the primary board had stated that there was no disability. It seems to me that that is an anomaly in the act that should be corrected, and I would like to hear from the minister in regard to it.


John Warwick King: I think there are
difficulties there. Generally speaking I think these appeals are being taken and in the majority of cases, in fact, in practically every case, the appeal is sustained and a pension awarded. But in some cases there has been disagreement between the pension board and the appeal board, and such cases are allowed to stand.


Peter McGibbon: It would seem to me
that in that case the main purpose of the appeal 'board is defeated. A man makes application to the pension board for a pension, he is refused, and he appeals to the appeal board, and although they find that he is entitled to a pension he cannot receive one owing to the previous decision of the primary board. Does not that seem ridiculous?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is this seven-year limitation a cast iron rule so far as disability is concerned?


John Warwick King: Yes, according to the act to-day.


Mr. MILLAR:: Does the lodging of an
appeal entail any cost?


John Warwick King: I think not.


Otto Baird Price: I should like to ask the
minister again in regard to a question I have had standing on the order paper since March 9th, reading as follows:
1.	Will legislation be introduced at this session of parliament providing relief for disabled and partially disabled war veterans at present excluded from pension benefits owing to existing regulations?
2.	If so, when will the hill be introduced for the said purpose?
I would ask the minister whether or not he intends to bring down this legislation at the present session. He is throughly aware that hundreds of cases are not provided fot under the present regulations. These men cannot possibly qualify for pensions under the present regulations, and I think it is up to the minister to let me have a reply to this question which I have had standing on the order paper for over two weeks. I would like some satisfaction. The minister has had hundreds and hundreds of complaints with regard to this matter. He must be in a position to size up the situation and I would like
to know whether he will or will not bring down legislation at this session to provide for cases of this kind. I want a direct answer, yes or no.


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman,
the question will be answered in accordance with the usual procedure.


Otto Baird Price: That is no satisfaction.


Mr. BRADY:: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a case that is more or less individual, but there are many such in Canada to-day. I refer to those returned soldiers who are debarred by the statute of limitations from obtaining a pension. After they came back from the war they did not apply for a pension for a period of years and when they did apply it was too late.
I realize that if the law were left wide open, many would apply who might not deserve a pension; nevertheless these men to whom I refer were 'big enough and patriotic enough to join the colours when the country needed them, and because they did not apply for a pension within a certain period after their return, to-day some of them although incapable of working, are outside relief. I know of a case or two where a returned soldier is dependent on the charity of the provincial government and is an inmate of a convalescent home. Those men are there, dependent on charity, simply because they did not ask for a pension within the time required. They are there as the result of their war service, but they are absolutely outside the pale of any consideration under the present law. I do not blame the government because I believe in the statute of limitations, but I do say that in this year of our diamond jubilee these particular cases should be considered. Some of these returned men to-day are physically unable to carry on even the common functions of life. Surely the government should listen with respect to the advice of the medical authorities who vouch for these cases and provide some relief for these deserving men. I appeal to the minister to give this matter his most serious consideration, and see if relief cannot be provided this session for these cases that are debarred otherwise from relief.


Otto Baird Price: I think I am entitled to an answer from the minister, and I think I am entitled to an answer, yes or no. Does the minister propose to do something at this session, or does he not? He is thoroughly familiar with the situation. He knows that there are hundreds of returned men in Canada to-day who are not fit to carry on, but who cannot qualify for a pension under the
Pension Act Amendment

present regulations. The minister cannot have escaped considering this situation, because he has had hundreds of applications for a pension from these men. That is admitted, and I think it is our duty to make provision for such cases at this session. I again appeal to the minister to give me a yes or no answer as to whether he proposes to bring down the necessary legislation at this session to see that these cases are adequately provided for. We are entitled to the information; it is due not only to myself, but to the country.


John Warwick King: I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that the question will be answered in the usual course when questions are called.


Robert James Manion: I think the question
asked by the hon. member is a fair one. We are getting within reasonable distance of the end of the session. It is quite possible that we shall be out of here in three weeks, and I hope we will. That being so, it seems to me the government might well tell us what legislation they are going to bring down. We are dealing with the question of pensions and I think it is only fair that the question should be answered. The minister knows whether he is going to bring down any legislation this year to modify the Pensions Act. If he is not going to introduce further legislation he can give a straight answer, and I think we should not have to wait for the answer to the question on the order paper.


John Warwick King: The matter has
been and is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to state to-night what legislation will be brought down. The answer prepared by the department was not satisfactory; I considered it evasive, and I preferred to make a direct answer. I apologize to my hon. friend for not having an answer, but as I say, there will be a direct answer when questions are called. I thought that to-night the resolution would be accepted. It deals more or less with the appeal board and the question whether their term should be extended. If it is desired that the Pension Act be discussed on the second reading of the bill, well and good. I rather thought that when the estimates of the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment w7ere before the House there would be an opportunity of discussing the matter of legislation regarding pensions. My hon. friend from Skeena a few moments ago suggested that we should do more than we are doing.	I think if
he would get in touch with the pension commissioners and the officers of the depart-
ment he might obtain some information. Although there is a limitation of seven years, many cases are being dealt with to-day; the files of the soldier, or indirect evidence, are being considered, and many cases are brought before the board. Whether or not the period of seven years should be extended is a matter that I think should be discussed later, and I shall foe glad to discuss it.


Robert James Manion: When questions are called, probably on Monday next, the minister will give an answer?


John Warwick King: I think so.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the question of the limitation of seven years foe up for discussion before the session closes?


John Warwick King: Yes, on supply
perhaps, or on the second reading.
Mr. MILLAR [DOT] Has the pension board the right to go beyond the seven years?


John Warwick King: Yes. If evidence is adduced before the pension board that the soldier had disability during service-and his file will show that, that would be considered as an application as of date of entry on the file. Some of these cases are difficult and possibly slow in development, but many of them are being dealt with.


Peter McGibbon: Seeing that the minister is making provision to decrease if necessary the personnel of the appeal board, why has it 'been found necessary in the last six months to increase the personnel of the Board of Pension Commissioners? Why is it, when probably the peak of work in connection with the work of pensions has been passed, that the minister has found it necessary in the last six months to add to that board by order in council? I am not criticizing the appointment, but why was it necesary?


John Warwick King: There is no intention at the present time to reduce the number of members of the appeal board, but in bringing in the legislation extending the period for five years we hope that in the course of three or four years their work will be pretty well concluded, and it may be possible to reduce the number. The suggestion comes from the chairman that the reduction might be made if the work should justify it. In regard to increasing the number of members of the pension board, it is true that an order in council was passed providing that one of the members of the service, a medical man, should sit in with the board and form a quorum. The board have found it necessary to do some travelling, and they sug-

Pension Act Amendment
gested that Dr. Keyes be made a member of the board in order that they might have a quorum if they were travelling outside of Ottawa. There has been no increase in the staff as far as that is concerned.


Peter McGibbon: I cannot see that it is a sufficient reason for increasing the personnel of the board seven or eight years after the war, especially when the great bulk of the work has been done.


John Warwick King: I wish it were.


Peter McGibbon: 
John Warwick King: I know my hon. friend wants to be fair. The addition to the board has not increased the expenditure in any way. The officer who is serving at the suggestion of the chairman and members of the board is in the service as a medical officer and there has been no increase in the salary paid to him. It is merely to facilitate the business of the board that he may sit in and form a quorum when necessary.


Peter McGibbon: I do not want to be understood as criticizing the appointment or the salary. But is it not a fact that members of the Board of Pension Commissioners are paid higher salaries than medical men in the service?


John Warwick King: I think so.


Peter McGibbon: Then you increase the expense.


John Warwick King: No.


Peter McGibbon: Then you were not fair to the appointee.


John Warwick King: This gentleman is merely filling in to form a quorum when necessary. There is no increase in salary; it is merely to facilitate the work of the beard and has been done at the request of the board.


Peter McGibbon: I am getting further at
sea all the time. He is either a member of the board of commissioners or he is not. If he is he ought to receive the same salary as the others.


John Warwick King: He is not a member of the board. I will be very glad to lay the order in council on the table, so that my hon. friend will understand it. There are times when a quorum is required. This gentleman is thoroughly familiar with the work and it is necessary that they should have a quorum in order to make a decision. He fills in on such occasions and acts in that capacity:


Peter McGibbon: Then he is not permanent?


John Warwick King: He is not considered permanent.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister be prepared when he brings in this bill to discuss the handicaps under which the Federal Appeal Board operates? Let me recount one of them. The Federal Appeal Board cannot change the diagnosis of the pension board, and upon that depends whether or not the ex-service man receives a pension. I contend that the appeal board should be able to decide the diagnosis just as well as the pension board.


John Warwick King: I shall be very glad to have a discussion on that when the bill is before the House for second reading or on the estimates of the department. I think the discussion would be useful, for an important principle is involved.


Peter McGibbon: That is the very point I brought up. I can cite the minister a case where the Board of Pension Commissioners found no disability-I am not saying whether they were right or wrong-but the appeal board found there was disability. However, they could do nothing. Is not the position absurd? Will not the minister give this consideration in order to rectify what is obviously a defect in the act? I appreciate his difficulties, but we must not forget these cases.


John Warwick King: I appreciate what my hon. friend says. We are dealing with a difficult proposition. On two occasions the
ItEVISED EDITION
Trade Mark Act

House decided that the soldiers should have * an appeal on the conditions stated, but I understand it failed to pass the upper chamber.


Peter McGibbon: I did not know that.


John Warwick King: That is the situa-* tion as I understand it.


Peter McGibbon: Thanks very much.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. King (Kootenay) thereupon moved to introduce Bill No. 234, to amend The Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRADE MARK AND DESIGN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 171 to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions-"Labour Union" or "Union"-"Label".
Henry Herbert Stevens: On this clause would the minister kindly give us an outline of the intention of the bill so we may save time?


Peter Heenan: The bill simply gives permission to the labour unions to register their labels. Similar permission is granted in Great Britain and in forty-eight states of the union. But it is provided that no union label may be placed on goods without the authority of their proprietor. Power is given the Exchequer court to cancel the label under certain conditions. The bill also provides that once an employer gets the right to place the label on any of his goods, that right cannot be withdrawn without giving twelve months' notice. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is the judge as to what labels may be registered.


Robert James Manion: In regard to the twelvemonth notice, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) mentioned to me a few minutes ago that he thinks in some cases this notice is not sufficient. But according to my reading of clause 6, subsection (b) the point is covered. This is the subsection:
A labour union may authorize the use of any label registered by it and such authorization to use shall be subject to cancellation only upon twelve months' notice, unless otherwise speci-IMr. J. H. King.]
fied in any agreement for the use of such label; and any goods may be at any time sold bearing such label, if when such label was used in respect of such goods, the person, firm or corporation was so authorized.
Will the minister tell me if I am correct in this? Suppose a company making a certain line of goods gives permission to the labour union to put on the label, and subsequently the union withdraws the permission, if the company at the end of the year still has some goods on hand so labelled they will be permitted to sell those goods?


Peter Heenan: The section is intended
to cover that point.


Robert James Manion: I think it does cover it
Apparently my hon. friend did not turn over the page. He is not very strongly in favoui of the bill and had hoped to be here to discuss it. In subsection 3 of section 2 it is provided that the label shall not be placed upon any goods without the consent of the owner or proprietor of such goods. It seems to me that the owner is pretty well protected.


Peter Heenan: Yes. The representatives of the employers and the employees met th? Labour department officials and agreed to the bill.


Robert James Manion: My interpretation is correct in respect to those two points?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the label become
a proprietary label just like an ordinary trade mark?


Peter Heenan: It will, after the bill is
passed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then this legislation is
really administered by the Department of Trade 'and Commerce?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the Minister of Trade
and Commerce alive to what the Minister of Labour is doing? The Minister of Labour is not putting anything over him in the dark in his absence?


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Labour
would not do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Suit of proprietor.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Can anyone but a member of a union apply to the Exchequer court for cancellation of registration?

Trade Mark Act


Peter Heenan: Nobody but a labour union under the signature of the president or secretary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: According to that no
other person would have the right of entry to the Exchequer court.


Peter Heenan: That is my understanding of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any objection to anybody else having that right?


Peter Heenan: It would not fill the bill
if any person could apply for a labour union lalbel.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is for cancellation of registration.


Peter Heenan: I did not catch the question property. Anybody can apply for cancellation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister be
good enough to show me Where that occurs in the bill?


Peter Heenan: Section 7 reads:
The Exchequer court of Canada may, on application-[DOT]
It does not say who should apply.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 7 which has just been passed, provides that the Exchequer court may, on application, cancel the registration. Then section 8, as I read it, limits the power to apply to the Exchequer court to officers and so forth, of a labour union. But the other party to the'agreement provided for, I think, in section 6, would not have the same right. Would the minister be good enough to explain why the other party to the agreement would not also have the right to apply to the Exchequer court?


Peter Heenan: I figure that any person would have the right to apply to the Exchequer court for cancellation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That would appear to
me to be common sense, but I do not see it provided for in this section; indeed, I think the reverse is the case. I had the opinion that the minister really intended that application could be made to the court by either party to the agreement, but section 8 limits that to one side of the agreement, to one party


Hugh Guthrie: A difficulty arises here.
In the act, section 18, which section 7 of the bill proposes to amend, provides that:
Any person who has registred a trade mark may petition for the cancellation of the same.
And so on. Then subsection (3) of section 7 of this bill provides:
The Exchequer court of Canada may, on application and after investigation and hearing of the parties concerned, direct the cancellation of the registration of any label.
And so on. That would look as if any person could apply for the cancellation of registration of a union trade mark or label, but in the case of a private trade mark only the person who has registered may apply for the cancellation. Is it the intention of the minister that the public at large shall be entitled to apply to the Exchequer court for cancellation, or only the person or union that has registered?


Peter Heenan: I have not studied that
question, but section 8 does not deal with the question of cancellation at all.


Hugh Guthrie: I am speaking of section
7. That is where the difficulty arises.


Peter Heenan: I would say that the person who owns the label would be the one who would apply for cancellation.


Hugh Guthrie: Then section 7 should
be amended to make it conform to the provisions of section 18, which is printed on the opposite page, and which provides that only the person who registers is entitled to apply for cancellation. The language of the bill would imply that any person, including the trade union, can apply to the Exchequer court for cancellation of the trade union label.


Peter Heenan: Would this meet the difficulty?
The Exchequer court of Canada may, on application by the proprietor of the label


Hugh Guthrie: On application of the
person or union who has registered the label.


Peter Heenan: I think my hon. friend
is right there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It might be well to let
this go as it is. We have drawn the minister's attention to the possible anomaly. If the minister will give the matter thought, an amendment can be made later, if necessary, in the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Canada Grain Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health) moved the third reading of Bill No. 105, to amend the Food and Drugs Act, 1920.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W . R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee on the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Grain Act (1925, c. 33) in respect to the issue of warehouse receipts by a private terminal to the shipper or his consignee, and as to the contents of warehouse receipts issued by the person operating any country elevator.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain?


William Richard Motherwell: The major feature of this measure is the same as the legislation which was before the House last year in the form of a private bill sponsored by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell). It first saw the light of day in the form of a subsection of a certain section of the original bill of 1925 known as the Turgeon draft bill, but for reasons I do not need to go into, it did not get through the House. Last year the measure did get through this House but became stranded in the Senate, also for reasons which I need not go into.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, there is a very small one, but I forget its nature; it is comparatively unimportant. I believe it is requested by the pools.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 235, to amend The Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Pensions-further amount required, $500,000.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might we have some
explanation of this vote?


James Alexander Robb: This further amount is required to cover the retroactive awards made by the Board of Pension Commisisoners and the Federal Appeal Board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for legal expenses in connection with Winnipeg coal inquiry cases, $15,000.
Mr. SPENCER:: May we have some further particulars in regard to this vote?


James Alexander Robb: It is to provide for the legal expenses in connection with the Winnipeg coal inquiry cases. The amount will be taxed by the Department of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Milton Neil Campbell: Might I ask the minister if this is the same as Bill No. 8 of last year in its entirety ? I noticed that the minister said it was the same in the major parts.


William Richard Motherwell: There was a section added to it by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) last year which is not included this year.


Milton Neil Campbell: That was merely an
amendment in committee, but I wish to know if the provisions of the original bill are precisely the same.


William Richard Motherwell: The provisions of the bill of last year will be found included word for word. The bill which is based upon this resolution is identical with the Turgeon draft of 1925 and the private bill of last year.


Robert Gardiner: Are there any other
proposed amendments to the Grain Act?



SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1927, the sum of $860,331.05 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 236, for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1927.

Customs Tariff-Drawbacks
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Monday, March 28, 1927.