1933-05-10

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. FACTOR:: 1.	How many pensions have been reviewed or reboarded by the Board of Pension Commissioners from September 1, 1932, to May 1, 1933?
2.	In how many of the cases so reviewed has the rate of pension been increased?
4788	COMMONS
Questions as Orders for Returns
3.	In how many of the eases so reviewed has the rate of pension been decreased?
4.	In how many of the eases so reviewed was the previous rate of pension confirmed?
5.	In how many eases so reviewed was the rate of pension changed as a result of error: (a) on the part of the headquarters' staff of the Board of Pension Commissioners; (b) on the part of the unit doctors of the Board of Pension Commissioners?
6.	In how many cases so reviewed was the change made as a result of faulty diagnosis?
7.	In how many of the cases so reviewed was the decision of the headquarters' doctors different from the unit doctors?
Mr. MacLAREN; Pension statistics are made up quarterly, consequently it is not possible to give figures for the period requested; the figures quoted below are for the nine months' period July 1, 1932, to March 31, 1933:
1.	16,441.
2.	2,031.
3.	2,130.
4.	12,280.
5.	6 and 7. No statistics have been kept.
Loan
1915-35 New York.. 1917-37 War Loan..
1917-	37 Victory Loan
1918-	33 Victory Loan


INCOME TAX STATISTICS
Mr. COOTE:: What was the amount of incomes of individuals assessed for the purpose of the Income War Tax Act in the fiscal year 1930-31 in each of the following income class groups:	(a)
$10,000 to $15,000; (b) $15,000 to $20,000; (c) $20,000 to $25,000; (d) $25,000 to $30,000; (e) $30,000 to $50,000; (f) $50,000 and over.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: (a) 810,000 to $15,000,
$91,252,856.22; (b) $15,000 to $20,000, $51,844,021.21; (c) $20,000 to $25,000, $28,970,945.98; (d) $25,000 to $30,000, $20,413,111.67;	(e)
$30,000 to $50,000, $40,161,303.59; (f) $50,000 and over, $52,128,925.30.


TAX-FREE BONDS
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What federal government bonds are tax-free?
2.	What are, (a) their dates of issue; (b) their dates of maturity; (c) what is the total amount of such bonds?


Mr. RHODES :: 1 and 2.
Date of Issue
Aug. 1, 1915 Mar. 1, 1917 Dec. 1, 1917 Nov. 1, 1918
Date of Maturity Aug. 1, 1935 Mar. 1, 1937 Dec. 1, 1937 Nov. 1, 1933
Outstanding May 1, 1933 $	874,000
90,166,900 236.299,800 169,971,850

In addition to the above loans, the 1931-58 conversion loan is tax exempt to November 1, 1933. and thereafter taxable. Amount outstanding May 1, 1933, $276,687,600.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What is the total valuation of cultivated farms in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	What is the amount of the mortgage debts of the farmers in each of these provinces?


OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Are any official documents or publications of the federal government issued in the English language only?
2.	If so, how many such documents or publications are there?
3.	What are their titles?


CIVIL SERVICE STATISTICS
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	How many civil servants, temporary or permanent, whose salaries are paid by the federal government, were employed in Ottawa, August 7, 1930?
2.	How many civil servants, temporary or permanent, are presently employed in Ottawa?

3.	How many civil servants in the departments at Ottawa, temporary or permanent, resigned or lost their positions since August 7, 1930?
4.	How many Ottawa civil servants were superannuated and receive a pension from the government since August 7, 1930?
5.	What was the total cost in 1932 of the pension or superannuation paid to this class of civil servants?
6.	How many newly appointed civil servants, temporary or permanent, work in Ottawa who were not in the employ of the government on August 7, 1930?
7.	Are all such civil servants British subjects?
8.	If not, how many are not British subjects?



GOVERNMENT LOAN, $750,000,000 REDEMPTION OF OBLIGATIONS AND PURCHASE OF UN MATURED SECURITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee tomorrow, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars, for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada, and for purchasing and withdrawing from circulation unmatured securities of Canada.

Wheat Conference at Geneva
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance after quoting a few lines from a Canadian Press dispatch in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday. Referring to the reduction of interest rates by banks on loans, under the heading ' No conference held," the dispatch states:
Another high banking authority who did not wish to be named said the matter of lowering interest rates was a question for each individual bank. There had been no conference between the banks, he said, and no uniform action planned.
Further on, it states:
Question of applying the reduction is left with the individual banks, it was explained, each bank taking action on individual cases.
What guarantee is there that 'borrowers are going to be treated on the same basis and all get a reduction of one-half of one per cent interest?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would prefer not to answer the question offhand. I shall note it in Hansard and give an answer to-morrow.



PROPOSED TARIFF TRUCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether Canada is a party to or interested in the proposal for a tariff truce which has been made by President Roosevelt and which is being negotiated at the present time between him and the Prime Minister of Great Britain? If so, what is involved in the proposal? Does it mean that there will be no tariff changes at all until after the world economic conference, or that trade treaties may still be negotiated downwards?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: As I understand the matter, the tariff truce as suggested by the President of the United States involves an undertaking that there will be no increases in tariff until after the conclusion of the world economic conference.


Ernest Lapointe: Are we a party to the undertaking?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have explained that as our budget for the year has been presented to the house and the imposition of taxation takes place by act of Parliament, necessarily we fall within that class.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Will it
apply to increases in valuations?


Ernest Lapointe: Will the Minister of
National Revenue please listen?


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: In view of the press reports that President Roosevelt and Prime Minister MacDonald have entered into a tariff truce I would ask the Prime Minister if he would give the house an opportunity to debate the resolution standing in my name as No. 39 on page 13 of the order paper, regarding a reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States? I should like to know if any arrangement has been made for continuing the debate on this resolution and having a vote on it before the house prorogues.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I hope that an opportunity may be offered the hon. gentleman to deal with the matter next session.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I think the
Prime Minister promised an opportunity would be afforded this session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He said the debate would be resumed at a later stage but that the resolution could not be passed in the form in which it appeared.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister made no such statement. He said the debate could be resumed at a later date, and if it was not that is not his fault.


Ernest Lapointe: It is his fault.



WHEAT CONFERENCE AT GENEVA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: The question I am about to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce may be taken as a notice for reply to-morrow. I see by this morning's press that two prominent gentlemen have been sent to Geneva in connection with the wheat conference there; they are the High Commissioner for Canada and Mr. Riddell. I was wondering whether any expert for Canada, for instance, Mr. McFarland, were going to assist the other capable men, because the matter requires very competent men who know all the intricacies of the situation, or, if Mr. McFarland cannot act, I was wondering whether Mr. Smith, who is, I think, a former pool representative in London or somewhere, were going.
4790	COMMONS
Judges Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: The conference that is meeting at Geneva with respect to wheat is for the purposes of making a survey of the situation under the auspices of the League of Nations. I discussed the matter with at least one of the representatives of the United States and they are being represented at that conference.
Mr. Morgant'hau and two members I think of the American wheat board have gone over for that purpose. We are in communication by cable with our representative at Geneva and with the High Commissioner and it is believed that every purpose that can be served by this conference so far as this country is concerned will be served by the representative that is there especially in view of the conference that was held at London some months ago and later resumed at Rome.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Acting Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 84, to amend the Judges Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The provisions
of this bill appear to violate contracts between the crown and members of the judiciary. Perhaps my hon. friend would explain to us on the second reading whether that is the case or not, and if it is the case, on what grounds he justifies the measure at all.


Mr. DUPRE:: This bill does not interfere
directly or indirectly with the tenure of office or the salary of judges. It has to do entirely with the capacity of judges to earn their salary after they have been appointed. It has long been recognized by parliament that tenure of office during good behaviour can only be enjoyed by judges who have the capacity to perform their duty. _ Already we have in the Judges Act a provision whereby a judge who by reason of age or infirmity becomes incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office shall cease to be paid or to receive or be entitled to receive any further salary. That is in section 28 of the Judges Act, chapter 105 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
The present amendment does not deal with total incapacity, and it expressly provides that it shall not modify or affect the operation of the provision which I have just mentioned. What is dealt with in the bill before us is partial incapacity. I think the only real question of policy arising for discussion is the old one of what may reasonably be done in the public interest to prevent a judge whose

capacity is undoubtedly diminished by advancing age from continuing to hold office and to draw the same emoluments as are being drawn by his younger brethren who are carrying the burden of the work. As hon. gentlemen know, parliament has already acted upon the principle that the judges whose tenure of office is within the jurisdiction of the dominion shall cease to hold office when they attain the age of seventy-five. This provision with regard to county judges will be found in section 26 of the Judges Act. With regard to the judges of the supreme court and of the exchequer court there was a long debate in this house in 1927 in which my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) participated, and this same provision I mentioned as applying to the judges of the supreme court and the exchequer court will be found in subsection 2 of section 24 of the Judges Act, and in sections 30 and 38 of the Judges Act, which is chapter 105 of the statutes of 1927.
In the year 1927 there were three measures proposed dealing with the judiciary by my hon. friend from Quebec East, as Minister of Justice, namely, a bill to amend the Supreme Court Act, a bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act, and a bill to amend the Judges Act, so as to provide for the retirement of judges at the age of seventy-five. At that time the opinion was expressed that the good administration of justice depends not only upon the integrity and right sense of justice of the high officials who sit on the bench, but also on their capacity to carry on their duties. It has been said that when a man has attained the age of seventy-five he may not have the mental and physical endurance that is demanded in the exercise of his duties. It is a debatable question whether seventy-five years, or eighty or seventy-eight is the right age, but the general consensus of opinion seems to be that seventy-five years might be the limit.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Would the minister permit me a question? According to this bill, is the age limit fixed at seventy-five or does it rest with the minister or the government?


Maurice Dupré: No. Under the bill now before us, seventy-five years is the age limit.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: For all of them?


Maurice Dupré: Yes. Every one of them.


Paul Mercier: According to the last- part of the bill, section 2, a judge, who has not reached fifteen years' service, may draw his full emoluments, if he is seventy-five years of age, or even more than eighty years old.

Judges Act-Mr. Dupre


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Unless the hon. gentleman who is addressing the house is willing to be interrupted, hon. members should not interrupt him.


Maurice Dupré: I shall be very glad to answer my hon. friend.


Paul Mercier: According to section 2 of the bill a judge who has not fifteen years' service is allowed to sit after the age of seventy-five years to complete his fifteen years to allow him his pension.


Maurice Dupré: I shall be glad to answer my hon. friend when we are in committee.
In 1927 my hon. friend from Quebec East, as Minister of Justice, presented the amendments to which I referred a moment ago, and in introducing his bill to amend the Judges Act said:
This resolution precedes the introduction of three bills; one to amend the Supreme Court Act, another to amend the Exchequer Court Apt and the third to amend the Judges Act. The first clause of the resolution provides for the granting of a salary for one additional judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. The two other clauses of the resolution, which have been prepared by the officers of the house from copies of the bills which have been supplied to them, provide for the retirement of the judges of the Supreme court or of the Exchequer Court of Canada when they have reached the age of seventy-five years. These are the financial arrangements to supply them with a pension to which they would otherwise be entitled.
Mr. Boys: Is that voluntary retirement?
Mr. Lapointe:	No, they would cease to
hold office at the age of seventy-five years. These two changes are made for the same reasons. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest tribunal of the land and it is of the utmost importance that it should have and retain the confidence of the people and be maintained in the highest state of efficiency.
These words are to be found in Hansard of March 10, 1927, at page 1079. Then, on the following page the ex-Minister of Justice added:
There is another consideration which applies to the provision making retirement compulsory at seventy-five years of age. Members of the bar come to argue eases before the Supreme court from distant parts of the country, and the court must be complete and well organized in order to hear these cases when counsel come to Ottawa for that purpose. Such cases cannot be adjourned except at considerable expense and to the disadvantage of the litigants and the members of the bar as well. These considerations apply as well to the other clauses of the bill making the retirement of the judges of the Supreme court and the Exchequer court compulsory at the age of seventy-five years.
We subscribe to that principle. The present bill does not affect the federal court but only those judges sitting in the superior courts of any provinoe or of the Yukon territory. The
argument I may present to the house was presented by the ex-Minister of Justice when at page 1081 of the same volume he said:
I was reading in the library that in the country to the south they have the same conditions with regard to their federal courts. The constitution of the United States enacts that the judges of these courts shall be appointed and remain in office during good behaviour, and the government has never been able, although it has tried, in many instances, to make their retirement compulsory. The United States has endeavoured to deal with the situation by giving a pension equal to their full salary to judges who, having been in office at least ten years and reaching the age of seventy, desire to be superannuated. That was an invitation to them to retire, because they would have a pension equal to their salary; but experience shows that most of them preferred to remain on the bench, even though they were given the right to a full pension when they reached the age of seventy. Fortunately we have not the same obstacle to meet as far as our federal courts are concerned, and I have come to the conclusion, having not only consulted with but received suggestions from the members of the bar and I might even say from members of the judiciary themselves, that this is a good provision to enact. That is why I am introducing these bills.
Then, answering the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) on March 25, 1927, the ex-Minister of Justice is reported ait page 1562 of Hansard as follows:
I am sorry the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George does not agree with me on the age limit; I will admit that there is ground for a difference of opinion in that matter. I can assure my hon. friend that only after serious consideration and after having discussed this matter with many people who have a deep interest in strengthening the Supreme Court of Canada, did I take it upon my responsibility as Minister of Justice to introduce this Bill. I quite agree with my hon. friend that there are eminent judges who are wholly qualified to act as such after they have reached the age of seventy-five years, but as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has said, they are rather the exception. May I quote to the house the words of a man who has been Secretary of State in the United States. Mr. Chief Justice Taft, concerning this very question. In a book entitled Popular Government at page 158 he writes:
And this is our argument, too:
" Congress has passed a law providing that all federal judges may retire after a service of ten years, upon attaining the age of seventy. The law is in form not compulsory because I presume it was thought doubtful whether Congress had any power to retire judges, even though they continue the full salary as a life pension."
The constitution of the United States makes the tenure of office of a judge there during good behaviour, and congress has no right to make it compulsory.
Mr. Cahan:	That applies to federal judges
only.
Mr. Lapointe: To federal judges only. Chief Justice Taft goes on to say:
Judges Act-Mr. Dupre

" 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 are 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 indurance.
That is not all. In 1922 a bill concerning the province of Saskatchewan was presented in the Senate. At that time Senator Bennett speaking on the bill quoted the words of the Hon. Mr. Perron. They are found at page 184 of the Debates of the Senate for that year and are as follows:
In this matter, he said he was in absolute harmony with Premier Tasehereau in idea and ideal, and if it %vas that justice was delayed through the inability-owing to ill health-of certain judges, and if they did not realize their responsibilities and resign, then "it would be the painful duty of the bar to seek legislation that would meet the contingency".
Speaking on that bill the Hon. Mr. Dan-durand, then leader of the Senate and a member of the government, added the following words:
The great problem is to find within the terms of the constitution a way to bring to the attention of the judges the necessity for their retiring without recourse being had to the very solemn process of an address by both branches of this parliament.
These words are to be found at page 189 of the Debates of the Senate for the year 1922. Later, on the 12th of May of the same year, Hon. Senator Barnard speaking on Bill No. 19, an act to amend the Judges Act, made the following proposition, which I would call to the attention of my hon. friend the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe):
The governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice that any judge has by reason of his age or infirmities become unable to properly perform his duty and upon three months' notice does not retire, may order that the salary of such judge shall be reduced to $1 a year from a date to be named, and thereafter such judge shall until he retires be
[Mr. Dupr&l
paid no more than that amount, but on his so retiring he shall be entitled to the retiring allowance which would have been paid to him had he retired immediately before such order was made.
Then speaking of this amendment the leader of the Senate, a member of the then government, the Hon. Mr. Dandurand, added the following words which will be found on page 214:
I confess that my first impression was that this proposed legislation should rather be embodied in a separate bill to amend the Judges Act, because it would then be taken up with more solemnity and would attract the attention of all members of this chamber and would receive due consideration.
And he then said:
I am in sympathy with the ends sought to be attained, and will do nothing to prevent its adoption. If this chamber thinks we ought to proceed immediately with the adoption of this amendment, attaching it to the present bill, well and good. We may conclude, however, that it is better to make the amendment a separate bill.
Therefore in moving this bill we present to this house less drastic legislation than that which has already been proposed by the former government.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) has quoted extensively from remarks I made in the house in 1927 on the bill relating to federal court judges. Modesty precludes me from adding that the best part of his speech is the quotations which he made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the best part of the hon. gentleman's speech in 1927 was his quotation from Chief Justice Taft.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not say it. But I would suggest to my hon. friend that he might have read another three or four lines from that address of mine when that resolution was introduced in 1927, on page 1080. He came very close to that sentence but he stopped there. Here is what I stated:
The sections of the British North America Act dealing with the judicature are Nos. 96 to 101. Section 99 states that the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons. According to the enactment, the tenure of the judges of the high courts of Canada is really a life tenure


Richard Bedford Bennett: We all agree with that.


Ernest Lapointe: and this parliament has no right to retire them compulsorily at any time during good behaviour.

Judges Act-Mr. Lapointe
The difference between that position and that of judges of the federal courts which were constituted by this parliament is quite apparent, because there was nothing in the constitution which prevented us fixing an age limit for their tenure of office. Not so with the judges who will be affected by the present bill. I have quoted in extenso section 99 of the British North America Act applying to judges who will come under the provisions of this bill.
My objection to this bill is that again, as on previous occasions, it is sought to do indirectly what cannot be done directly. The effect of this bill will be to say to the judges: We cannot retire you, under the constitution you are appointed for life, but we will starve you out of office when you are 75 years of age by reducing your salary. Mr. Speaker, I will also quote a few words from a prominent gentleman, which a thousand times more apply to the present bill than to the one which was discussed in 1927, because at that time we were doing something which we had the right to do under the constitution. Possibly my hon. friend will also say that this will be the best part of my speech. I think it will be an effective part of my objection to the present bill. When that bill to retire the judges of the supreme court and of the federal courts generally was before this house for the first time the right hon. Prime Minister, who was then the member for Calgary-I do not know whether he was leader of the opposition-made a speech in which he raised the question of the contract which came into existence between the judges and the state when they accepted their appointment to office on the judiciary. That was on March 25, 1927, at pages 1556-7. I will quote only one sentence. The right hon. the present leader of the government said at that time:
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.
And then my right hon. friend suggested that if the bill becomes law we should at least provide that the judges who were then in office, who would come under the law, should be paid their full salary during their lifetime. My hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) the present Secretary of State, took also a very strong stand on the bill then before the house, very strong indeed. He reiterated these objections the following year. On May 29, 1929, as reported at page 2951 of Hansard, when I as Minister of Justice moved the second reading of a bill to amend 53719-303
the Supreme Court Act, my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) spoke as follows in the course of his remarks:
In case a judge has been appointed for life it is a serious breach of contract when that judge is compelled to retire at an age and at a time when he is thoroughly equipped physically and intellectually for the performance of his judicial duties, and especially in view of the fact that his compulsory retirement necessitates his taking a pension which is very considerably less than the salary which would otherwise be paid to him under his contract with the state.
On the same occasion my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) also spoke and he said, as reported at page 2951:
That judge undoubtedly has a contract with the state which entitles him to receive a salary for life or until such time as he resigns.
And at page 2952, the right hon. gentleman
said:
I think the government would be well advised to consider whether or not, in all cases of this kind where a contract has thus been, amended, the judge should receive full salary.
On the same page my right hon. friend added:
I think we must have regard to the terms and conditions under which the original contract was made. Although it may seem out of the ordinary that a judge should draw full salary when he is retired compulsorily, nevertheless, good faith and morals-
I call the attention of the house to those words:
-good faith and morals, in my judgment, impose upon us that obligation, and it is an obligation which we should not lightly disregard.
Later on he said:
I do not believe that the Canadian people would approve of our departing from the general principle that the government must, as in times past, have respect for the sanctity of a contract made between a servant of the crown when he entered the employment of the state.
We are hearing a good deal these days about the sanctity of contracts, but it seems to apply only to bondholders who do not pay taxes to the country. But in the very words of the present Prime Minister, there was a contract, and the words which are used to-day with regard to those who loaned their money to the state were used at that time-sanctity of contract.


Maurice Dupré: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but may I ask him how he reconciles his view with the one expressed by the Hon. Mr. Dandurand, a former leader of the Senate, when he said that a judge after seventy-five years might receive a salary of only $1 a year.

Judges Act-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman address his question to the Hon. Mr. Dandurand. Really, I do not see why he should interrupt my speech to ask that question. Now, sir, this principle, which was so strongly adhered to by members of the present government a few years ago they still adhered to last year. Take the debates of last session on the bill to reduce the salaries of civil servants, and there you will find the words of the Prime Minister giving as a justification for not having included the judges in that legislation the fact that there was a difference and that there was involved the question of contract as between them and the state. And in order to reach them the government had to take another course, whereby they increased the income tax of the judges so that they should be compelled to pay that ten per cent, because the constitution, and the principles which seemed to have been accepted by the Prime Minister and by everyone, precluded any other course than that being taken.
In the strong battle waged by my hon. friend the Secretary of State and by the Prime Minister, and after I had received communications, verbal and otherwise, from various members of the bar in Canada, I made up my mind that we should accede to the request that was made, and an amendment was adopted by this house covering the case of those judges who had been appointed before the new law was enacted, so that they should receive their full salary after retirement. This has applied to Mr. Justice Mignault. At the time this bill became law the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) asked whether it would apply to Mr. Justice Mignault and on my replying yes, he said he approved heartily but he regretted that it had taken so long to perform this elementary act of justice. Other judges who have been retired under this law are also receiving their full salary; I might cite the instance of Mr. Justice Audette, who is drawing his full salary.
This bill affects judges who, under the constitution, mind you, not under the law but under the British North America Act, are appointed for life, and we do not even provide for payment to them of their full salary as this parliament has done for the judges of federal courts who came under the law which my hon. friend has quoted as his authority for the present bill.
Now, as to the advisability of judges being retired when they have reached the age of seventy-five, I quite admit that personally I believe there are pros and cons on the pro-

position, and I would rather think that there are more advantages than disadvantages. If this could be done in a direct, honest, straightforward way, I would not be prepared to say that I would vote against the second reading of this bill; but I am opposed to this roundabout, indirect way of doing what parliament cannot do directly. My hon. friend said: Well, we want to pay judges who are over seventy-five years of age reduced salaries because of their reduced capacity for earning. Let me remind him, and he knows well that in our own city, our own district, it was possibly the oldest judge who, for many years after he had reached the age of seventy-five, was, until quite recently, when he was stricken by illness, most active and doing the greatest amount of business on the bench.


Maurice Dupré: I quite agree with that.


Ernest Lapointe: had pointed out in the house that such provisions could not validly be enacted against superior court judges. Undoubtedly that is my conception of the law, but the hon. gentleman has overlooked the essential fact that his government placed upon these statute books section 28 of the Judges Act, being chapter 105 of the revised statutes. I am going to read that section to this house so that there may be no misapprehension as to what is the existing law with respect to these cases:
28. 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 anything 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 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.
2.	The governor in council may, for the purpose of making inquiry into the facts respecting the incapacity or disability of any such judge, issue a commission of inquiry to one or more judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or to one or more judges of any superior court in Canada, empowering him or them to make such inquiry and report, and may by such commission confer upon the person or persons appointed full power to summon before mm [DOT]or them any person or witness and to require him to give evidence on oath orally or in writing, or on solemn affirmation, if entitled to affirm in civil matters, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioner or commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which he or they are appointed to inquire: and the commissioner or commissioners shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of such person or witness and to compel him to give evidence as is vested in any superior court of the province in which the inquiry is being conducted.
3.	Nevertheless His Majesty shall by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada 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 further salary.


Ernest Lapointe: Herr, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then paragraph 4:
4. Nothing in this act contained shall prevent the governor in council from granting to any judge so found to be incapacitated or disabled as aforesaid leave of absence for such

period as the governor in council, in view of all the circumstances of the case, may consider just or appropriate, and if leave of absence be granted the salary of the judge shall continue to be paid during the period of leave of absence so granted.
That was passed in 1922 and, as I say, is the revision of section 2 of chapter 29 of the statutes of that year. Has the true significance of that statute become apparent to this house? It provided a method, now charged to be indirect, of dealing with a situation that had caused much criticism throughout the Dominion of Canada, which was referred to by Senator Dandurand in the Senate and which has been referred to in many parts of this country as constituting little short of what one eminent man described as a public scandal. Observe the language. No one charged the hon. gentleman then with endeavouring to do indirectly what he could not do directly; no one then charged that political reasons were responsible for this action, which gave the governor in council the power to terminate the contract, to say that he should receive no salary at all-not that he should receive two-thirds of his salary but that he should be deprived of all salary-unless he resigned. That is the law we find to-day upon the statute books. We did not make it, but confronted with a situation which in my judgment had to be dealt with, the only manner in which it could be dealt with was what? First, we could issue a commission to inquire as to the fitness, by reason of age, of men whom this high court of parliament had declared should not discharge their functions longer if they were seventy-five years of age, a limitation which we said made it impossible for a county court judge to continue in office, and which compelled a justice of the highest court in Canada to retire. Now' because we endeavour, by the use of decent methods, to accomplish directly what this statute was endeavouring to accomplish indirectly, it is charged that we are being actuated by political motives.
Does the house understand and appreciate the difficulty with regard to complaints that are made with respect to men who continue to hold judicial office but who are only capable of giving concentrated attention to an argument for two hours a day or less? Does the house understand what is involved by continuing those men in office, while litigants complain vigorously because there is no method by which the situation can be met? If they decline to accede to polite requests what is left to this parliament to do? Are we to be charged with political considerations

Judges Act-Mr. Bennett
with respect to a matter of this kind when a statute such as this was placed upon the statute books of this country by the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member? That is most unfair. There is the statute; it provides for a commission of inquiry to determine the fitness of the judge. Listen to these words; the commission is to determine his fitness to discharge his duties, by reason of disability, age or infirmity. Those are the words incorporated in the statute by my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, by the government of the day, of which he was a member. What was the contract made by the state with the men who were appointed to the bench? It was that they should give their unremitting time and attention to the discharge of their duties, and they were to be paid for service, not for disability, incapacity or over-age. That was what the state promised to pay them for.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: That was dealt with in the amendment that was introduced two or three years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This statute provides
that if by reason of age or infirmity the judge is unable to carry on his functions he shall be retired, and since then we have said that the age limit shall be seventy-five. Who did it? The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.


Ernest Lapointe: For the federal courts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that seventy-five is good enough to govern in the one case and not in the other?


Ernest Lapointe: You have no right to do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pointing out that
we have.	[DOT]


Vincent Dupuis: He left on full salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not, but afterwards he did because he adopted the reasoning that was presented to him-


Ernest Lapointe: Why does not my hon.
friend adopt the same reasoning to-day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is just what I am
doing. Let me proceed a step further. There is a statute, and age in 1922 was said to be a factor in determining fitness for judicial office, and -what did this high court of parliament at the instance of the hon. gentleman
subsequently enact? That seventy-five was the testing age. No longer a case for inquiry. Seventy-five was definitely and positively the age, and when that age was reached the office was vacant. That is not our act. We are not responsible for that. I said when that act was before the house that I had grave doubts about whether the age should be seventy-five or eighty, but after listening to what was said and reading the authorities, including Mr. Justice Taft's view, I concluded that seventy-five was a reasonable age to fix.
Now, confronted with that situation, and without going into detail, trying in every sense to avoid the discussion of personalities in this parliament with respect to the men or the age of the men who hold office, trying to eliminate all that, I put it to the house, in view of that legislation and the difficulties that the then Minister of Justice had, and the reasons that influenced him to declare by statute in 1927 that age, which is the word used in 1922, should mean seventy-five years, whether this government is not just and fair and equitable in every sense of the word when it says that when a judge attains the age of seventy-five he shall be paid in accordance with his reduced capacity, namely, two-thirds of his salary? There is no violation of contract there. The implied term of every contract is that as long as he is fit he is to be paid, and being unfit he is not to be paid, and that has been embodied in the terms of a statute that was passed not under this government, but under the government in 1922. Now we are applying the principle of that and are merely saying, arbitrarily if you will: When you have reached the age of seventy-five in a provincial court your salary shall be two-thirds of what it was when you were at your high point of efficiency. Hon. gentlemen will realize that there is a vast improvement in that over what the provisions of the statute provide. Section 28 of the existing Judges Act says that if the inquiry determines that by reason of age he is unfit- to give that close attention to his duties which their importance demands he shall receive nothing at all. That is the law which my hon. friend's government saw fit to enact, and there are people who say they have no reason to quarrel with that, and I am not quarrelling with it at the moment.
Now is it desirable in view of the attitude taken by this parliament in fixing seventy-five as the age at which judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are declared incapable of discharging their duties effectively and efficiently-
Judges Act-Mr. Bennett


Mr. FACTOR:: They should go off the
bench.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Precisely.


Samuel Factor: But not by reducing the
salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But if they go off the
bench they draw their full annuity under the bill now before us.


Ernest Lapointe: No, their pension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Paul Mercier: Will the
Prime Minister explain how section 2 accords with his argument?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 2 is to provide
for the case-there is one case in this country at the moment-of a judge who will have attained the age of seventy-five by the first of July and will not have served fifteen years. He is protected and will get his annuity. That is what the section is for, to provide against any injustice being done by reducing to nothing the pay of a judge who has attained the age of seventy-five and has not put in the full fifteen years. But there is something more than that. The effect of this bill will be to prevent men over sixty being appointed to the bench of the superior courts, and every member of the profession knows that that is not only desirable but essential. It will ensure that men of vigour at least in the profession will be appointed to the bench. It means that unless tney are under sixty when appointed they will not have served the fifteen years to entitle them to secure the pension at seventy-five.

In Great Britain, where they have imposed an age limit with respect to county courts much less than ours, they have no age limit with respect t>o their judges, and there have been eminent men who past the age of seventy-five have discharged judicial duties, notably in the courts of appeal. One of the most eminent who retired not long ago after he had passed the age of eighty said once very frankly, "If there is any question ever raised in the House of Commons with respect to my remaining and discharging judicial duties I shall of course feel that I have outlived my usefulness and shall retire." It was mentioned in the house, and he retired.
There was criticism made in the House of Commons with respect to the judicial committee and the age of its members, and if anyone will take the judicial committee as at present constituted he will find how young in years are the men w'ho constitute 'that committee.
I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is most unfair to suggest a political motive behind this bill. I am perfectly willing to be charged with political considerations in some matters, but in a matter that affects the profession to which I myself belong I claim that I have been influenced by no consideration other than the public weal. What is more, I know what the judgment of litigants is who have to have their cases considered and adjudicated upon by men past the age of eighty years, and who in the very nature of things have not the physical stamina to concentrate their powers in such a way as to enable them to grapple with the problems that arise for consideration by courts of justice. If I had purely political reasons behind the judgment which I have formed in this matter, and which arises solely because of circumstances to which I could but will not refer, and which must be present in the mind of every one responsible for law and the maintenance of law and order in the country and the holding up to high place in the minds of the people of the judicial tribunals in Canada-I say that every man who gives any thought to it at all must realize that the same purpose is in the mind of the government that has endeavoured to do this which I believe was honestly in the mind of the government that passed section 28 in 1922. I never for a moment have thought that political considerations influenced the government in 1922 when they said that if because of age a man is unfit for his duties or is not discharging them properly he shall thereby forfeit any further pay. No one for a moment

Judges Act-Mr. Elliott
charges that; no one suggested it. It is because this parliament has decided that age means seventy-five years that further trial should be unnecessary. But if it is necessary it only drags into disrepute the very institutions which, men charged with a sense of responsibility should themselves realize first of all. They should be the first to realize conditions with respect to a matter of this kind.
I think on consideration-nay, I feel certain that on consideration the hon. member for Quebec East who gave such attention to this matter in days gone by and who made such statements in the house in 1927 when the government of which he was a member enacted the legislation to which I have referred, will acquit this government of any sense of political responsibility in dealing with this matter. For I say to him this, that if he will study the appointments which have been made to the bench since this government has assumed office he will see, at least, that no consideration-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that,-that no consideration was too high. The interests of the public are sometimes influenced by geographical considerations which mean-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because there has grown up in this country a custom which cannot lightly be disregarded namely, that we must not select all members of the bench from the larger centres of population, but that smaller communities should have consideration given them when selections for the bench are under review. For, after all, some of the most eminent judges of this country have been country practitioners before they went to city communities to establish themselves in their profession.
I do commend this bill to the house for the reasons I have indicated, and desire to assure my hon. friend that but for the legislation which now exists I would not regard it as possible to introduce this measure. But, we have accepted the principle that fitness is determined by age, and that the age limit shall be seventy-five years with respect to the county court on the one hand and tire Supreme Court of Canada on the other, and that when that age is reached there should be a diminution in the compensation paid in keeping with the terms of the statute to which I have referred.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I desire for a few moments to protest against this legislation. Before dealing with that section of the legislation which I believe is particularly objectionable, may I refer to some of the remarks which have been made both by the minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Dupre) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). First of all may I say that I deprecate the introduction by the minister, of reference to the necessity for this legislation arising on account of the incapacity of certain judges to perform their duties and earn their salaries after they were appointed-


Richard Bedford Bennett: After seventy-five years of age.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, the minister used the expression "after tfley had been appointed;" I made a note of his words. However whether it be after seventy-five years or after they are appointed, the reference should not have been made unless particulars were given. Coming from a province in which we have a number of judges affected by this act, who have been a great ornament to the bench, and who have been on the bench for many years, I feel it my duty to oppose the measure. Anyone who is familiar with the bench of the province of Ontario must admit that a number of the very best, the most capable and the most active judges we have are beyond the age of seventy-five years. Reference has been made to the chief justice of the province of Quebec, and to the chief justice of the province of Saskatchewan. I believe members of the profession as well as hon. members in the house will agree with me that perhaps the keenest, the most able and the most active judge on the Ontario bench, and the one who has lost the smallest amount of time in the last ten or fifteen years, is 'the oldest judge on the bench of that province.
If there are men on the bench who have not the capacity to perform their duties, they are dealt with by section 28 of the act. The difference between dealing with the matter under section 28 of the act, and dealing with it in a summary manner provided by the legislation now under consideration is that in one case the man has a chance to go before some tribunal and show whether or not he has by age, incapacity or infirmity become disabled to perform his duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in the supreme court.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not going to argue the question of the violation of contract, because apparently it is agreed on both sides

Judges Act-Mr. Elliott
of the house that this is a violation of a very solemn contract entered into at the time of appointments. Why has the bench of Canada attained its present eminence? It has attained that position because of the type of men they were able to obtain by the assurance given to prospective appointees that if they accepted the appointments they would remain secure in their position for the remainder of their lives.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whether they were fit or not.


John Campbell Elliott: Whether they were fit or
not, my right hon. friend says. They were appointed for life. No one knows better than the Prime Minister that many men are now on the bench at a great financial sacrifice. Their remuneration on the bench, while it looks high to a great many members of the profession, is very small when compared with what several men on the bench of the various provinces were earning at the time of their appointments. Further than that, at the time of their appointments they were assured of the permanence of their positions. That is now sought to be taken away from them. The Prime Minister spoke about age or infirmity. I remind him that a man does not come under section 28 of the act because of age alone; it is on account of infirmity. I believe the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that a great many-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to correct
the hon. member. ' Age, specially, is the factor; it is age or infirmity. It is not "and"; it is age "or."


John Campbell Elliott: Let us pay attention to
the argument of the Prime Minister. Does he say that under section 28 either age or infirmity is a ground?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly I do.


John Campbell Elliott: If he states that, I shall
satisfy him in a moment that that is not what the statute says. These are the words of the statute:
Any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or of the Exchequer Court of Canada or of any superior court in Canada . . . who is found by the governor in council, upon report of the Minister of Justice, to have become, by reason of age or infirmity,

Not seventy-five years old.
-incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office.
He is not put out for age but for incapacity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, because his
age renders him incapable of doing his job. That is what the statute states.


John Campbell Elliott: A moment ago the Prime Minister stated that either age or infirmity, under section 28, was a ground for retirement. That is not so. Age alone is not a ground.


Mr. HACKETT:: The statute says it is.


John Campbell Elliott: Age is not a ground for
termination of salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute says it is.


John Campbell Elliott: No, if my hon. friend would look at the statute he would see it does not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not always.


John Campbell Elliott: In the case of a man under 75 the factor to be considered is incapacity. Incapacity may be due to age or infirmity, but age of itself alone does not bring him within the amfait of section 28. May I point out also that in the province of Ontario, as I said before, a number of our most active, able and capable judges would be affected by this act. One member of a commission that was appointed not long ago to perform very difficult and onerous duties, involving a great deal of work and requiring great ability, was one of the judges who would be affected by this act. He was appointed not by a government of his own political complexion; he was selected on account of his ability, his physical strength and his capacity for work, as well as for the wide experience gained at the bar and on the bench.
The violation of contract feature has already been referred to; I do not intend to labour that. The fact that this is an attempt to do indirectly what cannot be done directly has also been referred to. The great objection to this proposal is that it is a breach of faith as well as a breach of contract. These men are entitled to the benefit of the act as it stood at the time of their appointment. They hold office unless they have become incapacitated, that is the present state of the law. I submit that this is the kind of legislation that should not be passed at any time, and it is particularly inappropriate at this time, as it would impose a further great burden upon the treasury of this country, by making each of those positions from which a judge is retired pay 815,000 a year, or practically so, whereas if he were not retired it would pay only 89,000. We cannot afford at the present time to increase the expenditure of the government in any way that can be avoided. So I submit that if ever it were excusable this is

Judges Act-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
not the time it should be done. If it is the wish of the government to make this provision applicable to future appointees that is quite fair. It is no breach of faith. Those appointed take the appointment knowing the conditions. This, however, is a direct change of 'the law as it stood at the time of their appointment. In Ontario it operates against I think seven or eight of the most eminent judges we have ever had in the province, all of whom are now active on the bench. I cannot protest too strongly against legislation that deals so unfairly with men who have given to this country the kind of service that those men have given upon the bench.


Paul Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished to see such legislation presented to the house, having in view the legal ability'' and knowledge of the Prime Minister. He knows perfectly well that he is putting before this house a bill, which had he been leader of the opposition instead of Prime Minister, would have drawn thunderbolts from him. I take his own argument in the case of the bill relating to the Supreme Court of Canada; why do again in this house by special legislation what is provided against by the statute? Section 28 of chapter 105 of the revised statutes of Canada has been passed and must be applied. If a judge by his conduct or through incapacity comes under investigation under this aot he is in the same position as any other person. Let the government then investigate, and if justified impeach him if he does not resign. Our judges when appointed were, under the constitution, appointed for life. They abandoned everything when they went on the bench. The bench of Canada is composed of able and honest men. If there were exceptions I *would not care to mention them, but I do not think they exist. When they are appointed they have to cut themselves off completely from business life, leave their career behind them, give up their legal practice. If they were placed on the bench by the leader of their party it was because they were able men qualified to adorn the bench. They can no longer hqld appointments as testamentary executors, they cannot be executors of companies. They go on the 'bench and to the best of their ability administer the law of the country. They have no friends, they are completely apart in the community if they are doing their duty. The statute says that after so many years they are entitled to retire on pension; they are not obliged to go, but they may go if they want to. We cannot suppose that a person qualified to be appointed a judge would remain on the bench
if unable through sickness or other disability to discharge his duties; such an assumption would be contrary to common sense and to the opinion that all citizens have of a judge.
I think the Prime Minister will agree that the judicature is one of the four powers of the state, these powers being the sovereign, the executive, the army and the judicature. Whether legislation enacted in the past relating to judges was wise or not, if we alter it now we destroy public confidence in the bench. Judges should not be interfered with because they compose the tribunals established to administer justice. If 'this House of Commons does not abide by its contracts, how do we expect any individual in Canada to respect his contract? What this bill proposes is an expropriation of right, and if it came before a court of justice any judge would dismiss such a case. The constitution is there; you cannot act against the constitution. Of course not exactly on political grounds, but on a very ingenious ground you take for your own purpose the argument used by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the ex-Minister of Justice, in reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. In this House of Commons there may appear to be some inducement to accept such a bill, but in the country at large and in the light of the statute, you cannot do what you propose. The law protecting judges was so written in a fundamental way that even on the income tax you could not touch them. In the statute of 1906, reproduced in the revised statutes of 1927 is section No. 29 just following section 28, which says:
(3) The salaries and retiring allowances or annuities shall be payable by monthly instalments, and the salaries and retiring allowances and annuities of the judges who are now by law entitled to receive the same free and clear of taxes and deductions imposed under any act of the parliament of Canada., shall continue to be paid free and clear of such taxes and deductions.
That meant that when they were appointed they had a salary fixed by statute, and no deductions could be made from that salary by any act of parliament. Are we to say now that a man seventy-five years of age is not fit to carry on as a judge? What if a son were to say to his father, "You are seventy-five years old now; you are too old to conduct your business. Get out of the store; I will take everything over." The father would say, "This belongs to me; I bought it and I am going to stay here." According to their contract with the state the judges can remain on the bench as long as they can discharge their duties properly, and it should be left to their
4802	COMMONS
.Judges Act-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
own judgment to decide when they should retire. We name a man to the bench because he has a conscience; it cannot be otherwise. If he is unable to carry on beyond the age of seventy-five he will say, "I cannot discharge my duties according to the law and in fairness to the citizens who come before me." I should like to refer to section 2 of this bill, which says:
This act shall come into force on the first day of July, 1933, but in the case of any judge who, on the day when he attained the age of seventy-five years or on the first day of July, 1933, whichever is later, has held office for less than_ Sfteen years, the operation of this act shall in his case be postponed until he has continued in office for fifteen years, and shall thereupon have its full force and operation.
Thus a -man appointed at the age of sixty-two or sixty-five

and there have been a few such appointments-will go beyond the age limit of seventy-five. What will happen in his case? This clause as it stands cannot pass; it will do an injustice to those who must retire when they reach the age of seventy-five. Those who have not completed fifteen years on the bench will serve beyond the age of seventy-five and you will be keeping on the bench a judge who, according to your own words, is not fit. After he reaches the age of seventy-five we will be paying him 59,000, though you will be retiring those with greater experience who have completed more than fifteen years service. So I say if this section is passed in its present form it will work a grave injustice on those who are obliged to retire on reaching the age limit. In the case of Mr. Justice Mignault the exMinister of Justice (Mr. -Lapointe) simply said, " W ell, according to the sacredness of contract Mr. Justice Mignault is entitled to compensation; we will give him his full salary as a pension, since he is compelled to leave the bench at the age of seventy-five. So Mr. Justice Mignault is getting his full salary, and there are no deductions made from it by way of income tax or anything else, since a pension is not taxable.
We have a contract with these judges, and I think at first it would be well for the state to pay them their full salaries if they are to be retired. But during these times of distress and depression, when the finances of the state are so heavily burdened, why not postpone this bill for four or five years in order to have time to settle everything? Time is a great healer, and everything will work out eventually. In the meantime, why tax the people of the country in order to pay a new judge a salary of S9,000 while at the

same time we must pay the retiring judge a gratuity of $6,000? If that retiring judge has been twenty-five years on the bench he will receive $7,000, so that we will have to pay $16,000 instead of $9,000 in order to replace a man who may be quite able to carry on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the interests of litigants, whose counsel has been presenting an argument? The judge, an hour and a half behind the argument, says, "What did you say"?
Mr. MERCIEiR: (St. Henri): But very often the lawyers are to blame; sometimes they are all mixed up in their arguments, and they have not their cases prepared. In addition it seems to me that we are interfering in provincial affairs. This does not apply to Quebec, because there the judges are not fortunate enough to be able to increase their salaries, but often in Ontario judges receive extra remuneration for giving extra service for the benefit of the province. Why should we say to a judge that if he sees fit to remain on the bench after the age of seventy-five he shall receive in salary only the amount of the pension to which he is entitled, and if he receives $1,000 from the province he will only receive $5,000 from the Dominion? This is another way of pushing them off the bench or, to use the expression of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), to starve them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute of 1928 did that.


Paul Mercier: Hon. gentlemen should not laugh, because we are discussing a very important question. More than that, when people begin to laugh at the bench they are laughing at one of the corner stones of the nation.


Samuel Factor: Mr. Speaker, the broad principle of retiring judges at the age of seventy-five is a debatable question. There is a large body of opinion which holds that at seventy-five, with the maturity and wisdom - that he has attained, a judge is perhaps more fit to discharge his duties on the bench than is the case with younger men. I believe the consensus of opinion throughout this country is that a judge should retire at the age of seventy-five, but if a judge of the federal court or of the county court should retire at that age there is no reason why a judge of the supreme court should not retire in the

Judges Act-Mr. Factor
same way. I should say, however, that the government is not accomplishing its object by this legislation. The Prime Minister just asked my hon. friend from St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) with reference to the judge who, after listening to an argument for an hour and a half, asks the lawyer, "What did you say"? I say that in all probability this same judge will accept the two-thirds of his salary to which he is entitled and will remain on the bench, so you will not succeed in the object you have in view.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he will work for nothing.


Samuel Factor: I do not think this legislation will meet the situation; these men who are supposed to be incapable of discharging their duties will continue to sit on the bench but will receive a lower salary.


Ernest Lapointe: And if I know them well they will remain on the bench.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then that shows that they are not starving.	.


Samuel Factor: I hate to acknowledge that parliament, because it is unable by constitutional methods to retire judges after they have reached the age of seventy-five, has to resort to a financial scheme or arrangement such as is proposed in this bill. I believe that the time has come when the broad question of amending our own constitution should receive the attention of parliament. If under present conditions we are unable to amend the act so as to pass legislation which will facilitate the retirement of judges, a principle in which I believe, it is high time that parliament adopted legislation to enable us to do that. I would ask the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister this question: How do the3' expect by this legislation to get rid of those judges who are incapable or incapacitated and therefore cannot attend to their duties? The mere fact that a judge is over seventy-five years of age should not be a reason for his being removed from the bench, but if by reason of age or infirmity he is incapacitated and is unable to discharge his duties, the procedure is provided by section 28 of the Judges Act, and you do not have to-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he does not go off
the bench; his pay stops.


Samuel Factor: That is a good way of
getting him off.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I wanted
you to say.


Samuel Factor: The Prime Minister says
that, under the old section 28, if after due inquiry a judge is found to be incapable by reason of age or infirmity his pay is reduced or cut off. In that case he goes off the bench.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; he stays on if he
wants to.


Samuel Factor: Well, there will not be
many judges who will stay on without salary, whereas under this legislation you are retaining the judge and paying him two-thirds of his salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same option exactly.


Samuel Factor: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me, it is the
same option exactly, only in one case he gets two-thirds and in the other nothing.


Samuel Factor: In other words, there will
be an incentive for the incapacitated judge to remain on the bench because he will get two-thirds of his salary. That is the net result of the legislation. The Prime Minister may laugh, but I should like him to meet that argument. Is there not an incentive for a judge, knowing that he will get two-thirds of his salary, to remain on the bench?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is such an incentive it is itself an indication of the unfitness of the man to be on the bench.


Samuel Factor: But there is nothing in
this legislation to remove him, and I submit that it is high time some method were evolved, whether by amending the British North America Act or by some other means, to go about this matter in a direct fashion under proper authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why did you not do
that in 1922?


Ernest Lapointe: Because we had no right to do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You had the same right
that exists now.


Samuel Factor: The fact that it was not
done in 1922 is no excuse for adopting a method of camouflage now to give a judge two-thirds of his salary. I think the government should take into serious consideration the principle involved in this matter. I am thoroughly in agreement with the govern-men's intention of removing any judge who is incapable of discharging the duties of his office after the age of seventy-five. Further than that, I agree to the principle that every judge of the supreme court should retire at the age of seventy-five. I submit however that the proper method is not being followed.

Judges Act-Mr. Dupuis
The government are acknowledging that they are unable to do it by legislation, but they are attempting to do it by a cheap scheme. That is all it is-a cheap scheme which is tantamount to saying to a judge, " if you stay on the bench you will get two-thirds of your salary." The result will be however, as an hon. member suggests, that the scheme instead of being cheap may be expensive, because if the judge does not retire a new judge will have to be appointed and the additional salary will have to be paid.


Vincent Dupuis: I believe the intention of the government is sound so far as unfit judges are concerned, but it seems to me that this bill as it is drafted is too drastic. No door is left open to those judges who are still capable, and if there is one class of our Canadian society to whom we should do no injustice it is our judiciary. I have in mind judges in Montreal who are in the neighbourhood of seventy-five years of age or over and who are most capable, some of them being perhaps the best judges we have in the whole country. Now, what will happen? Not only will the judges affected by this bill be deprived of their salaries, which is a matter of comparatively small importance, but lawyers who are accustomed to plead before such judges will suffer, and most of all the people who seek redress before our courts; they will be deprived of the wisdom of such eminent members of the judiciary. If it were possible for me to name such judges I would name them, and I know that the Prime Minister and the members of this house would bear me out in that regard.
I do not quite understand how this government could bring in legislation of this sort in such an indirect way to attain an end which will never be reached. They will not get rid of unfit judges. There is section 28 of the act which, if the government were willing to apply it, would accomplish the same purpose, with this distinction, that the government by section 28 have the discretion to apply it to those who are unfit, either by reason of ill health or by infirmity or otherwise, leaving on the bench those judges w7ho are capable. May I here interject this parenthesis in answer to what the Prime Minister said, putting a question to the hon. member for St. Henri. He said, "What about those judges who, after listening to a lawyer for an hour and a half, ask him what he has said?" I may ask the Prime Minister whether in his experience as a lawyer he found that it was only those judges above seventy-five years of age to whom that remark could apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not hear the hon.
gentleman.


Vincent Dupuis: I am asking the Prime Minister whether, in his experience as a lawyer, he has found that only judges above seventy-five years of age could suddenly ask him, after listening to him for an hour and a half, what he had said? I believe that even those who have not attained that age sometimes find themselves under that necessity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt; I
would refer to the hon. gentleman himself as one of them.


Vincent Dupuis: It may happen in this
house that when some hon. members on the other side are discussing certain subjects members on this side may appear to be asleep, but they are not.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, before recess we were discussing the advisability of passing Bill No. 84, to amend the Judges Act. I contend that the aim the government is seeking to attain w7ill not be reached by this legislation. They say that they intend to oblige judges who are unfit to take their pensions, presumably they believe, from their experience, sometimes judges are bad judges of themselves, and although incapacitated by ill health or otherwise, they do not seem to realize the fact. That may be true. It is because of this that, I believe, in 1922 or thereabouts, this question was brought up in the house by the previous government and Senator Dandurand, presented an argument to that effect and piloted the discussion of the bill which is now on the statute book as section 28 of the Judges Act, chapter 105 of the revised statutes of Canada. The argument then advanced by Senator Dandurand w7as to that effect and cannot be applied as an argument in favour of the present bill, because the then administration was faced with the situation that some Canadian judges were repeatedly asking and obtaining leave of absence for six months. There was only one way to oblige them to take their pensions and that was to pass legislation to reduce their salaries to naught. But it applied only to those who were unfit, whereas the bill now before us applies to all judges who reach the age of seventy-five years.

Judges Acl-Mr. Dupuis
Is it necessary that I should remind the house of many instances not only in the judiciary, but in many other walks of life, of people over seventy-five years of age whose services the country is still pleased to retain? What would have happened in England during the time of Gladstone if they had applied to public men legislation such as this? Where is the Englishman who is not proud of what Gladstone did for his country even in his later years? What would have happened in Canada if such legislation had been applied to public men in the case of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and many others who, on account of their experience and capabilities, were of immense value to this country? In the judiciary to-day, as I said before, we still have judges of advanced years who render eminent service to their country and their countrymen. Therefore I believe this legislation should either be amended or dropped; it is so drafted that it reaches the limit of despotism. The government will say to a judge: When you reach the age of seventy-five years, whether you are able, whether you have large experience, whether you are physically and mentally fit, you must get off the bench; we want to put a younger man in your place. That reminds me of a conference of United States medical men held in New York some years ago when one of them gave a lecture stating that every United States citizen who reached the age of seventy-five years should be put out of existence with strychnine or some other poison; that he was a nuisance to the people of that country. That gentleman was laughed at. One is not obliged to look with a searchlight to find in any land men who, after they reach that age, are still useful citizens.
The purpose of this bill is to retire on pension members of the judiciary after they have reached the age of seventy-five, by reducing their salary to the amount of their pension. The Prime Minister, with the gesture of an offended virgin, said: We have no political motive, and the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is not speaking by the book when he contends we have a political motive in the back of our heads. I am ready to admit, because the Prime Minister said so, that he has no political motive, but I would ask him and hon. members opposite: What is the motive? Although they know many members of the judiciary of seventy-five years of age or over are still rendering eminent service to their country, they are obliging them to retire against their willingness to [DOT]continue to fulfil their important duties. What
is the purpose of this legislation? It is to put younger men in their place, and I use the words of the Prime Minister. He does not want to name any judge over the age of sixty to any court. He wants to appoint younger judges. If it is not done from a political motive, the consequences at all events will be political in that when the judges reaching the age of seventy-five are retired, regardless of their capacity, the positions will be given to younger men, political friends who will stay on the bench for many, many years after this government has passed away.
I heard the hon. member for Quebec East use the argument that this is a breach of contract. I am of the same opinion. I believe that it is an absolute breadh of contract with these judges who have abandoned their practice as lawyers, and generally speaking they were lawyers with a good practice, and some of them derived from their practice much more than the salary of a judge. Through a high spirit of service to the country they gave up their practice to accept nomination as a judge, with the absolute assurance of a solemn contract that they would receive a certain salary, and that no one, not even the government, would be able to deprive them of such salary. If to-day the government by this legislation puts them out of office, where is the hon. member of this house who will not call that a breach of contract? It is a breach of contract to put out of office very capable judges in order to appoint younger men. And what will be the consequence? Will that save money to this country? Quite the contrary. The result will be that the judge who is pensioned will receive twodhirds of his salary, let us say $7,000 a year, and in some cases $6,000, and the new judge who will be appointed will receive $9,000 a year, so that every retirement will cost the country $16,000 a year. I therefore see no reason in the world why the government should insist on this legislation. It seems to me that in justice to those judges who are capable and in justice also to those who were at the head of the government when section 28 was passed, this government should have the courage to apply section 28 and use their discretion in putting out of office those who are really unfit and allowing to remain those who can efficiently perform their functions.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the principle of this bill. Having practised for a period of something like thirty-nine years, perhaps my opinion is worth something. What I do not like about this measure is what I might call the retro-
4S06
Judges Act-Mr. Jacobs

activity of it. Outside of that I think it is a very proper bill and it is carrying out the theory of the act which was passed in 1927, and for which we claim the credit I remember that immediately after the passing of that act in 1927 a judge of the Supreme court of Canada was retired, Mr. Justice Mignault, I believe. We omitted to provide for his pension, and that matter was not taken care of until the present government-


Ernest Lapointe: It was looked after by
the old government.


John Thomas Hackett: Time flies.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, it always does.
I was always in favour of the scheme whereby pensions would be provided for judges retired in this particular way. Mr. Justice Mignault made the point that he was named under a contract mentioned in the statutes and that the government had failed to carry out the terms of the contract. In the present case, however, as I understand it, constitutional objections have been made and are recognized that the bill cannot go through as did the bill of 1927 because at that time we were dealing with federal courts, and the present bill, is a hang-over from the period prior to 1867 when we took over from the provinces the legislation affecting judges.
There is another objection that I see to a wholesale retirement of judges. Many of them have now reached the age mentioned in the bill. I should say that probably thirty or forty of them would be compulsorily retired under its provisions. That would amount to about a quarter of a million dollars for annuities for these judges. That is a tidy sum of money at the present time when we are casting about in every way to get money in order to carry on a hand-to-mouth existence. Just now I think it is a luxury which might well stand over until the years to come which we hope will be brighter than those we have gone through in the past three or four years.
Why should a judge be permitted to remain on the bench for more than the period allotted to men by the psalmist? Three score years and ten was considered to be the span of man's allotted life on this earth.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And
then the Senate.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Senate is a horse of
another colour. We ought to give these judges time to prepare themselves for their Maker, and if they are on the bench every day rendering judgments, what chance have they when they go into the next world? I have a good 
deal of respect for the bench. I can speak a little more freely now than when I practised before them, but I also recognize that judges have their failings, and I think it will be generally admitted that a man under seventy-five years of age generally speaking is a better man than one over seventy-five. It is the most natural thing in the world that a man should have passed the zenith of his power previous to seventy-five years of age. Even in the days of Shakespeare it was recognized that a judge on the bench must be in the full vigour of physical and mental attainment. I think Shakespeare places the judge in the fifth stage of man's life: He talks of the justice.
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe, and beard of formal cut.
I have that beard of formal cut. But when he gets into the sixth stage he talks about-
. . . the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in the sound.
That is the sixth stage. We wish to place all our judges in the fifth stage, so as not to have them in the condition which Shakespeare describes in stage six. After all, when a man is seventy-five years of age it does seem to me that $6,000 a year is a fair salary. Where could he get more than S6,000? It would be impossible. No doubt his family will have grown up. He has not the obligations that as a younger man he would have had. Altogether I think he ought to be satisfied with the smaller amount.
Another reason is that there are others trying to reach the bench. It is not fair or right that a position of such importance which is held out to eminent members of the bar who have worked and toiled upward in the night while others were enjoying life, should wait until the kindly hand of death removes the eminent judge. I do not consider it just to the other lawyers. What I do not like, however, is the wholesale appointment of thirty or forty men, all selected from one particular party at this particular time. The thing should be done with decency and decorum. It is not fair that such a thing should be perpetrated or practised upon the community just now.
Some suggestion was made during the debate about the eminence of learned judges, and that we would be deprived of their talents. Well,
I think we have men at the bar to-day who are as eminent as men found on the bench. I

Judges Act-Mr. Dupre
believe every one will agree with that. The Prime Minister referred to a case-I do not know whether it was hypothetical or actual -where a judge asked an attorney after listening. "What did you say?" or "What were you saying? I well remember a case in which I was engaged where, shortly after we returned from lunch we found that the judge was asleep on the bench.


An hon. MEMBER:: How old was he?


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not know what his age was, but that did not interfere with his sleep.


Vincent Dupuis: That is a good argument.


Samuel William Jacobs: I put a question to the witness to which my opponent objected. There we were, with the judge snoring peacefully, waiting to see what would happen. Finally when we saw that the judge was not likely to awaken for some time I said, "Well, seeing that the question is not important I shall withdraw it." I lost my case. Whether it was because the judge merely had his eyes closed and was listening to me or whether he actually did not hear what I was saying, I do not know. However that is an experience which may happen to anyone.
We know the story of the Duke of Devonshire who, while addressing the House of Commons on one occasion, yawned. He provoked some amusement at the time, and when a friend met him outside the building and said, "Is it true, that you fell asleep or yawned when you were delivering your address?" the Duke replied, "Did you hear the speech?" The reply was "No." "Well, then," said the Duke, "if you had heard it you would have known why." Little things of that kind do not amount to very much, but they all go to show that as a person grows older his natural ability does not improve. It is a stage of decadence. We are simply doing by legislation what nature has done before. I see my good friend the Minister of Railways and Canals still shows a little interest in medicine, although he is now far removed from it-we have railroaded him out of it.


Mr. MANION:: I was wondering which
one of the lawyers put the judge to sleep.


Samuel William Jacobs: I hope the Minister of
Railways does not expect me to answer something which could be used in evidence against me. That is strictly against the law.
I would suggest to the Solicitor General that the measure be changed in such a way that it would apply only for the future. Then every person will be satisfied, and this would
be one of the very few measures before the house in the present session which would go through without objection. It seems so easy thus to please this side of the house, to please the future judiciary and to please the taxpayers who, in the last analysis, will have to pay a quarter of a million dollars extra. Generally speaking, it would be giving satisfaction to everyone throughout the country. I am strongly in favour of the measure; I believe it is one which will have the effect of strengthening the bench, a process whidh is, of course, creditable. In these days, when conditions are not satisfactory, we will be able to get men to take their places on the bench, who will reflect credit upon themselves and upon the government that appointed them.


Maurice Dupré: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay
this legislation, but I have one or two observations to add. I do not believe it necessary to reply to the accusation made by the hon. members for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) to the effect that political motives are behind this legislation. That accusation is unfounded. The only motive behind this legislation is that of securing high efficiency in the administration of justice. We have also to think of the taxpayers and litigants who are complaining because efficiency is not at its highest point. Everything enacted in the bill has already been enacted by section 28 of the act, which is chapter 105 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
If I may say so, the present legislation is nothing but a sort of alleviation or mitigation of the drastic legislation enacted by section 28. Deprived of its legal phraseology section 28 enacts that any judge who by reason of age or infirmity is incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office shall cease to be paid. We say that any judge who has attained the age of seventy-five will, if he wishes to do so, continue to hold office, but he will not receive more than the annuity to which he would be entitled. That is all we say.


Ernest Lapointe: That is quite enough.


Maurice Dupré: Section 28 is much more drastic; under it if he wishes to continue he will not receive any salary.


Ernest Lapointe: That is after investigation.


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend is quite right, under section 28 there will be an investigation, but we believe that it is not desirable that judges should be subjected to the odium of such an investigation. We should bring to
480S
Judges Act

their attention the necessity of retiring when they have attained a certain age. That is all there is to this legislation.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Salaries of judges in office after attaining the age of seventy-five years.


Samuel William Jacobs: I move that the words in line 11 "heretofore or" be struck out.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: The amendment should be in writing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government cannot accept that amendment, because it negatives the bill. The existing difficulties about which the complaints have been made will continue.


Ernest Lapointe: It does not negative the bill, it merely takes away the retroactive feature which is the most objectionable part.


Maurice Dupré: But we do not want to do that.


Ernest Lapointe: I know, that is very apparent from the speeches delivered this morning. It would not serve the purpose of the government.
Without entering into a new argument on this bill I wish again to voice my protest against it. I may say that the right hon. gentleman in his laboured argument, to use his own words, has not attempted to reply to the objections which have been made on this side of the house to this bill. I say that a most undersirable situation will exist when this bill becomes law. We will have two classes of high court judges in Canada, some with a salary of $9,000, others with a salary of $6,000. Because I prophesy to my hon. friends opposite that they will not succeed in persuading the judges who are still fit to work to get off the bench to suit my hon. friends.


Maurice Dupré: At least we are trying to do something.


Ernest Lapointe: We shall have two sets
of high court judges.


Paul Mercier: On the first of July next how many judges will attain the age of seventy-five? Could we have the figures by provinces?


Maurice Dupré: The number is fifteen. In Ontario six; Quebec, three; New Brunswick, two; Manitoba, two; Saskatchewan, one; British Columbia, one.


Paul Mercier: What will be the total amount of money involved?


Maurice Dupré: To superannuate fourteen judges when the act becomes effective will require $99,666.66.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has the Solicitor General the list of next year's crop, those who will reach seventy-five next year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not the list with him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
point out to the hon. Solicitor General that when he was concluding the debate on second reading he intimated that this is, I think his words were, an amelioration of section 28 of chapter 105. If he will look at the marginal note-and frequently sections of statutes are construed by marginal notes-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -he will find it is:
Salaries of judges in office after attaining the age of seventy-five years.
They are not retired, they are remaining in office at two-thirds of the salary. That to my mind is a most vicious distinction. Judges are going to remain in office, yet it was the only argument for the bill that judges incapable of carrying on their duties should retire. But you are not necessarily retiring these judges under the terms of this bill. The only effective result of this legislation is to perpetuate them in office, if they so desire, at two-thirds of the salary they are drawing now. So if a judge at the age of seventy-five has the faults imputed by the hon. member he still remains, and all the imperfections of the present system absolutely continue in existence. Here we are in these times of depression when we are reducing the salaries of small people, going to impose upon this nation an additional burden of $100,000 during the first year, with probably a progressive increase as the years go on. I think the principle of this legislation is absolutely futile. If the house were in favour of retiring judges compulsorily at the age of seventy-five that is an entirely different thing, because then we would get rid of any incompetency such as is alleged by the Solicitor General in regard to certain judges. But this legislation does not cure that situation.
In the second place it establishes what I consider the very iniquitous principle of differentiation between judges; those with full salary up to the age of seventy-five, and others with two-thirds, if they decide to remain in office after this bill becomes law. To my mind, it is, if not intentional, at least in effect an attack on the judiciary of Canada. It is introducing a principle of differentiation in regard to service, and I think it is a very dangerous principle. The legislation is only

Judges Act
a continuance of policies we have seen in operation the last three years, the slighting of parliament, taking these matters from its control and, as we saw in the case of the railway bill, taking away from the executive council powers which it properly has as an arm of the government. New we are going to the judiciary and establishing this pernicious principle of differentiation between judges.


Samuel Factor: May I ask the Solicitor
General in how many cases he has received complaints about the incapacity of these fifteen judges?


Maurice Dupré: I am sorry I cannot answer,
because these complaints have been made to the Minister of Justice who is away just now. All I know is that we have received a great number of complaints.


Ernest Lapointe: From whom?


Maurice Dupré: From different parts of
Canada. I can assure my hon. friend that I know personally that we have received a great many complaints from the province of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Did my hon. friend receive any communications from the bench itself?


Maurice Dupré: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: From the judges?


Maurice Dupré: Oh, from the bench? Well,
no, not from the bench. Either from litigants or from lawyers.


Ernest Lapointe: Could not my hon. friend give that information to the committee?


Maurice Dupré: No, I do not think I should.


Ernest Lapointe: If the Solicitor General has received any complaints I think we are entitled to know where they came from and what they were.


Maurice Dupré: I do not think I should give that information. All I think I should say to my hon. friend is that in our own district in Quebec there have been complaints with regard to delays in the administration of justice, and those delays have been caused by the illness or incapacity of some judges. I think my hon. friend himself has complained in that regard.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows that some of the old judges are doing a good deal more work than is being done by some of the new ones.


Maurice Dupré: I quite agree, but I may add that this morning my hon. friend said that up to a certain period one chief justice of the province of Quebec was a remarkable judge, but that now he did not have the same capacity for work that he formerly had. I agreed with that statement; if I have to name the judge I will say that Chief Justice Lemieux certainly gave a wonderful example of high efficiency on the bench for thirty-five years,
I think. Lately, however, because of his age, I presume, his capacity for work has not been the same, but that does not prevent us from having great admiration and affection for Chief Justice Sir Franjois Lemieux, in view of his record.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased indeed to hear those words. Chief Justice Lemieux has been a most active judge; he has been sick for some time, but it gives me pleasure to inform my hon. friend that according to the press this afternoon Chief Justice Lemieux held court yesterday, and he seems to be in good health once more. I know my hon. friend will be glad to get that information and I know he will hope that even with the reduced salary which the government proposes to pay, Chief Justice Lemieux will be able to sit again.


Maurice Dupré: All I can say is that I am very glad to hear that Chief Justice Lemieux is better.


Paul Mercier: If there have been complaints with regard to delays in Quebec it has been because, until the last six months or so, the court calendars in the city of Montreal have been overcrowded. If the rural districts of Quebec have suffered it has been because of the centralization of judges. They should have been decentralized and placed where they were about fifteen years ago; if that had been done there would have been no complaints in Quebec.


Maurice Dupré: I have great respect for my hon. friend's opinion, but this is rather a controversial question, and I do not think it should be raised just now. My hon. friend may be right, but he could find many lawyers who would differ with him.
Amendment negatived on division.


Maurice Dupré: In view of the short delay that has occurred in connection with this measure I think it is advisable to amend section 1 by deleting the word "July" wherever it appears, and inserting instead the word "September." This will give a little more time to the people concerned.

Judges Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that section 1 be amended by deleting the word "July" in lines 16 and 24 and substituting therefor the word "September."


Paul Mercier: What is the purpose of this amendment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The purpose is this:	A
number of hon. gentlemen have suggested that since on retirement judges usually have two or sometimes three months' leave. This amendment would postpone the operation of the bill until after the long vacation, making September 1 the operative day. Those affected therefore will have had the benefits to which reference has been made.


Paul Mercier: And those
who have never had any leave of absence may take a trip for once.


Ernest Lapointe: This amounts to a leave of two months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it was said to be immediate execution previously.


Ernest Lapointe: No, they were paid the full salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not until the following
year.


Ernest Lapointe: In this case they never
will get the full salary.


Onésime Gagnon: Shall the
amendment carry?


William Duff: According to your ruling a
moment ago, Mr. Chairman, the amendment must be in writing.


Onésime Gagnon: Where it is a question of only one word it is not necessary to apply that rule.


Ernest Lapointe: Where is that rule found?


Onésime Gagnon: It has been the practice.


Paul Mercier: If a judge
is to retire on September 1 will he be paid for the months of July and August on the basis of $9,000 if he has been receiving that salary?


Maurice Dupré: I should think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The act does not become operative until September 1, so there will be no interference.


Onésime Gagnon: I now
have the amendment in writing. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1 as amended agreed to.

On section 2-Coming into force.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the word
"July" in lines 27 and 29 be deleted and the word "September" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paul Mercier: Supposing a judge has been appointed-and I believe there are a few cases of this kind-who, in order to complete fifteen years of service, will have to serve until he is more than seventy-five years of age. Why should there be a different kind of treatment in his case? If other judges are obliged to retire and take their pension at the age of seventy-five, or to accept a reduced salary if they remain on the bench, why should this newly appointed judge remain on the bench at his full salary until lie is seventy-seven or seventy-eight years of age?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one case, I believe, in which the appointee was at an advanced age when he was appointed. He has no retiring allowance until he has served fifteen years, and he will be over seventy-five when he has served for that length of time. It is desirable to take care of that case, otherwise he would be retired with no annuity at all.


Paul Mercier: But according to the arguments advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite this morning he will be seventy-five years old, and he will be no good. Surely the rule must apply to all or none.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it would be subject to the fact that he must be able to carry on.


Ernest Lapointe: But the section is general in its scope; it does not apply to only one man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is onlj' the one case.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend says he has one case in mind. Is he sure there are not others? The law is general there, and my hon. friend from St. Henri is perfectly right. The right hon. gentleman argued this morning that when a judge reached the age of seventy-five he should withdraw, being no longer qualified. Why should he be considered qualified if he has not served fifteen years by the time he reaches the age of seventy-five? If he is not fit to be a judge under those circumstances this should apply to everyone. If there is necessity for a special vote in one particular case, as my right hon. friend suggests, it would be better to have the house vote the salary to that one man. But why should we

Judges Act
embody in the law what is certainly a deviation from the principle expounded by my right hon. friend and by the Solicitor General?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was careful to say that there might be doubts whether seventy-five should be made the governing age or not, hut as a matter of fact, in looking through the cases, I believe the department discovered that at least one judge-there may be another case, but in the hurry of work one cannot say- who would be past the age of seventy-five before becoming entitled to his pension. The purpose is to ensure that he does not lose his rights by reason of the fact that he was over sixty when appointed. I think, when we are making operative an act of this kind, it is desirable to protect the interests of a judge in such a case, because he is otherwise subject to all the provisions of the act. If he is infirm or disabled he can be dealt with under the provisions of the statute that refer to cases of that kind, but this clause is intended to meet this particular case.
Mr. M'K.ROI KR (St. Henri): My right hon. friend is trying to carry out the state contract with respect to this individual judge, making it possible for him to receive his pension. That is the position; you cannot get away from it. The endeavour is being made to respect his contract, affording that judge an opportunity to remain after the age of seventy-five years, so that he may obtain his pension. If this is done it will be a breach of contract, and if it is a breach of contract with respect to one judge or a few judges, the principle constitutes a breach of contract towards the other judges who have reached the age of seventy-five. The government might give to that judge, for the time he may have served over a period of thirteen years, a pension proportionate to the length of service he has rendered before reaching the age of seventy-five.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no provision in the law for it.


Paul Mercier: Then the law is against you.
Bill as amended reported.
Mr. DUPRE moved the third reading of the bill, and the house divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:	[DOT]
Beaubier,
Belec,
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Bey non,
Bourgeois,
Bowen,	Manion,
Bowman,	Mitchell,
Burns,	Moore (Chateauguay-
Bury,	Huntingdon),
Cantley,	Morand,
Carmichael,	Myers,
Casselman,	Nicholson,
Chaplin,	Peck,
Charters,	Perley (Qu'Appelle),
Cotnam,	Piekel,
Davies,	Plunkett,
Dickie,	Porteous,
Dorion,	Quinn,
Duguay,	Robinson,
Duranleau,	Ross,
Ernst,	Ryckman,
Esling,	Ryerson,
Fortin,	Sauve,
Gagnon,	Senn,
Gardiner,	Shaver,
Gobeil,	Simpson
Gordon,	(Simeoe North),
Hackett,	Smith
Hay,	(Victoria-Carleton),
Heaps,	Smith (Cumberland,
Johnstone,	Spankie,
J ones,	Speakman,
Kennedy	Spencer,
^ (Peace River),	Sproule,
Kennedy (Winnipeg	Stanley,
South Centre),	Stewart (Leeds),
Larue,	Stewart (Lethbridge),
Laurin,	Stinson,
Lennox,	Stirling.
Loucks,	Stitt (Selkirk),
Lucas,	Sutherland,
Luchkovich,	Swanston,
Macdonald (Kings),	Tetreault,
Macdougall,	Thompson (Lanark),
Maclrmis.	Tummon,
MacMillan,	Turnbull,
MacNicol,	Weese,
Macphail, Miss,	White (Mount Royal),
McGillis,	Willis, Wilson,
McGregor,	
McLure,	Wright.-99.
 NAYS Messrs:
Ahearn,	Hurtubise.
Beaubien,	King, Mackenzie,
Blair,	Mackenzie
Boulanger,	(Vancouver Centre),
Bradette,	MacLean,
Brown,	McIntosh,
Butcher,	McKenzie (Assiniboia),
Cardin,	McPhee,
Chevrier,	Munn,
Denis,	Neill,
Deslauriers,	Parent,
Desrochers,	Perras,
Donnelly,	Pouliot,
Dubois,	Reid,
Duff,	Rheaume,
Dumaine,	Roberge,
Euler,	St-Pere,
Factor,	Sanderson,
Fafard,	Seguin,
Fontaine,	Taylor,
Fournier,	Thauvette,
Golding,	Totzke,
Hall,	Vallance,
Hanson (Skeena), Howard,	Verville.-48.
Anderson (Halton), Arsenault,
Arthurs,
Barber,
Baribeau,
Barrette,
4S12	COMMONS
Post Office Act-Newspaper Postage

(The list of pairs is	furnished by the chief
whips.)	
Messrs:	
Baker,	Bertrand,
Bell (Hamilton),	Mercier (St. Henri),
Bell (St. Antoine),	Raymond,
Black (Halifax),	Dubuc,
Cahan,	Rinfret,
Cowan (Port Arthur),	Ilsley,
Cowan (LongLake),	Irvine,
Dupre,	Ferland,
Edwards,	Elliott,
Embury,	Bothwell,
Garland (Carleton),	Goulet,
Geary,	Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Gott,	Rutherford,
Guthrie,	Lapointe,
Hanson	Veniot,
(York-Sunbury),	
Harris,	J acobs,
Lafleche,	Girouard,
Lawson,	Gray,
MacDonald	Urquhart,
(Cape Breton South),	
MacLaren,	T< lset. Sir Eugene,
McDade,	Dupuis,
McGibbon,	Power,
Maloney,	Young,
Matthews,	Moore (Ontario),
Mullins,	Howden,
Murphy,	Stewart (Edmonton),
Perley, Sir George,	Marcil,
Pettit,	Bouchard,
Price,	Hanbury,
Rhodes,	Ralston,
Rowe,	Lacroix,
Short,	Heenan,
Simpson (Algoma),	Casgrain,
Smoke,	Cayley,
Spence,	Fraser (Northumberland),
Spotton,	Hepburn,
Stevens.	Malcolm.
Stitt (Nelson),	Weir (Macdonald),
Sullivan,	Brasset,
Thompson (Simcoe),	Jean,
Weir (Melfort),	Motherwell,
White (London),	Gershaw.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski ('Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. MERC'IER (Outremont): I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. 
Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Sague-nay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Maurice Dupré: I was paired
with the hon. member for Toilette (Mr. Ferland), Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: I was paired with the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I was paired with the hon. -member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BO YES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Radio Broadcasting Act


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STEVENS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Bill read the third time and passed.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 98, to amend the Post Office Act-Mr. Bennett -Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill has been
reprinted and the question propounded yesterday by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is now answered in the negative. This bill cannot apply to weekly newspapers because, first of all, it applies only when newspapers are transmitted for a greater distance than forty miles and then:
The newspapers and periodicals described in the immediately preceding subsection, upon any copies in excess of 2,500 copies, shall be subject to postage-[DOT]
At such and such a rate, and in any event the advertising medium in any weekly newspapers the officials have any record of, does not exceed 50 per cent.
I have secured answers to the questions asked by the leader of the opposition. The first is that newspapers coming from the United States to Canada, come in free. The postage is paid there and by international arrangement the papers come into this country. On our newspapers we pay the postage here and they go into the United States. In that country the zone system prevails with respect to advertising and the rate is ten cents a pound on the advertising portion, so that Canadian papers, so far as that .is concerned, do not meet with greater competition in that regard; that is, United States papers while coming in free, pay ten cents per pound on the advertising content as determined at Washington, plus the ordinary postage for the privilege of transmission.
The right hon. member asked whether this would affect the Saturday Evening Post. The
answer to that is no. The Saturday Evening Post is dealt with by the legislation of 1931, under which it will be recalled that that paper falls within the category that pays the five cents a copy to this country. The revenue derived from that last year was very substantial. I cannot give the exact amount but it exceeded five thousand dollars a month. The other question which the right hon. gentleman asked was whether this effected any change with respect to rates payable other than those he mentioned, namely, to increase the rate of four cents on the advertising content in excess of the present figure. There is no change in that regard in the statute as it now reads.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the house I move that we revert to the order introduction of bills so that I may introduce the bill which has been printed in order that the house may have the opportunity of considering its position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The radio bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house reverted to the order introduction of bills.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
99. to amend the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act.
He said: This bill is to amend the Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 in two particulars, one to deal with the acquisition of stations by lease and or by purchase, and the other with respect to the appointment of a staff, that it should be selected by the commission. That may be highly controversial, but at any rate I only say to the house as I said the other evening, that Mr. Murray has gone over the country unaccompanied by the commission and has made a report in which having regard to his experience in engaging artists and others who provide programs as well as technical officers he makes that recommendation. I do not propose to proceed with the second reading to-day. After the house has had an opportunity to consider the bill we will discuss it at more length.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The house will revert to government orders.
Customs Tariff Amendment



CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 93, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Rate of exchange on depreciated currency in computing value for duty of goods imported.
Edward James Young: Would you mind reading the first sentence of subsection (9), Mr. Chairman?


Onésime Gagnon: It reads as follows:
"(9) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the governor in council may, from time to time and as occasion requires, order and direct, subject to such exceptions as may be made, what shall be the rate of exchange fixed for any currency in computing the value for duty of goods imported into Canada from any place or country the currency of which is depreciated, and in ease a sum in Canadian currency less than the invoice value of the goods in the currency of the place or country of export, computed at the rate of exchange so ordered, be paid for in goods, the actual selling price of the goods to the importer shall be regarded as less than the fair market value of the goods when sold for home consumption, and the provisions of this section shall apply and special or dumping duty shall apply equal to the difference between the value of the invoice computed at the current rate of exchange or at the average current rate from time to time fixed by order of the governor in council, and the value of such invoice, computed at the rate of exchange for duty so ordered as aforesaid, or may be less than such difference as the governor in council may from time to time order and direct; and the governor in council may order and direct that iii all cases of sales or consignments of goods imported into Canada, where the importer owns, controls or is interested in the business of the exporter, or the exporter owns, controls or is interested in the business of the importer, or the importer and exporter operate under a controlling or holding company, notwithstanding the expressed terms of the sale or consignment, the transaction shall be regarded as a sale and the actual selling price to the purchaser in Canada shall be taken to be the value of the goods in the currency of the place or country of export converted into Canadian currency at the current rate of exchange, or at the average current rate from time to time fixed by order of the governor in council, and shall be regarded as less than the fair market value of the goods when sold for home consumption, and the provisions of this section shall apply and special or dumping duty shall be deemed to apply equal to the difference between the value of the invoice computed at the current rate of exchange or at the average current rate from time to time fixed by order of the governor in council, and the value of such invoice computed at the rate of exchange for duty so ordered as aforesaid, or may be less than such difference as the governor in council may from time to time order and direct. .
[Mr Speaker.]


Edward James Young: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I should like to point
out that there is a typographical error in line 17, where the word "in" should be struck out and the word "the" substituted, so that it will read: "be paid for the goods." I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. EULER:: May I ask the minister
what the clause that has just been read means?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If my hon. friend will
follow the section I think he will see that we have just put into words what the department has been doing since September when England went off the gold standard. We provided by orders in council for the exchange value of the pound for duty purposes. We provided also for the exchange value of the pound for special duty purposes. Then, as exchange was moving up and down, and as stability or an attempt at stability was desirable, we passed orders in council from time to time fixing the average value of the pound for special duty purposes. Having done that we found, and this appears in the section, that in order to avoid the payment of special duty, no matter what might be the exchange value of the pound, there were some who were selling at the fixed value of the pound for special duty purposes, thereby avoiding the payment of any special duty. There were certain articles of trade, such as wool, which had a gold value, and it was necessary for us to make orders in council in reference to the trade in wool. The trade in wines bottled in England, a trade which had been in existence for many years and was on a gold basis throughout the world, had to be provided for. These different movements and others, [DOT] if hon. members will accept this long sentence which is Gladstonian in its proportions, will develop just exactly the course of the department in handling the business. I hope that this lengthy explanation will be at least in a measure satisfactory.


William Daum Euler: Since the minister has stated that the object of the legislation is merely to put into statutory form a practice which has been followed by the department for some time, why is it necessary, if the practice was legal before, to put it now in the form of a statute?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is of course a very proper question. When this was done in the first instance I was not in the country. I was in London, England, when gold took the flight. It was found that in an emergency in which quick action had to be taken a decision was

Customs Tariff Amendment
made which later had to be modified by order in council. Upon arriving home I canvassed the whole situation as carefully as I could. I was told, but not with emphasis, that the govenor general in council had done something which it had not authority to do. When I inquired what that w-as, I could not find out. However someone had set on foot the story that there was imperfection in the action taken by the governor in council, and in order to remove any possible doubt, I was anxious to effect a remedy. It is not proposed to go back and take the course of making merchants pay who have not paid but have been fair. The idea is to have the matter clear beyond peradventure. I may tell my hon. friend that the closest I could get to any definite statement as to what was done by the government which it had not power to do by order in council was that we had fixed an average for duty over fortnightly periods, and that it was necessary that the amounts so fixed should be the real exchange values of the pound on the particular dates. In order, as I say, to have some degree of uniformity we had fixed fortnightly values which obtained during the respective fortnights, action which it was suggested the government had not power to take. I think that it had. But if anyone wishes to challenge the action of the government I think this House of Commons, the final authority, ought to give the governor in council full power for what has been done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who was it
told the minister? Was it his colleagues?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No it was not. So far
as I know my colleagues are of the opinion that their action was correct. But there was the idea abroad to which I have referred. When I tried to localize it and find out what the trouble was the suggestion was made that we had not the power to fix the average value for duty covering fortnightly periods. So, in order to remove all possible doubt we are asking this House of Commons to pass this legislation, remembering, if you will, that it was necessary to act quickly. I think that while some people may object, in the main the action taken was beneficial to the country.


William Daum Euler: The minister admits that there was some doubt as to the legality of what was done in the past, since Great Britain went off the gold standard. Will he say now that this bill will regularize what was possibly done illegally in the past? Is it retroactive?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes. I say, as frankly as I can, that I believe the government had the authority. I believe that in the emergency the government should have had the power; I think all the chances are that it did. There is the view that improper or unwarranted action may be asserted. No one has done so thus far, but if such a contention should be advanced naturally the interests of the government and the revenue should be fortified. My answer to the hon. member would be that if this legislation is made retroactive from the month of September, when Great Britain went off the gold standard, we would be prepared for any threat on the part of any body in connection with the correctness of the action taken by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has any threat been made up to the present?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: None that I know of.


Edward James Young: 
Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, that is not correct. The hon. member may have got that idea from what I said. But in connection with duty upon the pound, may I say that the value of the pound was fixed at par when our tariff was made. The value for duty is still with the pound at $4.86?. But there is a special duty, and that special duty is levied or was a short time ago, because at the present time there is none. The value of the pound for special duty was first $4.40 and then it was changed to $4.25. The exchange value of the day, or of this fortnightly period, deducted from $4.40 at first, and later from S4.25, constituted the special duty or what is commonly known as the dumping duty.


Edward James Young: Would the minister tell us where in subsection (a) he finds authority for saying that the value for duty would be $4.86j? R states here that the value for duty is the value they fix.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That was in the order
in council, passed September 29, 1931, P.C. 2415.


Edward James Young: What does it say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is.

Customs Tariff Amendment


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It says:
By order in council (P.C. 2415) dated 29th September, 1931, it is ordered that in computing the value for duty of goods imported into Canada from Great Britain, the rate of exchange shall be fixed at $4,861} to pound sterling being the par value thereof.


Edward James Young: The section reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the governor in council may, from time to time and as occasion requires, order and direct, subject to such exceptions as may be made, what shall be the rate of exchange fixed for any currency in computing the value for duty of goods imported into Canada from any place or country the currency of which is depreciated, and in case a sum in Canadian currency less than the invoice value of the goods in the currency of the place or country of export, computed at the rate of exchange so ordered, be paid for in goods, the actual selling price of the goods to the importer shall be regarded as less than the fair market value of the goods when sold for home consumption, and the provisions of this section shall apply.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This legalizes that, if
there ever was any doubt as to its legality.


Edward James Young: When the minister fixes the pound at $4.25-that is the power given him in the first fifteen lines of this section, is it not?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would like to say that the minister does not fix the value, it is done by the governor in council.


Edward James Young: Well when that is done,
when the value of the pound is fixed at $4.25, and then when they fix the average current value, the difference between those two shall be the dumping duty. Is not that the understanding? "And the first value fixed shall be the basis on which the value for duty is computed."


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Edward James Young: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Edward James Young: But you have changed that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Daum Euler: 
William Daum Euler: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what was expected, and that was why $4.40 was agreed upon by us all as being a fair price for the pound. It was expected that commodity values would rise about ten per cent; therefore, deducting ten per cent from $4.86 would give you some idea of what the value of the pound might be. As a matter of fact that was not exactly what happened. Perhaps the hon. member for North Waterloo has been reading the British trade journals. Nothing has been more surprising than the fact that instead of commodity prices rising with the depreciated currency, commodity prices actually decreased with respect to many basic commodities. There has been some increase during the last two weeks, but prior to that there was a steady decrease.


William Daum Euler: I have not checked it up,
but in one of the financial papers, I think the Financial Post of Toronto, the statement was made that commodity prices did increase to such an extent that the imposition of the dumping duty on the basis of $4.40 was entirely unnecessary, because the rise in commodity prices was sufficient to offset that depreciation. I have not checked it up, as I say, but certainly that statement is made by interested importers in this country.


Edward James Young: 
Edmond Baird Ryckman: 
Edward James Young: The minister has just read
an order in council authorizing him to do certain things which he has been doing for the last two years. Now he says some doubt has arisen as to the legality of those things, and he brings in a bill to legalize what he has been doing.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, it is to remove any chance of doubt. In my own mind I think council had ample authority to do what was done.


Edward James Young: Then the minister wants this bill to contain ample justification for everything that was done, but it does not contain anything that would justify the order in council he read.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edward James Young: No, it is not carried. I
may say that I have received complaints about this regulation-, and I should like to read a portion of a letter I received from a broker. Referring to another letter he had written he said:
My letter does not start with parliamentary language but expresses the exasperation felt by the vague meaning put into many of these regulations. It is quite possible there is a bidden meaning and I would suggest you ask that tliis resolution be explained.
This gentleman says he cannot find any meaning in the resolution and suggests that there may be a hidden meaning. I have read the resolution carefully, sentence by sentence, and I cannot find any hidden meaning at all; if it is hidden it is well hidden. I even read it backwards, and it makes just as much sense that way. Will the minister explain just what he means by a country whose currency is depreciated? Does he mean depreciated in terms of gold, in terms of American dollars, or in terms of Canadian dollars?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Currency is depreciated when it is at less than its recognized par throughout the world.


Edward James Young: In terms of gold?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There might be a country where they traded jack-knives.
TMr. Ryckman.]


Edward James Young: That is a sharp answer. I have here the Commercial Intelligence Journal for May 6, showing the value of different currencies. I find that on that date the United States dollar was worth 88 cents in gold and the Canadian dollar was worth 74 cents in gold. Now I want to ask the minister whether United States currency would come under this clause. That currency is depreciated in terms of gold, but it is above par in Canadian money; the United States dollar is worth about SI.13 in Canadian money. Would United States currency be considered depreciated under this clause?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No.


Edward James Young: Let us see how this will work out. If this applies to -a country whose currency is depreciated in terms of gold but is still above Canadian currency, any advantage or supposed advantage which that countiy might derive from the depreciation of its currency would be more than offset by the further depreciation of the Canadian currency. In a case like that I ask the minister how he would justify the application of this section.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the currency is at a premium of course the section would not apply.


Edward James Young: I want to know whether that means at a premium in terms of Canadian money or in terms of gold. Here is a currency that is at a premium in terms of Canadian money and at a discount in terms of gold.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In the money market of Canada we have listed the currencies and their values; some are depreciated and some are appreciated, and we govern ourselves accordingly. The banks furnish the department, at eleven o'clock in the morning, the exchange rate in respect of any currency regarding which information may be asked.


Edward James Young: I take it the minister means depreciated in terms of Canadian money. What will he do with respect to a country whose currency is above ours?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Frankly, I do not understand the question.


Edward James Young: I want to know how the section will be made to apply.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The section does not apply.


Edward James Young: Then I will ask this question. The United States is such a country: if we are buying goods from the United States does any currency dumping duty apply?

Customs Tariff Amendment


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, not when their
currency is at a premium.


Edward James Young: Then will the minister explain this. I have here an appraiser's note for a small collection on an electric lamp. The appraised value-not the invoice value- is SI.90; United States exchange 26 cents; advance for duty, 72 cents, making a total value for duty of 82.88. How is that value for duty arrived at?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That has nothing to do with the section under consideration.


Edward James Young: I think it has quite a bit to do with it. I will ask this question, then. If an American exporter is sending goods into Canada, with the Canadian dollar quoted at 88 cents American funds, and he offers to take the Canadian dollar at par, -what action will the officers take?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not know either that that question relates to this section. We require the United States money to be converted into Canadian value.


Edward James Young: Will the minister say he will or will not impose a dumping duty equal to the difference in the currency?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It depends upon the manner in which payment is made. It must be the fair market value in the country from which the goods are imported and must have relation to our own currency, and if an American exporter takes Canadian money when the United States money is at a premium we charge the duty in that case.


Edward James Young: Then the minister is charging the currency dumping duty against the United States as wtell ias against other countries whose currency is at a premium. I can recall a report that appeared in the newspapers some time ago of a speech of the Prime Minister in which he seemed to resent the fact that Americans did not give us 100 cents for the dollar. But if the American did offer full value the Minister of National Revenue would not let him do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


Edward James Young: He said so.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We insist on the fair market value for duty purposes. If someone tries to charge less we step in in the interests of the business of the country and insist upon a fair market value, and the transaction is carried out on that footing.


Edward James Young: It amounts to this. You simply say to the American, "You must not
give Canada one hundred cents for her dollar." Let us see what the section says in line 30:
... in all cases of sales or consignments of goods imported into Canada, where the importer owns, controls or is interested in the business of the exporter, or the exporter owns, controls or is interested in the business of the importer, or the importer and exporter operate under a controlling or holding company, notwithstanding the expressed terms of the sale or consignment, the transaction shall be regarded as a sale and the actual selling price to the purchaser in Canada shall be taken to be the value of the goods in the currency of the place or country of export converted into Canadian currency at the current rate of exchange, or at the average current rate from time to time fixed by order of the governor in council, and shall be regarded as less than the fair market value . . .
Leaving out the second clause we find this. If a certain relationship exists between an importer in Canada and an exporter in Britain, then the goods shall be regarded as being sold at less than fair market value and the dumping duty shall apply. Is that what the minister intends to say?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I intended to say what
the hon. member has read.


Edward James Young: The minister intends to
say this, that if a partnership or relationship of principal and agent exists between an exporter in England and an importer in Canada, then the goods shall be regarded as being dumped and as being sold at less than fair market value. Is that what the minister intended?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, with this addedif the price is the value for special duty, because some have been evading the special duty. How? By using in the transaction the value that has been fixed as the value of the pound for special duty, so that there is no special duty payable at all. In some cases they have been willing to pay the merchant in England a higher price than they needed to pay him, in order to evade paying the special duty in Canada. If I have an affiliated company in England and if I am prepared to pay at a higher rate than the currency exchange rate I am simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other and not giving the government its fair share of duty.


Edward James Young: Where is that contained
in the bill? As I read it all that is necessary is that a certain relationship shall exist, that there be a partnership, and if they are partners, regardless of everything else, the dumping duty applies. That is the way I understand the bill.
Customs Tariff Amendment


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the invoice shows
that it would be a case of dumping if they were not partners.


Edward James Young: Where is that in the bill?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The hon. member read
it; I do not wish to read it over again.


Edward James Young: I cannot find it. I do not know who drafted the section, but here are 466 words all in one sentence, and for the life of me I cannot find the subject or the predicate of it. I do not know who drew it up.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I didn't think it was
quite as bad as all that.


Edward James Young: It is, for I have actually
counted the words, and they are all in one sentence. The man who did it must have been working by the mile.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He must have been a
free trader.


Edward James Young: A correspondent suggests
to me that there may be a hidden meaning in it. It has been said that language was given man as a means of concealing his thoughts; evidently that was the idea in the mind of the person who drafted this section. I suggest to the minister that he break it up into a number of clear, terse, concise sentences. When you want to draft a thing like this there are two principles to be observed: first, keep clearly in mind what you want to say and, secondly, say it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Did my hon. friend ever think of applying that to himself?


Edward James Young: I do the best I can. The
minister wants to say several things here. If he will tell us what they are, we will try to say them for him. The first thing he wants to say is that the governor in council shall have power td fix the values of certain currencies. Why not say that in one sentence and stop there? Then make another sentence for the next thing the minister wants to do. He wants to say that the value for duty shall be based on the value of currency so fixed. Let him put that in another sentence. Then he can have another saying that the governor in council shall have power to determine every fortnight the average value of the currency in question. Let him have another sentence stating that in case the actual price paid for the goods at the average current rate of exchange is less than the value for duty so fixed, the goods shall be considered as dumped and shall be liable to dumping duty. Then he can have another sentence saying that when certain relationships exist between 
the importer and the exporter the transaction shall be considered as a sale and values shall be determined as in the former clauses of the bill. Let him put those different ideas in different short, terse sentences expressed in simple words. Then we shall understand the matter and be able to discuss it intelligently. At present the bill does not make sense.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Department of
Justice revised this section, and they did not have any difficulty with it. I must say I did not at first understand it as fully as I might have wished, but after reading it the second and third times, for I have read it a few times, I think it is plain. I do not believe my hon. friend would have to read it three times to understand it.


Edward James Young: If the Justice department
drafted it they may be quite capable of understanding it, and the minister may also be capable of understanding it, but it has to be understood by ordinary mortals in business and they do not seem to know what it means. Even the officials of the department do not seem to understand it. I suggest that it be put into simple language so that the man in the street, even the hon. member for Weyburn may understand it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they all understand it as well as he does, there will be none who do not understand it.


Onésime Gagnon: Carried.


Edward James Young: No. We want it redrafted.
Does the minister not think it should be redrafted and simplified?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Frankly, I think not.
The difficulties have been caused by the complications in the working out of business, the fluctuations we have had; by reason of changes in exchange values a dumping duty may be shown one day and none the next. It is these things that cause difficulty, but anyone in the trade who will follow it, will understand it. I can appreciate the fact that a layman might find some difficulty on reading this over for the first time, but I think a bright minded person, on reading it the second time, would understand it fully.


Edward James Young: Unfortunately we are not
all sufficiently bright minded to do so. In spite of what the minister says, in the last section I read where certain relationships are supposed to exist between the importer and the exporter and I cannot find in the bill anything other than that if such relationship exist, the goods are dumped no matter what

Special War Revenue Act
the price is. Surely the minister ought to be willing to clear this up by clarifying his language.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think it is clear now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 95, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lennox in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Stamp tax on cheques.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to
offer to this section as follows:
That the hill be amended as follows:
That subsection (2) of section 44, as proposed to be enacted by section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
(2) The following cheques shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this section, under regulations to be prescribed by the minister, when drawn for an amount of money not exceeding $5:-
(1)	cheques issued in payment for milk or cream to producers thereof;
(ii)	cheques issued in payment for eggs or poultry by egg and poultry exchanges to producers thereof;
(iii)	cheques issued by cooperative associations of wool growers in payment for wool to producers thereof;
(iv)	cheques issued by municipal corporations to persons in receipt of unemployment relief.
There is a similar exemption in the case of money orders, post office money orders and postal notes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 3 to C inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Excise tax on money orders, etc., of express companies.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the following amendment to offer to this section:
That subsection (2) of section 65, as proposed to be enacted by section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
(2)	The following money orders shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this section, under regulations to be prescribed by the minister, when drawn for an amount of money not exceeding $5:-
(i)	money orders issued in payment for milk or cream to producers thereof;
(ii)	money orders issued in payment for eggs
or poultry by egg and poultry exchanges to producers thereof;	_
(iii)	money orders issued by cooperative associations of wool growers in payment for wool to producers thereof;
(iv)	money orders issued by municipal corporations to persons in receipt of unemployment relief.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Post office money orders.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the following amendment to offer to this section:
That subsection (2) of section 69, as proposed to be enacted by section 8 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The following post office money orders shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this section, under regulations to be prescribed by the minister, when drawn for an amount of money not exceeding $5:-	_
(1)	post office money orders issued in payment for milk or cream to producers thereof;
(ii)	post office money orders issued in payment for eggs or poultry by egg and poultry exchanges to producers thereof;
(iii)	post	office	money	orders	issued	by
cooperative associations of wool growers in payment for wool to producers thereof;
(iv)	post	office	money	orders	issued	by
municipal corporations to persons in receipt of unemployment relief.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-Stamp tax on postal notes.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the following amendment to offer to this section:
That subsection (2) of section 70, as proposed to be enacted by section 9 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
(2)	The following postal notes shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this section, under regulations to be prescribed by the minister, when drawn for an amount of money not exceeding $5:-
(i)	postal notes issued in payment for milk or cream to producers thereof;
(ii)	postal notes issued in payment for eggs or poultry by egg and poultry exchanges to producers thereof;
(iii)	postal notes issued by cooperative associations of wool growers in payment for wool to producers thereof;
(iv)	postal notes issued by municipal corporations to persons in receipt of unemployment relief.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
Special War Revenue Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 11-Excise tax on cigarette papers.
Mr. HOWARD:: Has the minister any amendment for this section?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That was amended in committee on the resolution, and the bill conforms to the resolution as amended.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish to amend the bill
by adding a new section 1A, reading as follows:
la. Paragraph (b) of section thirteen of The Special War Revenue Act, chapter one hundred and seventy-nine of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as enacted by section one of chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1932, is amended by striking out the words "against fire" in the last line thereof.
The effect of that amendment is this. The act of 1932 exempts from taxation farmers' mutual insurance companies which are engaged in the business of insurance against fire. When that exemption was made it was not in mind that there were also farmers' mutual insurance companies which insured against weather, hail and the like. By striking out the words, "against fire," farmers' mutuals will be exempted from taxation whether they insure against fire or against weather.


Mr. MARCIL:: As regards the farmers'
mutuals, the other day a farmer told me that he thought the cheques issued on the caisses populaires, the farmers' bank, so called, were exempted from the stamp tax. The bank is not incorporated in the real sense under provincial charter, but it is very useful to the farmers and the cheques issued are numerous. I would like to know for certain if cheques issued on this bank are exempt from taxation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Since my hon. friend mentioned the matter the other day I have had the opportunity of making inquiry and I find that under the act. as hitherto administered those cheques have been regarded as cheques coming within the provisions of the bill with respect to the taxation of cheques.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 96, to amend the Income War Tax Act.

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Five per cent tax on residents of Canada.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to
move to amend subsection 5 of section 9B as enacted by section 9 of the bill, by adding the following words at the end of the said subsection:
except those exemptions provided by paragraphs (a),	(b), (c) and (k) of the said
section 4.
Section 4 of chapter 97 of the statutes of 1927 refers (a) to the income of the governor general of Canada; (b) to the income of consuls and consuls-general and of officials or officers of a foreign country whose duties require them to reside in Canada; (c) the income of officials of Great Britain or any of its self-governing colonies wdiose duties require them to reside in Canada. Those are the ordinary diplomatic considerations which obtain in all countries, and I take it that there will be no exception taken on the part of the committee. Paragraph (k) has to do with the income of incorporated companies whose business and assets are carried on and situate entirely outside of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have another amendment of a minor character. I move to amend subsection 11 of 9B by substituting the word "income" for the word "revenue" in line 18, so that the proviso will read:
Provided that not more than one-quarter of the gross income of the Canadian company is derived from interest and dividends.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Deductions of 12| per centum on certain payments made to nonresidents.
William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, you have
been proceeding so rapidly that perhaps I have missed the clause concerning which I should have liked to make some observations. If you would permit me I should like to make them now. It was with regard to a debate of about a week ago in connection with the tax on corporations. Am I in order?


Onésime Gagnon: Yes.

Income War Tax Act


William Daum Euler: I said at the time that the
removal of the $2,000 exemption on corporation incomes has created a discriminatory-position so far as small corporations are concerned. May I repeat, lest I be misunderstood, that I am not objecting in any sense to corporations paying income tax. My objection is based entirely on the disproportion between the tax paid by a business which happens to be incorporated as compared with the-


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


William Daum Euler: If hon. members say it is
carried before I am through, it will take all the longer. There is a disproportion between the tax paid by the incorporated company and that paid by a similar business which happened to be owned by one or two persons. I object to the great difference in the taxation. I take as an example the tax which has to be paid by a corporation having a profit of $5,000 as compared with the tax on the $5,000 profit earned by a private individual. As I said at that time the amounts payable were in the one case something like S713 and in the case of the private individual only about $120. My contention was that the difference was entirely too great. The minister attempted to meet my statement by saying that I had not allowed for salaries. I want to say now that I did allow for salaries. When I spoke of the $5,000 income I presumed that salaries had been paid, and I omitted the actual computation as far as salary was concerned1. Salary having been omitted in both cases in my computation the result was almost exactly identical in each case. If a profit-and I am speaking of a net profit in either case-is $5,000, and for the purpose of argument we want to say that in each case the manager of the concern receives a salary, the joint stock company at a salary of $3,000 and the manager of the private business on an allowance, if ybu wish to call it that, of $3,000, the difference, if it is computed by way of a tax on the company and by way of individual taxation, is, if we care to take it that way, $919 to be paid by the corporation or its owner by way of individual taxes, and only $346.50 to be paid by the private owner. I am trying to point out that the difference is entirely too great. I am not objecting to the principle of taxation of the corporation, but it seems unnecessary to state that it is utterly unfair that a business which shows a net profit of, we will say, $5,000 on capital should have to pay $919 while a privately owned business making a net profit of $5,000 pays only $340.50. I have checked these figures carefully, and they represent the difference between the two amounts in the case to which I referred the other day when it was taken for granted that I had not included salaries-$572 in one case and $593.75 in the other, or a difference of only $21.75.
I should like, not for the purpose of delaying the committee but to point out what I regard as an absolute injustice, for a few moments to review the situation. I think when the jncome tax was first introduced so far as corporations were concerned, in order to avoid double taxation, after the company had paid its taxes and the shareholders had received their dividends, they were allowed to deduct some eight per cent on individual receipts because of the fact that the company had already paid taxes on that income. It was regarded as unjust that taxation should be paid twice on the same sum. I believe that is a sound principle and if I cared to look back I could quote the present Prime Minister as having said what I am now saying, namely that, the principle of double taxation is unsound. I could mention a good many members on the opposite side of the house who took that position. Following that I believe it was the late Hon. Mr. Robb who removed the provision for the eight per cent allowance, but included a provision for a family corporation. That has been removed by the minister. In fact, the minister has done these three things within a very short period: He has removed the exemption which joint stock companies enjoyed; he has removed the family corporation provision, and he has increased the rate of taxation.
Just to make the comparison still more glaring may I point out that the owners of a joint stock company have to pay from four to seven income taxes on the same sum of money. The exemption of eight per cent has been abolished. We now have, first, a tax of twelve and a half per cent on the corporation, which is paid by the company itself. The individual is then taxed on the balance which he draws in dividends. There is double taxation. He is then taxed on last year's tax, because that sum cannot legally be deducted. The municipality-and especially is this so in the province of Ontario-then charges him an income tax on the same income, and usually charges about twice as much as it ought to charge, because the tax is based on the mill rate or the assessment rate, and the assessments in most of our towns and villages are usually half or less than half the actual real estate value. The result is that the tax rate or the mill rate is perhaps
Income War Tax Act

forty mills where it ought to be only twenty, if assessments were properly made. So he has a municipal income tax on the same sum of money. Then, in my province along comes the provincial government, placing another tax on joint stock companies of one per cent of their capital. There are at least four income taxes paid by a man who happens to have his money invested in a joint stock company.
But* the point I wish to make-ijnd I have no hope that I will be successful in convincing the minister-is that in the case of the small company where there is a proprietor, or two or three proprietors in a family, on so small a profit as S5,000 a tax of over $900 is paid. That figure must compare with the S300 paid by the private individual. Let us take the figures which the minister mentioned the other day when he endeavoured to show I had not allowed for the $3,000 salary. Let me take the S3,000 salary in the case of a joint stock company which I had credited with a profit of $5,000. That reduces the profit to $2,000. Figure it out in that way. Even the small company which has a profit of only $2,000, a company which may be owned by one person or perhaps by one man and members of his family, pays a tax of more than $300, whereas his competitor next door pays only $120. My whole argument is to make this point, that the difference is entirely too great. I am not objecting to the corporation tax, but I do not see any reason wrhy the small man because he happens for convenience to have his business in the form of a stock company-and he gets his charter from the provincial government, not this government, and the provincial government taxes him-should be penalized by having to pay three times the tax on his profits that the man who does business the other way has to pay. I think it is wrong and should be corrected.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Dealing with the first part of the remarks of my hon. friend, in which he refers to an individual doing business as a company as against the individual doing a personal business, and the disparity in the income tax payable in the different situations, I hope he will not think me discourteous if I do not again cover the ground which I covered on Friday during his absence in reply to his colleague the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). He will find the complete reply in Hansard, as far as I am able to give it.


William Daum Euler: I have it right here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Whether that be regarded
by my hon. friend as a satisfactory reply or

not, it is the only reply I can give, and it would not be fair to encumber the record by repeating the same argument.
With respect to his second objection, I am very largely in agreement with him. There is no doubt that the feature of double taxation is in itself objectionable. If conditions were fairly normal we might have eliminated it, but I must point out that now is not the time when we can consider such a proposal. When we do approach more prosperous conditions we ought, if possible, to get away from the feature of double taxation, not only in connection with the income tax but other taxes I might cite. Further we should try if at all possible, when conditions improve, to get away from the retroactive feature which has been present in the income tax since its inception, because it is very hard on an individual who has to pay a tax this year at an increased rate on an income which he received and spent last year, and possibly this year he may have no income. There are actual cases of that character. That is a hardship which we ought at the earliest possible moment to attempt to eliminate.
As far as triple taxation is concerned, first by the dominion, second by the province and third by the municipality, in connection with income tax, I am in accord with the views expressed by my hon. friend. I stated to the house, on Friday I think it was, that that subject came up for discussion at the last provincial conference, and as a result there is a committee of the higher officials of the provinces and the dominion at work at the present moment. I hope that as a result of their efforts we may arrive at a working basis which will be fair to the different taxation authorities and also to the individuals concerned.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I wish to bring to the minister's attention again the question of reinstating the exemption of $2,000 for small companies. I wish to back up what the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has just said in connection with this matter. Even to-day I received a telegram from the Charlottetown board of trade saying:
Incorporated companies here and council board trade urge reinstatement exemption of two thousand dollars to incorporated companies in budget.
They seem to think it is working a very great hardship on the small companies. I really think the minister should give serious consideration to this.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not a complete answer I will admit, but I may say to my hon. friend that neither in the United States nor Great

Supply-Miscellaneous
Britain do they give any exemption whatever. If the small company feels itself aggrieved, particularly the type of company referred to by my hon. friend from North Waterloo, it is a simple thing to dissolve the company and pay the straight income tax. Admittedly the exemption was dropped for the purpose of enlarging the return to the treasury.
I cannot see that there is any injustice, as the exemption follows all along the line with every company.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, the exemption of $2,000 means a great deal to a little company that makes only $3,000 or $4,000 profit, whereas to a company making half a million it means nothing at all. What I am objecting to is the discrimination, and no matter how difficult it may be to raise revenue and how necessary it may be, I think the principle of justice and absence of discrimination should apply.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to move to section 12. It is purely for the purpose of facilitating administration, also to save expense by doing away with the necessity of making numerous small refunds. It will be a benefit from the administrative point of view, and also to the individual in saving him unnecessary annoyance. Taxes are deducted at the source from small payments to individuals who in the final analysis will be found not subject to tax. The amendment reads:
(3) Every person making any payment by any means whatsoever to a non-resident person on account of anything let, leased or used in Canada, or on account of royalties for anything used or sold in Canada, shall deduct from every such payment in excess of such an amount as the minister may prescribe, twelve and one-half per centum thereof.
That is there might be a remittance of $2 or $3, the minister might lay down a declaration saying that the deduction at the source would not be applicable in case of remittances of less than $25, $30 or $50, thus avoiding the necessity of numerous refunds in the case of small payments to individuals who in the final analysis would not be subject to the income tax, and to whom otherwise a refund would have to be made. That is the sole purpose of the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
[DOT]13719-305
To provide for salaries and expenses of the tariff board-payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $120,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is understood, Mr. Chairman, that any discussion there may be with respect to any phase of the personnel of the tariff board or of its work may be carried on when the bill which will be based on the resolution now before the house is under consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators, administration of, $2,295,172.20.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was to give some information in connection with this item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it was in connection with another item.


Edward James Young: The hon. member for Melville asked me to have this item stand for the present; he is busy in committee this afternoon.
Item stands.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, including the sum of $100,000 for publicity and advertising in the United Kingdom and Europe, to be administered by the High Commissioner for Canada, $173,500.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will have the information desired in connection with this item a little later, but perhaps we might let this go through now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will agree if the minister will undertake to stop his advertising.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was stopped long ago. Item agreed to.
Pensions and National Health-care of patients anti medical examination respecting pensions, $1,800,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might take most of these pensions items, but it should be understood that one will be held over on which general discussion may take place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well, any one desired may be held.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheltered employment, $50,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I should like some information with regard to this item. What does sheltered employment mean?

Tariff Board Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: As my hon. friend
probably knows, this class of work is carried on by returned soldiers who are unable to do ordinary work; they have been assisted by the government, and some of their work has been sold.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-European war-naval, militia and air forces after the war, $45,000,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is understood that if we pass these pensions items any matters having to do with pensions may be discussed during consideration of the bill which will be brought in after the pensions committee completes its work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian radio broadcasting service,
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is understood that any matters in connection with radio may be discussed when the radio bill is before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, when the house is in committee on the radio bill the minister will have his officials here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 9, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Bennett-Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
That it is expedient to amend the Tariff Board Act, chapter 55 of the statutes of 1931, to provide that the salary of the chairman shall be $15,000 per annum; and that any member of the board who has served for a period of ten years, and is, on completion of such period, of the age of sixty years or over, may be granted an annuity equal to one-half of the annual salary of such member.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Several members of the committee have already voiced their opinions in regard to this measure, and I wish ;o add my protest to the passing of the resolution. It seems to (me an extraordinary thing, that this resolution should be brought in at this time. It was only a few months ago that parliament decided what was to be paid the different members of the board. We
rMr. Spencer.]
have waited nearty three years to get the tariff board established, and these three years have been years in which a tariff board, if it was to be of service at all, should have beer, functioning. The real work of a tariff board has been done. Before the government undertook to revise the tariff in the drastic manner ft has, it would have been well advised to have had a board of competent persons to give advice not only with regard to our own domestic tariff but also with respect to questions such as those which arose at the recent conference of the governments of the British Empire. The government would have been well advised if they had had a tariff board to which they might have referred, for consideration and information, many matters that came up at that conference, and with regard to which they should have been advised before acting so hastily.
So far as one can see at the moment, the one purpose the tariff board is now intended to serve is in all matters referred to the board to keep the protectionist element in the tariff. The legislation is on trial; the board itself is on trial; the chairman of the board so to speak, is on trial. As yet, none of us knows how successful he may prove to be as the chairman of the tariff board. We do know that he has been on the bench for less than three years, and that in the exercise of his functions as a judge he appears to have given entire satisfaction; but how successful he may be as the chairman of a board concerned with commercial and industrial problems remains to be seen. Had the board been in existence for a few years, had there been opportunity to test its worth and the capacity of the chairman, then it seems to me the government might have been justified if necessary in asking parliament to grant some additional amount to the chairman, having regard to the services he was rendering. Up to the present, however, no services have been rendered; yet we are asked, on the very day on which we have been reducing the salaries of the judiciary, to give one member of the judiciary, who was among the junior members, a position which is incomparably beyond that which any of his former fellow members of the judiciary enjoy.
This morning it was decided that no matter how competent certain members of the bench might be, how considerable their service, they were to have their salaries reduced after they had reached a certain age, whether they were to carry on or not. They were to receive an annuity amounting to a stated sum. Their salaries and annuities, however, were not to be at all comparable to what the chairman of this board will receive. I understand that his salary is to be equivalent to that of the Chief

Tariff Board Act
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and that after ten years of service he is then to receive an annuity of $7,500 which is practically equal do the salary he was enjoying as a judge of the superior court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was getting $9,000, and $1,000 from Ontario, which made $10,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank the Prime Minister for the correction. However, it would appear that this gentleman certainly is receiving in salary and annuity, consideration away beyond that which is being given to members of the judiciary generally.
I want to give a further reason for declining to support this resolution, which indeed I strongly oppose. I told the Prime Minister at the time the legislation was being introduced that the Liberal party could not undertake, if it came into office, to continue the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the tariff, and in so far as the tariff board is to be an agency to perpetuate the protective feature of the tariffs which have been put into force by the present government, we on this side must decline to be a party, either directly or indirectly, to anything of the sort. I say that much by way of a further reason for my being opposed to granting this very large salary to the chairman of the board.
May I give another reason. We were assured that the tariff board when appointed would comprise gentlemen whose names would commend themselves to the house as those of non-partisans-gentlemen who would be in every way acceptable. Well, the appointees, so far as one can judge at all, are all gentlemen who have been pretty faithful supporters of the Conservative party, including even one member who sat with the Progressive group in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes; he has; I can give his record if my hon. friends want it. I do not think he ever supported, except when a decision of His Honour the Speaker was being challenged, a single motion that originated from this side of the house in opposition to the present government. We are now asked calmly to vote a salary of $15,000 per annum for ten years to the chairman of the board, and large salaries to the other members of the board, and then a pension for the rest of their lives at a sum equal to that of a judge of the superior court, notwithstanding the gentlemen who are on the board have been placed there for ten years by hon. gentlemen opposite and that they are 53719-3054
all, from their point of view as expressed: heretofore, politically opposed to the policies which we on this side have been supporting. That is asking a little too much of an opposition, or even of human nature, and we on this side cannot think of supporting the proposed resolution or any act based upon it.
It does seem extraordinary that after a great part of the time of the session has been taken up in reducing the salaries of civil servants, reducing the allowances of war veterans, reducing the indemnities paid to members of parliament, giving reasons why staffs must be cut down here and staffs cut down there, we have had within the last few days one man after another, especially persona grata to the Prime Minister and the government, being given salaries far exceeding those of the highest offices in the public * service. Just at this time, that kind of thing does more to create unrest than any other single action of the government. Those who have had their salaries cut down, war veterans who are expected to take less in the way of pensions, those who are obliged to make additional payments on income tax account, taxpayers generally, are all to-day comparing their position with that of those few favoured gentlemen who at this time are receiving special treatment at the hands of the government. We ought to oppose very strongly such exceptional cases, especially where there are not grounds sufficient to support them.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to support the leader of the opposition in his protest against what I must regard as discriminatory treatment. I believe in paying good wages and salaries; I believe government employees or those who receive government appointments should be properly taken care of, but during this session and, in fact, for the last few years we have had what has been termed a policy of economy and under that policy there has been a cutting down of salaries affecting especially the lower paid people. There has been no gradation in this matter, but we have had a ten per cent cut all along the line. This has meant a great' deal of hardship. In additioh, staffs have been cut and many people have been thrown out of work altogether. I think it was only jmsterday that some of us were pleading that the rights of railway employees should be protected at this time; that they should not. be turned out on the street. The government would not listen to our pleas and put through legislation that we thought was designed in the interest of the bondholders, without paying any regard whatever to the employees of the railways. We have recently had to pass measures which lay a very heavy tax upon
482S
Tariff Board Act

the people of this country. When I think of families that to-day are Struggling to maintain the very minimum of a decent living, it seems to me absolutely wrong that such high salaries should be paid to certain individuals in the service.
I am not at all sure that it was necessary to get a judge to act as chairman of the board, nor that legal training is the best for the man who occupies that position. I can understand that legal training may be very necessary for certain positions, but it remains to be seen whether it is a good training for men who are placed in what might be termed executive positions or those involving considerable independent research. I am inclined to think a scientific training would be much more desirable than a legal. There are many men who have had practical experience as well as academic training who, I am sure, would be very glad to accept this position at a lower figure than that which is being offered.
Of course there is the larger question of the wide spread in our salaries. I think we should be tending towards a greater equality instead of a still wider spread. The suggestion has been made that the gentleman who has been appointed to this high position not only has special qualifications, but is also doing this as a matter of duty. I would like to think, if that is the case, he might be prepared to do his duty without receiving such very high emoluments for so doing. There are people who are doing perhaps less responsible work but are none the less doing their duty, who are being paid a wage or salary that is lower than would enable them to maintain anything like a decent standard of living. When I think of those high salaries, I remember that they are possible simply because of the taxation which is levied on the great mass of the people and which falls most heavily on some of the poorer people of this country. As one who for many years has come into contact with the poor people of Canada, I must protest against this further extension of this principle which we are asked to make to-night. I do not think it is at all necessary. I do not think any good explanation has been given why so soon after the original act was passed there should be an increase in salary.
I know it is possible for the Prime Minister to say that only by giving very high salaries can he secure the best men. I do not think that can be very well proven. I know it has been said that only by providing very fully for pensions 'can men be induced to give up more secure jobs. I do not think that contention has been or can be proven. I repeat: It seems to me at this time, when through
TMr. Woodsworth.]
our taxation and otherwise people are being called upon to make great sacrifices, the example should be set by some of those who are occupying high positions in the service.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I feel I would be recreant to my duty if I did not protest against this resolution at this time. When the Tariff Board Act was passed, we understood that a salary of 112,000 was to be paid to the chairman of the board, and at that time it seemed to me and to people throughout the country that this was a pretty fair salary. Now we find that the intention is to increase it to
515.000,	which is more than judges are paid in any of the courts of this country and equal to what the Prime Minister of Canada receives. I can see no justification for increasing the salary to that extent. It may, however, have been impossible to secure the proper man for the position without paying him a salary in advance of what he was formerly receiving. I believe the chairman of this commission is a man that will fulfil the duties of his office to the satisfaction of everybody. I believe he is worth being paid a fair salary, but it seeims to me that when you raise that to $15,000 a year, you are going beyond what is reasonable. We have been going through times of great stress; men as efficient in their respective callings as the chairman of this board has been in his are working for very small salaries or remuneration and can see no particular hope for the future. The poor people of this country are again being penalized by heavy taxation at a time when the number of persons on relief has increased by hundreds of thousands, until to-day, I am told, it stands at
1.300.000.	The government in order to try to balance its budget is imposing a tax of two *cents a pound on sugar and a sales tax on the necessaries of life, such as oatmeal, rolled oats, comimeal, pot barley, rice, molasses, corn syrup, shovels, spades, sleighs, and doubling the sales tax on boots and shoes. Thousands of people in Canada are unable to pay the taxes on their homes. In view of these circumstances it does seem to me that at this time salaries should be held down.
My chief objection to this resolution, however, is to the proposal in the last part of it for the payment of annuities after ten years' service. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have come to the time in the history of this country when we should cut out these annuities altogether unless .they are granted on the basis of contributions made by the recipients while in office. The civil servants, I understand, have to contribute a certain percentage of theiir salary in order to foe granted an annuity, and I do not see why the same

Tariff Board Act
principle cannot be carried out in the case of these higher officers. Conditions in this country are most serious and it is impossible for us to pay annuities on terms such as this resolution calls for when it must be done at the expense of the ordinary working man through imposing taxes on the things he consumes, such as sugar and boots and shoes, and so forth. I can see no justification for the last part of the resolution at all. The men who are appointed to this board from the chairman down are bettering their position through their appointment, and if they are not able to provide for their future through the greater salary they are receiving, I do not believe it is the duty of the poor people of Canada, the consumers, the farmers, and working classes, to provide for their future in addition to giving them this substantial remuneration during their first ten years of office. On behalf of the constituents I represent I protest as strongly as I can against the whole spirit of the resolution before the committee.


Mr. REID:: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is high time that the people of this country took stock of what is being done here and took serious note of the high salaries and remuneration that are being handed out just like a free gift to many of our-yes-public employees. It may interest the house to know that since the present administration came into power under the present Prime Minister numerous increases have been given to certain high officials, increases which have only been obtained by other employees in the civil service after many years of faithful service. I have before me a list of some of the increases that have been put into effect, I am told, under the Prime Minister. Some of them are very striking, and I will say almost alarming.
I find that the salary of Major General A. D. McNaughton, chief of the general staff, has been increased from 88,000 to 810,000. He receives the salary of a deputy minister. The Deputy Minister of National Defence, Colonel LaFIeche, appointed recently, gets another
810,000.	The man who was superannuated to make room for Colonel LaFIeche got $10,000 only after being in the service since 1879. Some of these new appointees are being given the same salary as those who are now being superannuated after years of faithful service to their country. Mr. Breadner, commissioner of customs, got one-third of the previous salary of the deputy minister, two other men being appointed, one as commissioner of excise and another as commissioner of income tax. The deputy got $10,000 after many years'
service. Mr. Breadner was given $10,COO as commissioner of customs, and now he has received an increase of $2,000.
I go right down the list and I find the most striking example in the Department of the Interior, where a man sixty-five years of age was superannuated, I am told, at $5,000 or $6,000, and another man who was away down in the civil service list was raised to the post of deputy minister at a salary of $8,000, and this new appointee I am told is seventy-two years of age. That to me requires a lot of explaining. That position is now costing the people of this country $14,000 because the man who was superannuated gets $6,000 or $7,000, and the man who was appointed in his place gets $8,000.
Commissioner Starnes of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police after forty years' service gets $6,450. Major General MacBrien who took his place gets $12,000 right off, and this in a time of stress when every government is preaching economy, and when this government is giving notice to every provincial government to cut down on its expenditures and to economize and to keep within its budget.
I listened very attentively to the Prime Minister's explanation this afternoon of this increase, and candidly I was not at all impressed by his explanation. My own interpretation as to the reason of the increase of salary is this, and I give it for what it is worth: that Judge Sedgewick was pretty well satisfied with his $12,000 until he saw the other two appointees who were getting $10,000, and after seeing them he said to himself: "Well, if these two men are worth $10,000 each per year I certainly am worth at least $15,000." I may be wrong but that is my own plain interpretation of this resolution. I know that there are members on the other side of the house who have gone about this country saying that God has appointed the Prime Minister in this time of crisis, but I also know that in the Scriptures we read of great trials and tribulations that are going to be sent in the latter days, and perhaps the Prime Minister is one of these.
The most serious thing in this whole proposal is the superannuation or annuity that it is proposed to give. By what right should any man after holding a good job at a good salary for a few years burden the people of this country with providing him with a life pension? Take even the ordinary members of that board. After five years' service they may get one-fifth, and after ten years' service one-quarter, of their salary. I say that this thing ought to stop. These life pensions should be cut out. I think also the whole
Tariff Board Act

system/of higher salaries for the higher officials in the government service should be carefully reviewed. Personally I am absolutely opposed to handing out a pension for a few years' service to anyone who has the gift of a good position. I feel sure if applications had been called for these positions so many would have been received that it would have been a great .task even to read them. Applications would have come readily from men of ability who would have been willing to take the job, not only as chairman but as members of the board at the amount received as indemnity by members of parliament. But the fact that he is given a pension for life, after having been given the gift of a job, is atrocious. It is just about time this sort of thing was stopped. Personally I am absolutely opposed to it. There are instances where the country in recognition of long and faithful service has given a gratuity or life pension. But where a man has been given a good job with a pension provision, under which he will receive one-fifth of his annual salary if he retires after a period of five years, I must express my indignation, especially when the burden falls upon the people of Canada, the majority of whom are not able at the present time to obtain the necessities of life. Personally I am opposed to the increase.


Mr. BROWN:: I shall state very briefly
my objection to this resolution. The arguments against it have already been well stated by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) and New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I believe it my duty, however, to register a protest on behalf of my constituents. I believe I am not presumptuous when I say that in speaking for my constituents I voice the sentiments of all people of Manitoba, even if hon. members representing Manitoba constituencies do not feel called upon to speak upon this occasion.
So far as I am concerned there is no reason to doubt the ability of the man who has been chosen as chairman of the board. Some of us had the privilege, the honour or whatever you may call it, of meeting the board a few days ago. We came away with the impression that the chairman of the board was a man well qualified to fill the position. It was the first opportunity we had had to estimate his ability. That is not true of some other members of the board with whom we had been associated for a number of years and with whose ability and
fMr. Reid.]
capacity we were familiar. I say we have no reason to doubt the ability of the man who will discharge the functions of the office of chairman. But he would have occupied a higher position in the opinion of the people of Canada had he not, before entering upon the duties of his office, demanded this additional salary. We take it-and if I am wrong I shall gladly accept correction, so that we may know Where the responsibility lies- that he refused to accept the office unless the salary was increased.
Some years ago we used to talk about conscripting men for service. Sometimes we hear the term to-day, and we like to see men willing to serve their country. The chairman of this board would have stood much higher in the estimation of the Canadian people if he had been willing to serve without demanding the extra remuneration. There is no need of repeating the arguments which have been advanced-the difficulties of the times, the hardships which men are enduring, the tremendous loss suffered by the farmers, labouring classes, many of the smaller business men, and even larger business men. All these have suffered during the past few years. There is no necessity of recounting these facts; at such a time as this an increase of salary is simply without any justification whatever. I am amazed at the Prime Minister doing it, if he has any consideration even for the future welfare of his own party. In 1926 it was said that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen had not given his followers in the prairies a feather to fly with. I assure the Prime Minister and all members of the cabinet that this is just one of the many millstones that he has hung around the necks of his followers in the west.
Mr. MaoINNIS:	Mr. Chairman, I wish
to say a few words in protest against the resolution. I am amazed, as is the hon. member for Ldsgar, at the Prime Minister in such days as these bringing in the resolution we have before us. I shall be further amazed if his followers support him. If they support him in this measure I cannot understand how they can justify their position in their constituencies when they return home, in view of the position they have taken in regard to other economies which have been made during this and the last sessions.
When we were discussing the ten per cent decrease in civil sendee salaries I drew to the attention of the Minister of Finance the circumstances of a case in my own city where a man with a wife and child was working two and a half hours a day at forty cents an hour. On that dollar a day, which made him

Tariff Board Act
ineligible for relief, he was suffering a ten per cent salary reduction. I asked if situations of that kind could not be obviated, but received no response. Such reductions still go on. I am not opposed to high salaries, but in these days if we are going to increase salaries or wages we should begin by increasing the wages of those who are at the bottom. We should not increase first the salaries of those at the top.
When in 1931 provision was made for a tariff board the salaries of the chairman and the other two members of the board were stated. I presume at that time the Prime Minister felt that $12,000 a year would be sufficient remuneration to obtain the best talent possible. During the last two years the trend of salaries has not been upwards; it has been the reverse. We have been told how the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway have slashed the salaries of their officials. To come at this time and ask for an increase in salary, presumably because the chairman of the tariff board has asked for it, is not fair. If anything would seem to indicate his unfitness for such a high position, it would be that he should come at this time when according to our government the country is in such distress, and (ask for still further remuneration, especially when the salary for which provision had already been made gave him a very fat living, compared with that of the great majority of people in Canada.
A few days ago when the social workers of this dominion were in convention one of the delegates who is in close touch with conditions in the country stated that to-day in Canada 1,600,000 people are on relief. What does that mean? It means that 1,600,000 people, and many more, are on rations, just as if we were under a state of siege. Why should a few people live on the fat of the land while probably fifty per cent of the community are living on rations such as would be handed out in time of famine. Before we begin increasing the salaries of those who are already getting salaries sufficiently high, or too high, I ask that we begin raising the remuneration of those who do not now receive enough to keep body and soul together. Some little time ago I came across an article written by a Canadian woman, the mother of seven children. It appeared in the April issue of Chatelaine, and was so compelling an article that I took pains to find the author, although it had been published anonymously in the magazine. I found the lady in the province of Nova Scotia. I should like to give a few words
from her article by way of indicating the conditions under which she and her family have to live at this time. She says:
I am a Canadian mother.
The most noble calling in the world is mine.
I am a Canadian mother and my country honours me. At banquets I am reverently toasted by Canada's noble sons.
When depression comes, my country rushes to the rescue. But when the S.O.S. goes out, do Canadians cry "Mothers and babies first"?
I am provided with groceries. No milk.
A family of seven children, and provided with no milk!
We are allowed no butter at all, no meat but fat pork for beans. I copy from our bill: II bags flour, 3 pounds shortening, 1 pound tea, 10 pounds sugar, 1 gallon molasses, 10 pounds beans, 4 pounds pork, 6 pounds broken codfish, 10 pounds rolled oats, 2 boxes yeast cakes. This is the allowance for the family of seven for one month.
I would like to bring this woman and her family face to face with a man who is already getting $12,000 a year and ask him if he is justified in requesting another $3,000 a year while this woman with her family has to live under such conditions. I would ask hon. members opposite, how are they going to face their constituents who are on relief and justify to them this increase?
Then we come to the matter of superannuation and retiring allowance. I am in favour of retiring allowances and superannuation for every one, not only a few people who are already getting high wages and are able to take care of themselves. May I ask hon. members opposite, is not the tendency here to work in the opposite direction to need? This is a certain sort of paternalism, which manifests itself in the providing of pensions and retiring allowances for persons receiving high salaries. It would be different if we were asking it for other members of the civil service. Remember that during the last two years the annual increase in salaries and wages of the civil service staff, something that was justly coming to them, has been discontinued, so that they have not only received the ten per cent reduction but in addition have suffered the loss of their annual increase. I protest against the passing of this resolution at this time.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, I will only
say a word or two. I could not but notice the contrast between the proceedings yesterday in this house and those of the present sitting. To-day a great part of our time has been taken up with the question of pensions and superannuation for people who least require it. In the motion we are now discussing it is proposed in respect of persons
Tariff Board Act

receiving $10,000 and $15,000 a year that after they have been in the service of the government for ten years they shall be entitled to half their salary as a retiring allowance. In other words the $10,000 a year members of this commission will receive after ten years, if they are over sixty years of age, a retiring allowance of $5,000 a year, and the chairman of the board after he has served ten years and is over sixty will be entitled to a retiring allowance of $7,500 a year.
First of all I object to the increase at this time in the salaries of these highly paid officials. Again I must contrast to-day's proceedings with what took place yesterday when we were discussing the railway bill. During that discussion mention was made of the salaries paid to officials of the Canadian National Railways, and the Minister of Railways took a certain amount of credit for the large reductions made in the salaries of many of those officials, making reference to the fact that in some cases those reductions were as high as forty per cent.


Robert James Manion: Many of them are still getting higher salaries than this.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, I am speaking of the principle, not of particular cases. In this case the government, instead of proceeding consistently with the actions of which they were so proud yesterday, ask us to provide a salary for the chairman of the board twenty-five per cent in excess of what was proposed just a few months ago. When the government practises economy at the expense of even the lowest paid employees, it is a very poor time to ask parliament to grant a twenty-five per cent increase in the salary of a highly paid official of the government service. I remember very well just a few weeks ago when we were discussing civil service salaries it was said that even the charwomen ought to be proud to make some contribution to the state in its hour of difficulty. But here a highly paid officer, who in addition to his salary is promised a very large retiring allowance, instead of being proud to make a contribution in this hour of financial crisis asks a twenty-five per cent increase in the salary originally proposed. What a contrast! As the hon. member for Acadia just says, he does not happen to be a charwoman so he does not have to make the sacrifice.
In connection with pensions or retiring allowances to railway men who perhaps as a result of the legislation passed yesterday will in the very near future find themselves without employment, we were told yesterday by the Minister of Raihvays that he objected to

providing retiring allowances for them because it would be a form of class legislation. Yet lo and behold! within twenty-four hours of that legislation being passed we are asked to provide retiring allowances for judges. I suppose this will be called not class legislation but an act of statesmanship. At this time when salaries are being slashed, when municipalities find it most difficult to provide even the bare necessities of life to the men and women who are unemployed, it will be impossible to justify before our constituents this action on the part of the government.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I wish to make a few observations on this question. Every other hon. member has approached the problem in an attitude of amazement. To-day we have been discussing salaries of judges; we are now discussing the salary of a judge who is to be chairman of this new tariff board. But, Mr. Chairman, I am not amazed. We have seen many leading members of the legal profession doing a good turn for their own fraternity. I am not finding great fault with that. That reflects I suppose a human characteristic in them. But I think the government must agree with this side of the house that when the labour members fought so strenuously to have some provision made for the railway men, there was a great deal of merit in their contention. This government has practised economy with religious zeal. I have always held the opinion that the present state of. agriculture and industry, its make-up, its driving force, is absolutely in opposition to the economy practised by the government of this day. Someone suggested that many applications would have been received if this position had been advertised. I believe there would have been a queue reaching from Ottawa to Vancouver on the one side and from Ottawa to Halifax on the other if that had been done. It is passing strange that when the governments of this country are taking $5 from the pensions of the old people who happen to be living together in the sunset of their lives, they would ask for legislation that has for its purpose an increase of 25 per cent in the salary received by the chairman of a board who already receives $12,000 a year. Let us not forget also that one of the members of this tariff board will be a comparatively young man when he will be entitled to retire on a pension of $5,000 a year.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the past and anticipated future policy of the government nothing can be said in favour of this measure. I am not so sure-and I am not casting any reflection upon the chairman

Tariff Board Act
of the board-that it would not have been better if some able economist had been appointed to head this tariff board, but that is beside the point. I just want to register my protest with regard to a policy that I consider absolutely wrong in principle, particularly in view of the practice of the government with regard to many other employees in the civil service, and indirectly with regard to the old age pensioners of this country. This granting of increases to people who could well do without them seems to be a studied policy of the government, but I believe we are passing through a time when these high salaries are neither necessary nor sound in the industrial, commercial and governmental life of this dominion.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think there is any need to administer any more of these pin pricks to the Prime Minister; they just seem to put him to sleep. He seems to be saying to himself, "Well, I wish to glory these fellows would quit yapping or do it a little more quietly so I could really sleep." For myself I am really speechless. Ever since the Prime Minister made that outrageous appointment to Washington, which savoured so strongly of the family compact of a hundred y'ears ago, this government has been going from bad to worse in these appointments, and from there to Milton Campbell.
I see the Prime Minister is awake now. If I tried my best to devise a method to turn out communists, bolshevists, reds and all those people whom we do not desire, I could not do better than the government has done. Look at that rearguard bunch of dummies, taking it all; not one of them has approved of it. I will bet that they wish they could rear into it just as I am trying to do. I imagine some of them would give a hundred dollars if they could have ten minutes at their leader. I would not give that much, because I can have it without paying the hundred dollars.
I have no language with which to express my disappointment in the course being pursued by the Prime Minister. We are asked to vote fifteen thousand plunks for a man who has not been on the job long enough to warm the saddle; already he wants an increase of S3,000. I think he should get a hoist from the toe of somebody's boot rather than this sort of hoist in salary. Milton Campbell! Well, I shall not say anything about him; his chief qualification was that he was a political dancing dervish, pretending to be a Progressive when everyone knew he was a hidebound Tory all the time. The people out in the country well know that Milton Campbell has sold himself, and that is the end of the "Progs" out there.
I have been wondering what to say. I obtained a big brown envelope, and into it I slipped a couple of these order papers, and I addressed the envelope to the central Liberal committee in the constituency of Kinistino. I think I will send a few more to the constituency of Mackenzie, just to see what the boys up there think of it. I may have to buy those order papers; to-morrow I may have to put up five cents each for them, but perhaps I will buy a dozen more just so the people in the west may know what has been going on in salary boosting on the hill.
I wonder if the Prime Minister has no shame. To what extent is he going in coughing up these great big salaries to men who are just starting on the job. Milton Campbell! Well, will some person support me? I will need some support soon; I can hardly stand up. That is not all; after these people have been ten years on the job they will get life pensions of $5,000 a year. If for the next ten years the members of this board pursue the policy that, has been fallowed in the past by this government I do not believe they will stay in their positions very long, and there will be no question of pensions involved at all. We hope it will not be too long hence until we get another government, before everything goes to the bow-wows. We heard of some General McNaughton and General MaeBrien or O'Brien or some such name, another of these big mugwumps with the big salaries who was given an increase recently. Out on the farm we have to work bard; my own wife has to work from five o'clock fast time until God knows what time at night. She does not get a look in at this sort of thing and thousands and tens of thousands of other farmers' wives have to work long hours to help to pay these mighty big salaries.


James Houston Spence: You should be there helping her.


William Richard Motherwell: Do you think I
am going to sit here in silence and see the taxes of this country-and like other people we have to put up our share of those taxes- being shovelled into the capacious maws of the friends of the Prime Minister? No, I am not going to keep silent. I was trying-and I thought I had succeeded in doing so-to cultivate a better relationship and a better feeling towards the Prime Minister. No one in this house admires his many abilities more than I do, but it is a pity those wonderful abilities cannot be devoted to better purposes. I would suggest that in future he should not be so almighty generous with other people's money, in regard to salaries. Why was it necessary to increase these salaries; were these
4S34
Tariff Board Act

gentlemen going on strike? I see even the chairman is hiding his face. No wonder; a cloud should come over the land and hide us all for shame. Now I forget what I was saying when the chairman covered his face, so I will have to start all over again. I had some notes here ; I do not know what was on them, but I think this is far more serious than most of us realize at the moment. Fifteen thousand dollars for one year! Why, that looks like a fortune that would last the average farmer a lifetime. I do implore the Prime Minister in justice to himself to stop this kind of extravagance at this time. Wait for two or three years; wait for a few months; even wait until we have turned the comer a bit. We believe we are turning the comer but we shall never get it turned if the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance are going to be digging into the treasury in this manner. Does this mean that we are going to start all over again, after times have improved a little, and once more enter upon a rampage of borrowing and spending and spreeing? It looks like it and the Prime Minister of Canada is setting the example-he or his Minister of Finance or perhaps-the whole lot of them.
I do not find any pleasure in making these observations, but I am so filled with indignation that for my own safety I have to say these things. I would ask the Prime Minister whether these gentlemen were really going on strike, whether they had refused to work for the salaries they were being paid. I understand that this matter was up yesterday; I did not know it. In fact, I have not yet recovered from the shock I received when I first saw it on the order paper two days ago.
I think I have a right to get an answer to that question I have just asked the Prime Minister, because we all contribute to the taxes of the country more or less, some of us less and some of us more, and we have a right to know why this salary has been raised at -his time so quickly after the appointment of ihese three gentlemen.
I met the three of them. There is nothing wrong with their looks, but we are not paying them for their appearance. I do not know whether they have held a meeting of the tariff board or not. Have they sent in their resignations, may I ask? Who has charge of them anyhow? The Minister of National Revenue perhaps can answer that. Is the board under my good friend? If I get no answer from that quarter I will address my remarks generally. Have they indicated that they cannot continue in the employ of the government unless they are given a considerable more than $12,000 for the chairman and $10,000 apiece for the other two? Someone is saying something.
fMr. Motherwell.]
It may be a very profound observation but I do not catch it. At any rate I am entitled to know why this thing has been done in face of the conditions in the country, on the farm, in the factory and everywhere. How dare this government flout the people with these outrageous salaries at this time?
I have felt pretty hard sometimes towards the people who call themselves communists. What are they? People so inflamed with indignation that they will do anything. I am going to sit down before I begin to feel that way myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have listened to the
criticisms which have been made against this resolution, and it was not unexpected that they would be made; in fact, I should have been disappointed if they had not been made.


An hon. MEMBER:: You aren't disappointed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in the least. Whoever is responsible for government in these days has a twofold responsibility, and the discharge of those responsibilities is not pleasant, nor is it calculated to make one popular.
The right hon. the leader of the opposition a moment ago referred to this act as having been nearly three years on the statute books. That was a slip of the tongue; he meant two.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said we had been waiting three years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: doing I could have escaped the necessity of coming to this house and asking that this resolution be adopted, and if anyone suggests that it is a pleasurable occupation for a man in my position in life ,to sit here and be attacked in the manner in which I have been to-night by hon. gentlemen opposite, notably by the hon. member who last spoke, he must have a strange idea of what constitutes enjoyment. But it is comprehensible that some person may be willing to render a little public service; that is possible, and when we asked Mr. Justice Sedgewick under those circumstances to accept this position, he said: If I am to accept this position with the insecurity that attaches to it in view of what has been said in the House of Commons, I think I am entitled to the compensation which is mentioned in that resolution, and I agreed; I believe he is if he discharges those duties in a manner worthy of the office which he holds. It is a great responsibility. He is in reality sitting as the arbiter between two governments, between the United Kingdom and Canada. He will hear evidence of expert witnesses from Great Britain and from this dominion. He will hear cases presented on behalf of those who seek to obtain access to our markets under more favourable conditions than now prevail, and the reasons given therefor. He -must examine, analyze and sift testimony for -the purpose of ascertaining to what extent the allegations made support the ends sought. All -these things he must do, and if he is to discharge those duties with the judicial quality that characterizes one who is chairman of a board that commands the respect not -only of Canadians but of those from other countries Who come before this tribunal, then I say that he must be in a position where he is not going to be worried every day whether with to-morrow's sun he will be able to -pay his grocer.
Someone has said that the chairman is on trial. Not only is that true, but there is on trial the whole ability of the Dominion of Canada to appoint at the head of a great board one who will command the respect and confidence not only of his own countrymen but of people from the United Kingdom who come here with their cases under the terms of the conference agreements. That must be considered. If we had appointed some partisan as chairman; if we had selected, as we might have done, someone from the ranks of those who support this party; if we had appointed one who might be described as a party hack, what then? What about the indignation of those who go before that tribunal? What would be thought in the United Kingdom and

other countries of our ability to meet and discharge a great responsibility? When the railways and canals commission in England has to deal with a problem, you will find a great judge at the head of it. When they had the tariff commission, they had Sir Sydney Chapman, Sir George May and another gentleman whose name does not come to my mind at the moment. We have no such reservoir. When we have to go to the bench for the purpose of securing an appointment, we do not do so because they are judges as such, or because I happen to be a member of the legal profession, but because in the very nature of things we must endeavour to secure for the positions the best talent we can command, with the idea in mind that not only will Canadians be proud of the appointment, but that those from other lands who come before that tribunal will say: Here is a man who discharges his duty in a manner worthy of the great traditions that belong to those who sit in judgment upon matters affecting the interests of the country as a whole.
That was the idea in my mind, and actuated and governed entirely by that thought, I sought out Mr. Justice Sedgewick and asked him to accept this position. The terms upon which lie was willing to accept it are those indicated in the resolution and for the reason that may be stated, namely, that he was already discharging a great public service. I may say that the resentment expressed by many members of the legal profession that he should be taken from his position, was widespread. If the committee were interested, I could give the names of members of the profession who said: You must not take this man from us; he is the most brilliant and the best qualified of the judges we have had for years on our bench in the trial division and in connection with bankruptcy. It is not a light or easy thing, may I say to my colleagues in the house, for one to tear up the roots of his home in a community, leave it and come to another city to establish his home. If it is thought the compensation is out of all proportion to the duties that will be performed, I can only say this: Having regard to the rewards that go to members of the legal profession Mr. Justice Sedgewick made a great sacrifice when he went upon the bench, and if my appreciation of the situation is correct, to leave that position and accept this meant sacrifice even although the compensation provided is larger than that which he previously received.
May I make just one or two other observations with respect to the matter? I knew that in time of stress and strain this house might not think this the most desirable thing

Tariff Board Act
to do; yet I say to my colleagues in this House of Commons that canvassing the situation in its entirety and looking over the field in every part of the dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific I know not where I could secure an appointee who would so fully measure up to my conception of the ability required to perform the tasks imposed upon him under the statute as the gentleman who has been selected. I do not believe that the Canadian people in the remote sections of the country will be led astray by the attacks that have been made, the specious appeals to sentiments so easily aroused in days of poverty and hardship, the attempt to raise class against class and man against man. Not since the first day of the record of civilization have all men been of equal capacity or equal ability to discharge obligations and duties and responsibilities, and down through all the ages the remuneration paid to men has sometimes been regarded as entirely out of keeping with the value of the services rendered. I know there are men in this house who think that the late president of the Canadian National Railways, who with all his emoluments of office received ten times this salary, was being paid too much, and yet the Pennsylvania railroad pays a much larger compensation than that 'to one man for the duties he discharges. And so with respect to other lines of railway in the United States, and so with respect to lines of railway in the United Kingdom:. Great executive heads in this country also receive a sum to which $15,000 would in comparison seem a mere pittance.
This position is so much more important than any other that I do not believe you can appeal successfully to the prejudices of people, even in the remotest part of this country by pointing out to them that the government should be condemned because it desires to put in this position the foremost man it can find to reflect credit on the Canadian people in the discharge of great obligations before an international tribunal.
Look at the fees you pay to a lawyer before an international commission, running up sometimes to amounts sufficient to pay the whole cost of this office for ten years. These are mere facts. Look at the auditor general's report and see the fees paid by governments, by this government, with respect to litigation which it did not initiate, fees it was bound to pay. I merely mention these things because I did not intend at any length to traverse the matter beyond saying that as the first minister charged with the responsibility of making this choice. I have no apology to make to my fellow countrymen or to any man for agreeing
to the terms which Mr. Justice Sedgewick suggested if accepting the office meant tearing up the roots of his life in the community in which he lived. I believe that the sober, intelligent common sense of the Canadian people will commend any position taken by [DOT]any prime minister who endeavours to see that the public service is worthily served by worthy public servants.
There has been dragged into this debate to-night a discussion with respect to General McNaughton, who is receiving $2,000 more than he was receiving. General McNaughton is receiving less than his predecessor received and less than his predecessors have received, and I should like to say this, that if we had not done that, we would have lost him. As to the capacity and the quality of General McNaughton. whom I did not know intimately at all until I came to this city as Prime Minister, a great English soldier said to me-not a Canadian soldier-"If this empire were involved in war to-morrow I know of no man I would sooner see at the head of affairs than your McNaughton." That is the conception that others have of a man who is now serving the state, and he is serving the state for a smaller sum than he could receive in at least two other quarters, but he loves the service in which he serves, and he is giving to this country in my judgment in the work that he is at present doing a service that is worthy of the amount that is being paid.
When you talk about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I shall not to-night pay that tribute to General MacBrien which has been paid to him by those who know his work, from his sovereign down, those who know of his capacity, those who know of his training, those who recall the fact that he served in days long since past as a constable in the police near the city, part of *which I have the honour to represent in this house; those who know his record as a field officer, his record as a general and as an administrator, his record and his capacity to earn a much larger sum than that which we are now paying him. I believe we have saved more money since he took over the duties of that office than he will ever receive in the entire sum that we shall pay to him during the term he serves. I know that his service does not commend itself to everyone. It is not expected it would. His job is to preserve law and order. His job is to put down anarchy. His job is to stamp out lawlessness, and there are many who do not like that.
A further attack was made upon the commissioner of customs. I wonder if it is known that the commissioner of customs in this coun-
4S3S
Tariff Board Act

try has really been working for a mere pittance. He has been entitled for years to a superannuation allowance. He serves the state for a few thousand dollars per annum; he was promised an addition to his salary of $2,000, which he had a right to receive, and which makes the sum total for the service he is performing $12,000. He retired from the service; he was brought back by Sir Thomas White again to serve the state; he was promised a larger sum, and that in part has been paid.
But I want to go a step further. When the right hon. gentleman appointed a commission, a very proper thing to do, to inquire into the salaries to be paid to what are called the technical officers of this country, it will be recalled that recommendations were made that the salaries should be increased because they were out of all proportion to what might be received if these same men were working for private enterprise and not serving the state. If my memory serves me aright it was pointed out by the right hon. gentleman then leading the government that it was desirable in every way for this dominion to endeavour to secure the services of men who would be sought by private undertakings, and that we should be able to secure just as faithful service to the state as would be rendered by these same men if they served private enterprise. In many instances that has been the case, and I trust that it will continue to be so. I know a great many men serving the state faithfully in these times who by reason of their very qualities could be receiving larger compensation if they served private enterprise where their great talents and abilities would find larger scope and greater opportunities for expression. I mention that because it seems to me I should fairly state what actuated the government in arriving at the conclusion which it reached to accept the suggestion that vTas made, and which I agreed to at once, as to Mr. Justice Sedgewick.
One thing more. The attack that has been made against Mr. Milton Campbell I am not going to traverse beyond saying this. In the Parliamentary Companion issued after the last general election, Mr. Milton Campbell describes himself as a Progressive, previously Liberal.


Edward James Young: He has a good opinion of
himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is how he described himself.


Ernest Lapointe: That is camouflage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have in my hands the journals for 1931 and for 1930. Some hon.

members surely will remember that he voted against the government when the motion was made on the first occasion this session for the speaker to leave the chair. And five days before he was appointed he had no idea in the world he was to be approached for that purpose. I think he knows perfectly well he was not the first choice. But because of being unable to secure the gentleman whom we sought to secure, Mr. Campbell, as a western man, was asked to accept the office, and he did. I still believe he is at least not a Conservative, whatever else may be said about him, and that he is not a supporter of this government. His criticisms of this government you will find upon the records of Hansard.
As far as the younger man, the gentleman from Quebec, is concerned, you have there an illustration of what I consider to be the duty of governments with 'respect to the public service. The government could do one of two things. It could select an old and tried supporter, one who, in the language of the right hon. gentleman, was thoroughly imbued with the doctrine of protection, or it could take a young man on the threshold of life, who has been educated in the universities of this country and of Great Britain, who speaks with equal fluency both the official languages of Canada, and who in his father's organization has had practical business experience. We selected a young man with this training, because it is my firm belief that under those circumstances you will get the best service for the state.
That is about all I have to say to the committee as to the factors that influenced us in the appointments that were made. But may I add that the right hon. gentleman made another mistake when he suggested that these commissioners are to receive pensions equal to those paid to judges. It will be remembered that in the statute the salary of the chairman 'is placed at $12,000 and those of the remaining commissioners at $10,000. After serving ten years they might receive one-quarter of their salary as pensions, and after serving at least five years twenty per cent; that is all. As the right hon. gentleman has said, the language of the resolution is general. With respect to the chairman I propose to add after the word "sixty" the word "four" so that it can apply only to the chairman, and to no one else. He is now fifty-five years of age; ten years from the sixth of February last he will be sixty-five. Instead of providing that he should be sixty or over, the resolution will provide that he should attain the age of sixty-four, and the

provision will apply to him and to no one else.
I have spoken longer than I had intended. I repeat that I have neither apologies to make nor regrets to express in regard to this matter. The necessities of cases make it incumbent upon me frequently to make decisions which, quite properly, are subject to criticism. But the position taken in this case is I believe the only one which could properly foe taken having regard to the interests of the state, having regard to the importance of the issues to foe dealt with and the necessity of providing as chairman of this board one who would reflect credit upon Canada both at home and abroad amongst those peoples with whom we have made trade agreements. We must have confidence in his capacity, his integrity, his broad view and his ability to grapple with the problems presented to him.


William Richard Motherwell: It is satisfying at least to have been able to awaken the right hon. gentleman from his slumber of a few minutes ago. I do not pretend to be a stickler on ethics in parliament or anywhere else, but when various members had each spoken about a half an hour, while the Prime Minister lolled over as if he did not give a continental who we were or what we were or what we were saying, I thought it was just about time someone gave him a good poke in the eye so as at least to get him up. The right hon. gentleman is an expert at explaining; I admire him from the bottom of my heart. I take my hat off to him. If there is anybody on this earth who can make black appear white and white no colour at all, it is the right hon. gentleman. Now we know just about what his estimate of a proper public man for public .service would be,-that is Milton Campbell, because he says himself he was a Progressive and formerly a Liberal. Saying things does not make them so. Recording. them in that book, whatever it is, does not make them so. Milton Campbell was known to many of us, in the west. I think he did vote for a provincial Liberal once, but that does not make a man a Liberal. I. do not think the Prime Minister would have referred to Hansard if he had. looked it up himself and had seen just what was Mr. Campbell's record since' this government came into power. We also have been looking them up, and we find that he has not voted very often for this side of the house, especially when something could be gained by not doing so. The fact that he drew in what he threw his bait, hook and line after, shows where he stood. To say that he is a Liberal in the face of what has happened is pure nonsense. What are the farmers saying
Tariff Board Act
about him? That he sold them out. That is what they say. I detected in the Prime
Minister's remarks that he resented our-what he called-attacks upon him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


William Richard Motherwell: Does he think we are taking any pleasure out of this performance now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know where the laugh comes in. Part of the performance was put on by the Prime Minister himself. I do not take any pleasure out of it, but I am not going to sit here and see these outrageous salaries paid when there are people who are out at the elbows and down at the heels throughout Canada, especially in agriculture, lumbering and the other industries. Why could he not have saved us this humiliation? Could he not have waited a little while before doing this thing? The very fact that these three gentlemen are exacting this money at this time shows that they are not fit for their jobs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, it does. They have not the decency or sensitiveness of a hollow-backed ox or they would not have demanded more money at this time. I say it; I say it again, and I will say it as many times as I like, because it is true. What about the clergymen and school teachers throughout this country, many of them living on miserable, measly salaries paid by people so poverty stricken that they cannot afford to pay more?


An hon. MEMBER:: No salaries at all.


William Richard Motherwell: We want someone on the tariff board who will not be worrying about his grocery bill the Prime Minister says. Fifteen thousand plunks, and worrying about the grocery bills! If some people had one-twentieth of that they would be well satisfied and thought well off. I am sorry that we will have to change our views with regard to the Prime Minister's conception of public duty. Just think of the grab there will be throughout the country if a man knows that all he has to do is to put in a claim that with a salary of $12,000 his grocery bill is worrying, him, and that he wants another $3,000. They will be rushing in from all points of the compass. Why not? I am amazed at the reasoning of the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend is mistaken if he thinks that this country is not shocked at this shovelling out of money when the treasury is so depleted and it is so hard to get it replenished from the taxes. I might as well not try to express my feelings because
Tariff Board Act

I cannot express myself to-night as I would like. It is the way of the evil doer always; if anyone criticizes or objects, the answer is: "Oh, you are making a commotion; they will hear you; someone will be alarmed!" Who is the author of the commotion but the government which pays out these salaries? The government could easily have let a year go by before taking this action; in all conscience that is what should have been done, and then later on when things were getting better they could have done something for them, poor boys! I do not know Judge Sedgewick; he may be a world beater, but as for Milton Campbell-


An hon. MEMBER:: You used to like him.


William Richard Motherwell: The best evidence that this whole house is shocked beyond description is the fact that the hon. member for Marquette is not endeavouring to babble his support of the Prime Minister. Even he has not got up. It is the greatest tribute that the supporters of the government have paid to themselves that they sit there in silence. They cannot do otherwise if they are to be honest with themselves.


Mr. McPHEE:: As a former political
neighbour of Milton Campbell, former member for Mackenzie, I think I should correct an impression which may have been created in the minds of the members of the house this evening by the Prime Minister. He glories in the fact that Mr. Campbell was formerly a Liberal. If my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will look along his front line he will find his Minister of Railways and his deskmate the Minister of Justice who were formerly Liberals, which does not make them any worse or any better Tories. As far as Mr. Campbell is concerned I have lived in the district adjoining his for twenty years. On the 25th of May, 1915, I received the Liberal nomination for the Mackenzie seat which Mr. Campbell represented until recently. Mr. Campbell was then an antiLiberal; and he never voted for or supported the Liberal party from that day to the present time.
If there is any doubt about it let Mr. Campbell answer for himself. I have here a letter written by Mr. Campbell on November 21, 1928 to a gentleman in Winnipeg- I will not mention the party's name. This is written on House of Commons stationery and is signed by Mr. Campbell:
Regarding our conversation over the telephone last night, I have submitted the newspaper you gave me to one of my Alberta colleagues; he is looking into the matter and will advise me in due course. If these -allegations are correct and We have financial and
IMr. Motherwell.]
industrial sabotage in connection with the development of our natural resources, it is high time that the general public knew something about it.
1 am prepared to start something along this line just as soon as I am in possession of sufficient facts. There is an angle to the situation I would like to point out. however, I understand that Mr. Bennett is heavily interested in the oil business, presumably through
the	 company. The men associated
with you are prominent Conservatives and although I am not a member of that party myself, I must confess that as between the two old political parties my sympathies are with the Conservatives. If our suspicions regarding the holding up of Alberta and Saskatchewan
oil development by the	 company are
correct and if Mr. Bennett is a heavy shareholder in the latter company, any exposure of this nature would seriously affect the fortunes of the Conservative party.
I would, therefore, suggest that the matter be discussed with Mr. Bennett before the question is given publicity. I expect to see you in the course of the next ten days.
Yours respectfully,
M. N. Campbell.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To whom is that directed?


George Washington McPhee: A man by the name of
Daugherty in Winnipeg.


William Richard Motherwell: Give him another
thousand dollars for that.


George Washington McPhee: This is the man that is
held up as a Progressive-Liberal. Mr. Campbell was never a supporter of the Liberal party to my knowledge, and we disclaim any association or connection with him.


Mr. OOTNAM:: You used him 1


George Washington McPhee: As far as the resolution is
concerned, on behalf of the constituency that I represent I must protest against it. In the first place the act by which the tariff board was created specified the salaries to be paid. These men knew when they accepted the positions w'hat salaries they would receive. Now we have this government banking on an impossibility becoming a possibility-that they will be in power ten years from now- and granting to these men a bonus equal to fifty per cent of their salary. I protest against this on behalf of my constituents. I am satisfied that the people of western Canada at least, when they get the opportunity, will place upon it the indelible stamp of public disapproval.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Tariff Board Act

grievances of consumers and those suffering from excessive tariffs in Canada. The board must make (perfectly sure that those in the old country who have been promised something under the United Kingdom-Canada agreement will have some court to which they may appeal if they think the terms of that agreement are not being fully carried out. I do not think this parliament should be called upon to vote excessive salaries for purposes of that kind. I do say that what the Prime Minister has said to-night only tends to strengthen in my mind the conviction that [DOT] we should make no change as between the present salary of the chairman of that board and what he is to receive hereafter.
There was another point to which I should refer. This United Kingdom-Canada agreement is to be in force for five years, assuming that it is carried through to the end of the period for which the agreement has been made. One year of the five has pretty well gone by, and already many changes have been made by the government. How much of the agreement will be left at the end of four yeans is problematical, I think. Why should we give a huge salary for ten years to a gentleman whose main function will be adjudicating on measures relating to an agreement that will last only four years? Then we are being asked to give him for the remainder of his life an annuity amounting to half his salary, or to $7,500 if this measure goes through. In the light of what has been said to-night I do not see why this should be done. Certainly at this time this house ought to show that it is determined to see that the salaries paid for these positions are kept somewhat in line with the salaries paid generally to the judiciary and to others in the public service, and when salaries are being reduced on all sides, that salaries already very high should not be increased.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Mr. Chairman, some time ago I had a definite feeling with respect to appointments to the tariff board, but any feeling I had in favour of the board was absolutely dispelled by the remarks made this evening by the Prime Minister. The tariff board must exist for one of two purposes; it must be a fact finding body to give to the government the information which the government should have in order to decide on the tariff policies of the dominion, or it must be a body sufficiently well equipped to take that duty away from the government and decide on the tariff policies of the country itself. It must be for one of those two purposes. If, as the Prime

Minister said, it is to decide great questions of policy I submit that a worse board could not possibly have been chosen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister did not say that; I hope the hon. gentleman will take it back.


James Malcolm: If the Prime Minister did not make that statement I do not need to make any remarks relative thereto, but if the Prime Minister meant that this board was to decide on Canadian tariff policies I say again that a worse board could not have been chosen. To be of any value in deciding the policies of Canada the board should be composed of men having broad political experience, with some knowledge of the needs of the producer and of the consumer. I submit also that a worse board could not have been chosen as a fact finding body. If it is to be a fact finding body the man at the top, the chairman, need not be a judge; there is nothing to decide. Of course hearings must be held, but the man at the head of the board should be the most eminent economist in the Dominion, a man who can use our national statistics; compile figures from the evidence which will be heard, and submit to the government conclusive calculations showing exactly what will be the economic effect upon the general industrial fabric of this dominion of any specific tariff action. Judge Sedgewick is a gentleman for whom I have a very high regard. I do not object at all to the salaries of the members of the tariff board being substantial amounts; I am not now dealing with that point. However, certainly Judge Sedgewick's training has not been along the line of economics; his training has been in interpreting the statutes which are passed or amended by parliament from year to year. The duty of a judge is to determine whether or not a man is guilty of an offence under the laws of the country. The training of a judge is far different from that of a man who is required to compile statistics to submit conclusions to the government by whom the final judgment must be made.
Then, Mr. Chairman, if it is to be a fact finding body it does seem to me that industry in Canada has a perfect right to have someone on the board who knows the industrial condition of the country and who will be in a position intelligently to question British manufacturers when they come here to make their submissions as to why their products should be admitted to Canada at lower rates of duty. I think also that on the board there should be someone representing the purchasing public of Canada, whether it be from the standpoint of the importers or of the consumers.

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
So far as salaries are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that at this time neither Campbell nor Hebert could get $5,000 a year from any private concern in Canada. I know nothing of young Hebert's qualifications; he may be the brightest young man in Canada. I know Milton Campbell only slightly; if he is a Conservative that does not hurt him, nor does it hurt him if he is a Liberal. It should1 be for their qualifications that this dominion is paying these men $10,000 a year each. I submit that from the standpoint of being economists, and ability in compiling information to assist the government to determine what its tariffs are to be, these are not the best men who could have been selected. I greatly resent at this time seeing $35,000 of the money of the taxpayers being paid annually to these men.
Motion agreed to on division and resolution read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 100, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Maloney in the chair.
Post Office-Outside Service-Salaries and allowances, $15,381,845.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $14,161,500.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for payment of compassionate allowance to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service or in protecting His Majesty's mails, or to the dependents of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged, payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, and payment of $205 to 8. R. Kirk, $1,076,030.
Mr. POULIOT:: I presume the Postmaster
General has something to say.


Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: Previous to discussing the estimates which I have the privilege of submitting to the house, I wish, as it was agreed at yesterday's sitting, to reply to certain questions and statements of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot).
The committee will agree that considering the hon. member's manner of presenting his
53719-306J
case, it was preferable to wait, allovr him to put his questions and establish the facts before furnishing the details requested.
I also intended, sir, to make a statement on the work accomplished by my department when the hon. member for Temiscouata rose to speak. This is not a reproach, it is simply a fact that I note. As I stated, last evening, the Postmaster General did not balance his budget by withdrawing revenues from the Excise branch, neither by reducing the salaries of employees. Seventy-five per cent of the Post Office revenue comes from city post offices and twenty-five per cent from rural post offices.
In cities, banks make use of excise stamps, while rural post offices sell excise stamps to accommodate the public.
Taking as a point of comparison, sir, the budget of 1932-33, I request the committee to authorize me to cut down the expenditure of my department, by $1,122,725, as follows: salaries and allowances, $438,155; post offices, a decrease of 81,000,420; superintendent offices, service of inspectors, $173,180; 10 per cent cut in salaries, $788,505; decrease in the transportation of mail, $528,500; divers, departmental expenditures, another decrease of $14,970. For the year ending March 31, 1933, compared with the year 1931-1932, we decreased the expenditure of the Post Office department by $4,281,100, as follows:
Reduction in 6alarie6 and allowances:
(a)	General reduction of 10 per cent
in the salaries of civil servants. $>1,799,507
(b)	Decrease in the work performed
owing to the postal traffic reduction	 658,250
.	$2,457,757
Reduction in operation cost:
(a)	Railways	
464,513(b)	Service	by	-water	
8.693(c)	Service	by	air	
797,875(d)	Service	by	land	
272,502.	
$1,543,583
Reductions of expenditure for
material, bags,	etc	 279,760
Total decrease	$4,281,100
It is the third reduction we have made since I am at the head of this department.
The grand total of all reductions amounts to more than $7,000,000, and is as follow-s:
Reductions in the expenditure for a little over two years (since 1930)
Mail services-
By railway	$1,784,118	63By water	
240,952	37By air	
1,220,652	04By land	
927,365	56
Salaries:
Postmasters and	staff..	.;	..	2,049,743	45Inspectors and staff	
79.520	45Travelling clerks	
324,649	88Travelling olerks	(mileage).	..	141,294	51
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
Divers:
Postal stamps	
72,243	59Travelling expenses	
20.737	14Printing and stationery	
489,357	47Seales, uniforms, telegrams, etc..	34,604	12
I think, sir, that this budget will be approved unanimously by the committee and particularly by my friends opposite who, again recently, advocated economy.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: Do accounts balance?


Arthur Sauvé: In reply to
the hon. member for Temiscouata, in connection with dismissals; I may state that I never dismissed 1,500, or 1,400 or 1,300 or even 1,200 postmasters as he contends and this can be verified at page 5124 of unrevised Hansard.
To summarize my statement, perhaps, it might be well that I place before the committee certain figures which will prove that I am not the axe-man proclaimed by a member of this house.
The facts are as follows: From 1896 to 1911, the Liberals dismissed 1,788 postmasters.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: For lack of education?
Mr.	SAUVE	(Translation);	These	are
facts. The hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) may put questions to me, if he wishes, but they must be to the point.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Was the reason a lack of education?


Arthur Sauvé: A lack of
education?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Why were these postmasters dismissed?
Mr.	SAUVE	(Translation):	For	political partisanship. It was the reason given then. I wish to be fair: for bad administration and also, I think, to change the location of the post office, as at present.


Jean-François Pouliot: That was in the course of 15 years.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation) : 17 years.


Jean-François Pouliot: 17 years.
Mr.	SAUVE	(Translation):	There	were
1,788 dismissals between 1896 and 1911. From 1922 to 1930...


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: To establish continuity, give us the number from 1911 to 1921.


Arthur Sauvé: I am coming to it.
TMr. Sauvel


Jean-François Pouliot: Louis-Phi-lippe Pelletier, who even dismissed the dead!


Arthur Sauvé: From 1896 to 1911, there were 1,788 postmasters dismissed of whom 555 resided in Quebec and 383 in Ontario. From 1922 to 1930, the Liberals dismissed 1,147 postmasters, and the Conservatives, from 1930 up to this day, 770.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is a discrepancy in the number of years. The hon. Postmaster General would not successfully ' have passed a test in figures had the Chief Inspector Fortier been in charge of the test.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon.
member for Temiscouata intends to speak later on; let him allow me to make my statement. He will find that my replies are to the point.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is what we wish.


Arthur Sauvé: Under the Liberal regime, from 1922 to 1930, 396 postmasters were dismissed in Quebec; since 1930 to date there were 376 postmasters dismissed in Quebec.
My hon. friend from Temiscouata looked upon the Shelburne case as a crime. He may permit me to state to the committee that this incident took place over a year ago and that the Toronto Globe, of which he quoted an excerpt last night, congratulated the Postmaster General for having confirmed the appointment of Mr. James Hill Kennedy. Enough for this case.
The committee will admit that I am not the great evil-doer that the hon. member for Temiscouata seems to imagine or conceive.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never made that statement. I said something else, but never that.


Arthur Sauvé: As to the
French Canadian martyrs conceived in the mind of the hon. member, they will be found among those which he usually fabricates.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is too entangled to follow.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation); I am not only alluding to the hon. member for Temiscouata, this applies also to other members.


Jean-François Pouliot: Nobody was able to follow the hon. minister's argument.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation); Must I repeat it, these dismissals are made on complaints not from me but from fellow-citizens of the

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
postmaster, or members-exactly as in the past-and when these complaints are verified by a commissioner, after an inquiry is held, or when reports are made against the administration or location of the post office.
They are carried out according to the regulations established long before my time under the regimes of both parties. The hon. member was wrong when he asserted, yesterday, that I had acted differently and had proved myself an enemy of the province of Quebec, because a larger number of postmasters in Quebec were dismissed. The hon. member for Temiscouata is well aware that it is, perhaps, an after election practice. I repeat it-I stated so last year-and, moreover that has been the practice in the past, under the regime which my hon. friend supported, and under the preceding regime.


Jean-François Pouliot: What figures of mine are wrong?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon
member may quote them, I shall reply to him.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri), (Translation): I put a question to the minister, a moment ago, namely, how many were dismissed from 1911 to 1921? I wish to have a general idea of the dismissals from 1896 to this date. You did not fill in that gap.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: Also, the gap before the deluge.


Arthur Sauvé: I have not the figures with me.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri), (Translation): Why did you quote the figures from 1896 to 1911, under the Laurier regime?


Arthur Sauvé: It was because I wished to establish a point of comparison. So as not to take up too much time, I did not wish to refer back to confederation.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri), (Translation): Are you aware that after 1911, the famous Bergeron inquiries were held which were responsible for the dismissal of postmasters from the Atlantic to the Pacific?


Jean-François Pouliot: I closely followed the remarks of the hon. Postmaster General. I must congratulate him, his standard is certainly higher than that of the candidates examined by the Chief Inspector Portier, because he figures in the millions. He is certainly better qualified to fill the position of postmaster than one who can only figure to one or two millions.
I regret that the hon. postmaster has not replied to the question I put to him yesterday,
with reference to the Sully affair, We shall now travel to the beautiful Sully village, in Temiscouata. No doubt, sir, you will all be interested. I put an important question, yesterday, to the hon. Postmaster General and he did not think proper to reply to it. I requested him to dispel the dark clouds, illuminate our intelligence and furnish us with all indispensable information to help us understand the routine of his department. An inquiry was held against the ex-postmaster Mr. Plourde, on October 24,
1931,	at Sully. A memo from the Postmaster General to the council, states that this postmaster was found guilty of political partisanship, and he therefore recommended his dismissal, on November 4, 1931. However, the order in council P.C. 1178, was only passed on May 18, 1932, many months later. Why was this postmaster suspended instead of being dismissed? We find the explanation in a letter written by the deputy minister, Mr. Gaboury to Mr. Foran, secretary of the Civil Service Commission, dated March 30, 1932.
Referring to your communication of the 22nd of March regarding the postmastership at Sully, your file PO-34981, permit me to inform you that the dismissal of the postmaster at Sully has not yet been authorized by order in council and therefore, no action has yet been taken towards the permanent appointment.
(Translation): The reason, sir, the hon. Postmaster General suspended Mr. Plourde instead of dismissing him, was to avoid making a report to the Civil Service Commission, as the deputy minister's letter clearly shows. The Postmaster General cannot deny the fact, to-day. I am giving him proofs that I am better acquainted with his department than he is, because I put that question to him and he was unable to reply.
Let us refer to something else: the hon. Postmaster General wrote on July 4, 1932, to Mr. C. E. Dube, who has charge of the conservative patronage in Riviere-du-Loup. This letter was quoted in Hansard, at page 4781. It contains the following:
The act provides that the department is under the strict obligation to give preference to veterans of the great war.
This obligation existed previous to May 28,
1932,	as it exists to-day. The Postmaster General disregarded the Act; he set it aside in the case of the Sully post office; he paid no more attention to this obligation than he did to the Act governing the Civil Service Commission.
I quoted yesterday, the letter from Mr Merriam, private secretary to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), to Mr. Jean, dated October 5, 1932. It may be found in Hansard, p. 5128. I have not the time to quote it again this evening.
4846	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
Mr. Parker, secretary to the Minister of Pensions wrote to Mr. Jean on October 28, 1931:
This question comes under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and the Post Office Department.
Telegram of Mr. Jean to the hon. Murray MacLaren, Minister of Pensions, on November 17, 1931-long before the appointment of Tardif as temporary postmaster:
The person in charge of patronage for the county of Temiscouata informs me that the post office at Sully will be transferred within three days. Will you be kind enough to see that my rights as a veteran are recognized and that I be appointed temporary postmaster while awaiting my permanent appointment.
The Minister of Pensions' reply to Mr. Jean, on the same day:
I desire to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of November 17, and shall bring your name to the attention of the Post Office Department.
Telegram of Mr. Jean to the Minister of Pensions, January 25, 1932:
Will you kindly see that my rights as a returned soldier are recognized in the appointment of a postmaster at Sully; Andree Tardif was notified that there was a vacancy in the post office and to prepare himself for the position. I cannot understand why my rights are disregarded after all my entreaties with you and the Postmaster General.
Reply from the Minister of Pensions to Mr. Jean, on the same day:
I am passing your telegram on to the Post master General for his information.
(Translation) Then, even before Tardif was temporarily appointed, the Postmaster General had received the request of Jean, and furthermore, the Minister of Pensions as well as the deputy minister and himself had maintained that the question came under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Moreover :
Ottawa, January 29, 1932.
Mr. Isidore Jean,
Sully, P.Q.
Dear Sir,

Pursuant to my letter of January 25, in connection with the position of postmaster at Sully, the hon. Mr. Sauve, Postmaster General, informs me that the vacancy will be advertised on the premises, shortly.
The hon. Postmaster General had promised the secretary of his colleague, the hon. Minister of Pensions, to advertise the position of postmaster at Sully, in the near future. Is that a fact or is it not?... I might just as well address myself to the calendar in front of me.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
I wrnuld therefore advise you to submit your application to the Civil Service Commission, since the appointment of the postmaster will be made by the commission.
The calendar has an advantage over the hon. Postmaster General: the minister does not change, the calendar will change tomorrow.


Arthur Sauvé: Then the
calendar is like the member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yesterday, I was very patient with the hon. Postmaster General, I took pity on him, to-day, I note that he does not deserve my pity, and the crown of the calendar would seem very queer on his head.
.... since the appointment of postmaster at Sully will be made by the commission.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) H. D. Parker,
Private Secretary.
Since September 28, 1931, Mr. L. J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General; Mr. E. J. Underwood, General Superintendent of Postal Services; Mr. Maurice Grondin, private secretary to the Postmaster General, have always replied, and this on more than one occasion, that the appointment would be made by the Civil Service Commission.
Yesterday, the hon. Postmaster General stated that the reason he had set aside the recommendation received from the right hon. Prime Minister to appoint Mr. Jean, postmaster at Sully, was that instructions had come from a person named Dube, of Riviere-du-Loup. I shall quote in full two letters written by Mr. Dube to the hon. Postmaster General, on November 10, 1931, and November. 13, 1931; however, before quoting them I shall put a question to the hon. Postmaster General, and request him to follow me closely for a few moments. Are the returns tabled in the house true copies of the letters, including the mistakes in spelling?


Arthur Sauvé: I do not copy the returns.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think the minister should know, for instance, how they are copied and if they are verified. Can he state whether they were verified.


Arthur Sauvé: They have been closely compared.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is what I wanted to know. Letter from Mr. C. E. Dube to the hon. Postmaster General, on November 10, 1931:
So far as Mr. Isidore Jean is concerned, *when the position is advertised, he will have the right to apply. . . .

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
It is more or less acceptable French, however, it does not matter.'
. . . and to lay stress on his services. I must, however, add that this gentleman has only been a resident of Sully for the last few months. . . .
There is but one mistake, he should have written "ne reside''.
.	.	. and, moreover, I am informed that he
has no education nevertheless when . . .
There is no accent on the "u", it does not matter.
. . . the appointment is made permanent, if Mr. Jean is chosen . . .
"Choisie" with an "e", "s-i-e".
. . . by the commission, I shall willingly conform myself.
"Volontier", "t-i-e-r".
Here is a gentleman who complains that Jean has no education and he himself writes a letter full of mistakes in spelling. (Returns 92, SP. 142A, April 1, 1932.)
The following is another letter from Mr. Dube to the hon. Postmaster general, on November 13, 1931:
Mr. Isidore Jean who has been residing in this parish about a year, and who wrote . .	.
"Qui a ecris", "r-i-s", he should have written "r-i-t".
. . . that I had recommended a well-to-do merchant, was wrong. . . .
"Erreure" is written with a mute "e".
. . . and as a proof to substantiate. . .
A "Tappuie", "p-u-i-e".
I am enclosing the certificate which is a recommendation for Mr. Tardif, and explains well . . .
He did not write "explique" but "e-s-p-l-i q-u-e''.
. . . his standing.
(Returns 92, S.P. 142A, April 1, 1932.)
Here is a gentleman who does not write French correctly and complains that another has no education and, on his advice, the Postmaster general refuses-notwithstanding that he is bound to conform himself to the act-to give the position to a returned soldier.
At page 4785, of Hansard, there is a letter written by the parish priest of Sully, in which appears the following excerpt:
Mr. Isidore Jean has the necessary qualifications to take charge of the post office.
Had Jean not been qualified, would the right hon. Prime Minister have taken the trouble to recommend him to the hon. Postmaster general?
Furthermore, at page 307 of Hansard, October 18, 1932, the following answers to inquiries I made, are to be found:
Andrea Tardif, what education has he had? Answer: Primary school. Question: Did he receive a business or university course? Answer: No. Question: What education did Mr. Jean receive? Answer: Primary school.
We note, therefore, that they have received the same education.
Yesterday, in the house, I depicted a very pathetic scene which took place on the battlefields. We shall now describe the incident, at Sully, by another picture, a very interesting one: the scene of Buridan's ass. AH know the story of Buridan's ass. It is an ass placed equidistant from a feed of oats and a bucket of water. It was thirsty and hungry; however, it was undecided whether it was more thirsty than hungry or more hungry than thirsty. It neither ate nor drank. It died! That is the story of the Postmaster general's hesitation to whom the following words apply: Piger vult et non vult. To-day he decides to act one way, the next day he changes his mind.
It is January 12, 1933. The deputy postmaster general acknowledges receipt of the letter and account of Mr. Jean and adds that his claim has been noted. Previous to the adjournment of the house, yesterday, I produced a letter from Mr. Jean to the hon. Postmaster general, enclosing a bill amounting to $194.50 for expenses incurred after being notified that he was appointed postmaster and had remained under that impression for over a month. Finally, three weeks or a month later, the department decided not to appoint him but to give the position to another person. A claim covering his expenses was forwarded and examined by the department. On January 12, 1933, the deputy psotmaster general acknowledges receipt and adds that his claim will be noted.
On January 12, 1933, Mr. Underwood writes to Mr. Green. Mr. Underwood is one of the head officials of the department and Mr. Green is the Quebec district postal superintendent :
(Text) I enclose herewith copy of an account submitted by Mr. Isidore Jean who was appointed to the postmastership at Sully on the thirtieth of June last, the transfer being suspended and later cancelled.
It is observed that Mr. Jean refers to the purchase of a house, but it is understood that he had made arrangements with the retiring postmaster with regard to post office quarters. As regards his reference to salary paid to a girl he intended to employ as assistant, there does not seem to be any justification for a claim as action towards the transfer to Mr. Jean's charge was suspended just a few days after his appointment, and he had no reason to continue paying the girl in question.
Regarding the detailed account concerning alterations made to the building in which Mr. COMMONS
4S48
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
Jean proposed to house the office, no doubt most of the material is still of some use and the department wonders whether Mr. Jean would accept the total amount of $75 as total compensation.
There is, sir something very diplomatic about this transaction, $75 is offered when Jean requests $194. The hon. Postmaster stated he had been able to economize!
(Text) Would you kindly, in a diplomatic manner, endeavour to adjust this case along the above lines. I would be pleased to hear from you as soon as possible.
On January 16, Mr. Jean writes again to the Governor general to claim his expenses for the outlay he made. The Deputy minister writes to Mr. Jean as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General has transmitted to the hon. Mr. Sauve your letter of January 16.
In connection with the position of postmaster at Sully, I wish to state that in my letter of November 17, I informed you why the Postmaster General could not appoint you to that position. I may add, however, that the department is at present considering the settlement of your claim.
On January 12, the minister was considering the claim of Mr. Jean. On January 25, he was still considering the matter. It was a question whether $75 or $194 would be paid. On January 27, 1933, Mr. Jean writes to the Deputy Postmaster General:
I believe I have given you sufficient time to think over the matter, and it would be only fair for you to apprise me of what has been decided as regards my claim in connection with preparing the Sully post office premises.
You have received my account and have had ample time to check it up. I therefore wish to know what has been decided in this matter.
On January 31, 1933, the Deputy Minister writes to Mr. Jean:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst. addressed to His Majesty the King, with reference to the position of postmaster at Sully, and which was referred to this department.
Now, we find that the Deputy Postmaster General has become private secretary to his Majesty George V. That is a promotion; he will be known as Lord Staffordham!
I wish to draw your attention to the letters that were recently addressed to you and to which the department has nothing further to add. I also wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 27, in connection with your claim, which the department at present has under consideration.
On January 31! The Postmaster General had passed the whole month of January thinking over Jean's bill, it had kept him busy. He draws a salary of $14,000, plus $2,000 in lieu of an automobile; he was busy the whole month, that is, he received about $1,250 to

settle an important bill of $25. However, the matter is still pending. This matter has kept him busy for more than a month. On February 20, 1933, a report from Mr. Green was forwarded to Mr. Sauve. It is amusing!
(Text) Office of District Superintendent of Postal Service Quebec, February 20, 1933. The Postmaster General,
For Post Office Service,
Ottawa, Ont.
Re: Sully, P.Q.
In reply to departmental letter of the twelfth ultimo, in reference to an account submitted by Isidore Jean, whose appointment as postmaster was subsequently withheld, the district superintendent has to say that Inspector Beauchamp visited Sully on the tenth instant to try and adjust the matter.
Mr. Jean when first interviewed was seemingly determined not to compromise or accept anything less than the full payment of his claim; inasmuch as he had already, through his lawyer, filed for a petition of right to sue the government. He was given to understand that his attitude would not likely bring relief but might occasion more outlay on his own part than he might obtain from a judgment in his favour even if such evolved-and he could not depend on such favourable outcome.
It is only later in the day that the inspector convinced him that, to his own advantage, he should accept compensation if the department decides to give any. He would not entertain any amount less than $100 which would seem rather fair for the following reasons:-
Upon receipt of his appointment. Mr. Jean bought a property for $650 payable in yearly instalments of $100. He had an annex twelve feet by fourteen feet built for the post office at a cost of $194.50 as per detailed account submitted. He further hired the services of Miss Irene d'Auteuil a clerk in a local store, who for that reason lost her former position and could not secure employment since and is living with the Jean family.
Mr. Jean is a labourer without employment and cannot pay for the house he bought which will likely have to be taken back by the former proprietor, but Jean cannot expect any compensation for the extension he built thereto. It means to him, a total loss,-hence his account for $194.50.
Even if he should undertake to dismantle it, he would have to pay for labour and would realize but a small portion of the amount paid for wood, door, windows, office fixtures and table, whereas all the other material would be a complete loss.
The inspector admits that the Joss to Jean would be at least $194.50. The letter continues:
For all these reasons the amount of $100 would seem only reasonable and just and it is believed that the claimant would be satisfied with that amount. It is possible that $75 might alternatively be accepted, but only as a palliative with (probable dissatisfaction and "come-backs."
You see, he was terrified of "come backs" for the difference of $25. "Come backs"

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
would not be for the $25, but for the fact that the minister is unwilling to repair his wrong by paying a fair indemnity to the man whom he had appointed but to whom he did not give the position,-a man who was a returned soldier.
On February 27, 1933, Mr. Jean writes to Mr. Sauve that he hopes that his claim has been taken under consideration and that a cheque covering the amount will reach him by the next mail.
On March 3, 1933, reply of Mr. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General:
The report of the inspector who interviewed you in this respect is at present being considered by the minister. . . .


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. member allow me. The case of Mr. Jean has been settled to his satisfaction. He accepted $100.


Jean-François Pouliot: When did this settlement take place?


Arthur Sauvé: Recently.


Jean-François Pouliot: On what exact date?


Arthur Sauvé: Last week. The order in council was signed and we have settled the claim.


Jean-François Pouliot: On what day of last week, please?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot say the exact day. What does it matter to the hon. member, whether it was Thursday or Friday?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is of great interest to me. The hon. postmaster cannot give me the exact date?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall tell him: it is after receiving the letter in which I informed him that 1 would discuss the Sully case in the house. He felt ashamed, and settled the case. However, I wish to congratulate him.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member should cease drawing on his imagination in making such statements which are incorrect and untrue.


Jean-François Pouliot: I had intended to congratulate the minister, but I shall not do so now, because of the language he made use of. I have been, for months, fighting on behalf of a poor fellow, to have the Post Office department settle his claim
for $100, because of the loss he sustained. That is the kind of government-or rather,
I	shall not place the blame on the whole government, because the Prime Minister acted honourably in the whole of this affair, but the Postmaster General deceived Jean.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member has no right to make such a statement;
II	did not deceive Jean and the latter never made such a statement. The hon. member for Temiscouata is again drawing on his imagination.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I told the minister that I was going to give him candy-


Arthur Sauvé: I would refuse it.


Jean-François Pouliot: and I withdrew the hand, I wonder Whether I would be deceiving him. He told Jean: I am giving you a position; and he withdrew that position. He deceived Jean. My language is parliamentary, I am not drawing on my imagination. What I am reproaching the Postmaster General, his own conscience reproaches it to him- if he has any. I am delighted to hear that he has settled this claim and I regret that we had to fight over it so long to compel the minister to do an act of justice and equity by reimbursing this poor fellow for the loss he sustained and for which the minister was responsible. This goes to prove that we should have compassion for humble, poor and distressed people, and that, if one suffers injustice, he may appeal to any member of the -opposition and rest assured that we shall champion his cause until he obtains justice.
Now, sir, as the hon. minister mentioned the saving he realized, we shall refer to his small expenditure. I regret very much that he did not produce, here, the postal box of Amedie iLesieur, however, I have here a good photograph.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no. I treat the hon.
minister well enough; he should give me a little chance now. I expected to have a field day to-day but unfortunately I have had not even an hour to-night. However, I will try to make the best of it. After the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has heard the questions I will put to the hon. Postmaster General and his answers thereto I am su-re he will share my views, so that it will be beneficial to him to listen to me.
I thank the hon. Postmaster General for having tabled yesterday these photographs of that rural mail box to which I referred yesterday. It is a stovepipe; it would be
<850	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
rather comical in other times than these times of stress. Many questions have appeared on the order paper about it, but first I should give Amedee Lesieur high praise for this marvellous invention-greater than radio, something wonderful! A great invention by a wine merchant who made some money while the Scott Act was in force in Quebec and developed into a manufacturers' agent as soon as his friend the Postmaster General took office! A very great man, a famous inventor, greater than Edison! Now what is that box? First of all I may say he is not a manufacturer's agent at all; he has acted as a go-between in securing and placing the mail box shown in this photograph. These boxes have been described, and the description is most interesting. The metal in the box does not cost more than 30 or 35 cents, and the total cost of labour in making a thousand is about 30 cents each. The box is 24 inches long and 10 inches in diameter, made of 26 guage galvanized iron, double seam, with one end closed by a cap seamed over a plain drop door on the front. In other words it is nothing but a piece of stovepipe closed at one end with a drop door at the other. Mark the glory and the greatness of the Postmaster General! The box is exceedingly flimsy and cheap. I rather suggest that the minister should bring a sample, or give one to each of us as compensation for the days we 'have been sitting here-a little souvenir. The total labour and material cost of that box is about 75 cents; but let us see what has been done. A great genius should not be left in the lurch. I could compare him with such men as Judge Sedge-wick. The Prime Minister spoke very highly about Judge Sedgewick, but he is a child compared with Amedee Lesieur. Lesieur is a great man. In fact he got $5,000 more than Judge Sedgewick; Judge Sedgewick will earn $15,000 in one year, but Amedee Lesieur was clever enough to earn $20,000 with this mail box. A smart man! A great man!
As the hon. Postmaster General answers other questions than my own, questions that he sees in his imagination, I have here written answers to written questions. I will put them before the house and I will ask him some other questions, and I hope that if he is in his genial mood he will answer them. On January 1, 1931, there were 23,002 rural mail boxes in storage, according to information placed on Hansard on March 9. On July 1, 1931, there were 20,088; on January 1, 1932, 18,294; July 1, 1932, 25,760; on January 1, 1933, 25,638; and on March 1, 1933, 25,412. When the hon. Postmaster General took office there were 23,000 rural mail boxes in storage. How many 
of them did he place since he has been in charge of the department? 5,546. The smallest number on hand on any of the dates mentioned was 18,294. It was wise for the then Postmaster General, the predecessor of the hon. gentleman, to have a certain stock of rural mail boxes because it was the policy of the department then to establish rural mail routes and post offices, and at that time there was a surplus of 840,000,000, so it was right to have some boxes ahead for the poor years. But when the stock dropped to 18,000 boxes the minister says the stock of boxes on hand was so low that an additional purchase was necessary. He had placed 5,000 since he has been in office. He did not aek for any tenders, but he paid without tender $2.75 each for these boxes. How many did he order? Ten thousand! And the cost of manufacturing them was about 75 cents, so there was a clear profit of $2 a box for Amedee Lesieur.
Mr. MEiRCIER (St. Henri): A Christmas box.


Jean-François Pouliot: It should have been brought before the public accounts committee. In these times of stress why should Amedee Lesieur have a gift of $20,000 from the Postmaster General? It is a shame when the post office is cutting salaries and closing offices, and the Postmaster General is unable to justify a single figure that he gave yesterday, to pass over as a gift to Amedee Lesieur, money out of the public treasury to the amount of $20,000. Why were they bought? They were bought because "the patented box submitted was found satisfactory," and ordered according to the needs of the department. The department did not need at the time a single rural mail box; they had plenty of them, but in spite of that they bought 10,000.
I have one question to ask the hon. gentleman, and it is this; in what number of the patent record is this box described?


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I listened with the same interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata with reference to the postal boxes, and I find it strange, knowing his parliamentary and political experience, that he displayed so much astonishment because these boxes were paid $2.75 when, under the regime he supported, they were paid as much as $2.80, $3.00 and S4.00; we pay them cheaper to-day. We purchased a certain number from Mr. Lesieur because the report of Mr. Murphy, our expert in these matters, stated that they were an improvement on some already used, that they better answered our

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
requirements, especially for postal parcels, and that they are of a better quality. When the hon. member contends that our method of economizing was at fault, he is wrong. He forgets one thing-perhaps, he is unaware of it-that the stock, the quantity of boxes was limited and that these boxes were stored, for the requirements of the west, in Toronto and certain western centres and that those for the eastern section were practically exhausted. That is why we purchased that number of boxes, so that the Eastern part of Canada would not run short.


Jean-François Pouliot: As a matter of course, the Postmaster General can contend that under the liberal regime some boxes were purchased at fancy prices-


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon.
member 'allow me to complete my answer? It was also a question of economy. By
transferring the boxes stored in the west to eastern points, the cost would have been increased and it was, therefore, to economize that we effected that transaction. The hon. member contends that no tenders were asked. First, pursuant to the act, the department is not obliged to call for tenders.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Under $5,000.


Arthur Sauvé: This does not
apply to the Post Office department. Secondly, this box was patented; I could not
call for tenders on a box recently patented. It was recommended by the department's experts, both as regards economy and meeting modern requirement, especially in connection with postal parcels. The hon. member will admit that, for a number of years, this system of distributing goods has been in vogue and seems to be considerably developing. The distribution of parcel post throughout the country has greatly increased-I am not alluding to these times of depression-and will further develop.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since the
hon. Postmaster General refers to economy, why did he not call for tenders? That is the first question I am putting to him. The second question to which he did not answer just now, is the following: I wish to inquire in what number of the "Patent Record" is to be found the description of this patent.


Arthur Sauvé: As explained, I did not call for tenders because it
was a new box, recently patented, which answered the requirements of the department
because it was of better quality; and, secondly, because it was cheaper than those we had purchased previously. Some of these postal boxes were paid $2.80, S3.00 and even $4.00; this one only cost us $2.75.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many
postal boxes were paid $4.00 by the Liberals, were they made from stove pipes? Other boxes were purchased from Lesieur-50 boxes at $46.25. That was costly!
I wish to inquire from the Postmaster General in what number of the Patent Record is this invention described?


Arthur Sauvé: The number of the patent is 319,598, February 1932.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. Postmaster General for his information. Would the hon. minister take a copy of the order in council sanctioning the purchase of 10,000 rural mail boxes from Amedee Lesieur? Has the minister any objection?


Arthur Sauvé: No, not at all. However, not this evening.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, to-morrow. If the committee is not going to rise, 1 shall broach another subject. I do not wish to take up too much of the committee's time; however, there are certain cases on which I desire the hon. Postmaster General to throw some light. I wish to show him all the courtesy possible. However, I shall have to slip certain matters thoroughly, so as to obtain all the information to which we are entitled.


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly .


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Does the hon. Postmaster General wish me to submit to him another case or is the committee going to rise?


Arthur Sauvé: I am ready to meet the wishes of the hon. member or the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon.
Postmaster General is in charge.


Arthur Sauvé: No, the committee and its chairman are.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall refer to the case of Notre-Dame-du-Lac.
I regret very much that the right hon. Prime Minister was not present in the house the other evening or at the beginning of this evening sitting, because I said many pleasant things about him. When I am so disposed, I do so heartily.
Questions

The Notre-Dame-du-Lac case is almost as interesting as that of Sully.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 11, 1933