1955-06-22

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, two articles appeared on the front page of the Ottawa Journal last evening which I think need to be corrected. One headline reads:
177 bottles of beer at children's picnic. Fort William.
I was in touch with Fort William last night and this morning, and the information I received from the police was that this was not a children's picnic; it was just a men's beer party. Besides that, the people who control children's picnics in Fort William hold their picnics on Saturday, not on Sunday. Their refreshments were better than beer.
The other article states that the parliamentary restaurant may sell beer, and to this I say "no", for two reasons. The members of the highest court of this land do not need beer as a stimulant.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first point raised by the hon. member is not a question of privilege. As to the other point, this is a matter which is not open for debate at this stage and should not be brought up as a question of privilege. If I may say so, as co-chairman of the committee on the parliamentary restaurant, the matter is one which is under consideration. If the hon. member will look at the title of the article to which he has referred he will see that it says "may sell beer". Therefore he should put the emphasis on the word "may".


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You will not lead us into temptation.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Hahn:: 1.	How many employees were employed by Canadian National Railways shops at Port Mann, British Columbia, as of May 22, 1955, March 31, 1954?
2.	How many employees were laid off as a result of recent closure of certain parts of the Port Mann Canadian National Railways shops?
3.	How many of these employees have been absorbed in some other place of operation in the Canadian National Railways, and where?
4.	How many are absorbed at other work in the Canadian National Railways?
5.	How many discussions re these lay-offs have been held with representatives of the appropriate labour organizations, and who was present from labour and management at these meetings?
6.	In what way do repair methods and practices differ today from those in use in 1945 that would materially affect the number of men employed in the Port Mann shops?
7.	What was the traffic in the Port Mann area during each of the years 1945 to 1955 inclusive?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:-
1.	As of May 22, 1955-259; as of March 31, 1954-329.
2.	No parts of the shops have been closed.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	See answer to No. 2.
5.	See answer to No. 2. It is the general practice, whenever staff reductions are made, to see that the legitimate interests of each employee affected are properly protected in accordance with the governing wage agreements, and discussions are held with representatives of the labour organizations.
6.	Dieselization, improvements in design and construction, increased unit capacity of freight cars, acquisition of new equipment, and technological improvements have reduced maintenance work to a considerable extent.
7.	In order to protect the competitive position of the company it is not the practice to disclose figures relating to traffic in specific areas.


COUNTY HEALTH UNITS, QUEBEC
Mr. Gauihier (Portneuf):: 1.	Is the federal government contributing financially to the operation of county health units in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what units were given such assistance and what amounts have they received since the establishment of the subvention plan?


Mr. Robertson:: 1 and 2. Yes. During the fiscal years 1948-55, $890,445 was allocated by the federal government under the national health program to assist county health units in the province of Quebec as follows:
(a)	$400,314-employment of 65 public health nurses in county health units.

Questions
(b) $221,889-employment	of necessary personnel in 67 health units, to administer B.C.G. vaccine.
(c)	$132,353-assistance to new county health unit, Sherbrooke.
$64,704-assistance to new county health unit, Jacques Cartier.
(d)	$71,185-maintenance of a boat, county health unit, Saguenay.


SALK VACCINE INOCULATIONS
Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	Since the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine was confirmed by the virologists of the Department of National Health and Welfare, how many children have been inoculated?
2.	Of those inoculated, how many contracted polio, if any?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	As of June 1 approximately 750,000 children had been vaccinated with polio vaccine. Since that date the vaccination program has been proceeding throughout Canada as planned and it is hoped that up to 1,000,000 children will be vaccinated by July 1.
2.	None.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, P.E.I.
Mr. MacLean:: 1.	How many miles of trans-Canada highway have been completed in Prince Edward Island?
2.	Where are these completed sections?
3.	What was the total cost of same to the federal government?
4.	What was the total cost of Prince Edward Island's contribution to this completed mileage?
5.	How much of this contribution was in the form of payments for new construction and how much was in the form of existing roads?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	31-2 miles.
2.	Between Bonshaw and Borden 19-7 miles.
Between Wood Island and Pinette 11-5 miles.
3 and 4. Claims have been submitted and paid by the federal government to date in the amount of $998,366.56. The federal government and the provincial government share equally in the costs of construction.
5. All payments made were for new construction.


AIR STATION, FINGAL, ONT.
Mr. McBain:: 1.	What is the status of the present air establishment at Fingal, Ontario?
2.	Have there been any changes recently in connection with this station, either as to its status or as to its operation?
3.	If so, what changes have been made?
4.	What expenditures, if any, have been made at this station since the end of the war?
5.	What expenditures are contemplated now or in the future?

6.	Are the air runways being maintained? If not, for what reason?
7.	What is the foreseeable future of this establishment?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Fingal airport is being retained by the R.C.A.F. as a reserve field for use in the event of an emergency and is presently being used to store reserve aircraft.
2.	Yes.
3.	Since 1st April 1955 the site has been under the control of 6 repair depot, Trenton, Ontario. Previously it was used by 1 supply depot, Weston, Ontario, to store equipment. Since April this equipment has been moving from the site and this operation will continue throughout the summer and early autumn. The space will now be used entirely for the storage of reserve aircraft.
4.	Excluding minor maintenance costs, the only expenditure since the end of the last war has been $62,180 for roofing repairs to the hangars.
5.	None, except for normal maintenance.
6.	A recent inspection revealed that minor maintenance repairs to the runways would maintain them for some time to come.
7.	As stated above.



BALTIC FEDERATION OF CANADA


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Was an application received by the under secretary of state (in his capacity as an official of an interdepartmental committee) from the Baltic federation of Canada for permission to use the war memorial for a wreath laying ceremony on June 14, 1955?
2.	If so, was the application refused?
3.	Have similar applications been received by the aforementioned committee or its predecessor for this ceremony annually since 1949, and granted every year until the present?
4.	If so, what is the reason for the change in policy between this and former years?
He said: May I ask leave to withdraw this question so that it may be reworded.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.



SASKATCHEWAN-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, notice of which I have given him. Has the federal government reached a decision with regard to the request last month from the Saskatchewan government for assistance in meeting costs of repairing damage to roads, bridges, etc., caused by the recent flooding in that

province? If so, has the decision been forwarded to the Saskatchewan government?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The answer to both questions is "no", but I know that this is a matter of interest to the hon. member and several other hon. members who have been asking similar questions, and perhaps to supplement the answer I might read the last letter I wrote in that connection to the premier of Saskatchewan, and which will show why a decision is being deferred at the moment. The letter is dated June 11, 1955, and reads:
Thank you for informing me in your letter of June 8 of the steps the Saskatchewan government is taking to repair the damage caused by this spring's rains and floods in your province.
I appreciate your desire to have an early decision on the degree of federal assistance, if any. I wish to assure you that one will be made just as soon as the federal government is confident that it has all the available information upon which to make its decision, not only with respect to your province but also with respect to Manitoba. As you no doubt have read in the press, the Manitoba government has announced that it too will be seeking assistance from the federal government and is presently collecting data upon which to base its claim for aid.
As the damage in both provinces was due to similar factors, I am confident that you will appreciate why, in the interests of equality of treatment, we would prefer not to make any decision until we have also received Manitoba's request. In the meantime we are giving earnest consideration to the representations that have been made by Saskatchewan.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman saw in the press, as I did this morning, that the premier of Manitoba declared that he had not yet received all the details that he felt were required to submit his request.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could give the house any information as to whether there has been any exchange of correspondence or other communication between himself and the premier of Newfoundland in regard to the statement that the premier of Newfoundland intends to lead Newfoundland out of confederation unless they receive consideration from the government of Canada.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no correspondence in that regard. When we had our meeting here in April, in a very amusing and jocular address made by the premier of Newfoundland he said that Newfoundland had not joined confederation for its people
Inquiries of the Ministry to be second-class citizens, and I think that is something he repeated on the occasion referred to by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. But there certainly is no intention, nor is there any prospect, that the citizens of Newfoundland will not be, like the citizens of the rest of Canada, first-class citizens.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Might I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the threat or statement of the premier of Newfoundland, he has any qualms as to the status of his Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I have not the same qualms as the hon. gentleman who asked the question seems to have.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE UNEMPLOYMENT  REFERENCE TO ALLEGED CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister now explain to the house the reason for the government's complete retreat, which has been made clear in the past two days, from the position it adopted in 1945 of complete federal responsibility for unemployed employables?


Right Hon.  L. S. Si. Laureni@Prime Minisier: Mr. Speaker, that is something I could not answer in just a few words. There will be an occasion for debating that matter, when the whole question can be gone into quite fully.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, perhaps the right hon. the Prime Minister would state the policy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to the production of documents in court proceedings. I am referring particularly to a report in the press of the decision of the master of the supreme court of Ontario.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The policy is to produce all documents which it is felt can be produced without prejudice to public interest.


Daniel Roland Michener: I should like to ask a supplementary question, if I may. Does that

Criminal Code
refusal of documents go beyond documents related to security? That is the question I really wanted to ask.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I do not know the terms of the affidavit made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Evidently it contained assertions that were felt to be sufficient to justify the stand he had taken. Now, if the hon. gentleman is asking whether there are documents that it might not be in the public interest to produce for other than security reasons, using security reasons as reasons of national defence, there are frequently other reasons.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? Can the minister tell me when I might expect an answer to my questions that have been on the order paper since May 26 and May 27?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, they shall be
answered very shortly. As a matter of fact, I thought it might be more convenient to the hon. gentleman to have the answers immediately prior to taking up the estimates for the Department of National Revenue.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 415, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 504, to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Speaker, I rise really for the purpose of asking for information. I notice that this is an amendment to the Criminal Code. My request for information is based largely on the fact that I have not the bill in question. I am not sure whether the bill has been

circulated. If not, I suggest that second reading be deferred until members have the bill before them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could have raised this point of order before the motion for second reading was put. At the moment all he may do is move to adjourn the debate. The Clerk informs me that the bill is being distributed at the moment.


Daniel Roland Michener: I now have the bill. Perhaps I could make my point. Then the minister may be able to satisfy me on the question that I wish to raise.
As I understand the status of parimutuel systems, for some years past the federal government has not been levying a tax on parimutuel bets, having vacated that field of taxation to the provinces some time after the 1945-46 dominion-provincial conferences. My recollection is that only the provincial governments are now levying any imposts on bets which are made in the parimutuel betting system at racing meets. If that is so and if the federal government is entirely out of that field as a taxation field, I raise the question of whether it is desirable for the federal government again to become involved, -for whatever purpose it may be-in what in effect would be a tax on the proceeds of parimutuel betting and thereby to re-establish the duplication of taxation in this field which existed during the war.
There is probably a serious question of jurisdiction involved as well as the difficulty of double taxation. I understand that the purpose is to provide funds for the policing of betting, more particularly in rural racing meets. But surely the policing of race meets is an obligation of the law-enforcement officers and the police under the Criminal Code; and surely that is something which falls or should fall on the general fund of the country and is not something for which the government should attempt to recoup itself by entering into a field of taxation which it has already abandoned in favour of the provinces.
I raise this point for information largely because I have not had the opportunity to see the bill. I am not sure what its full import is. If the purpose is as it appears to be, namely a means of raising some revenue for policing purposes, it is an odd thing that it should be done through the Criminal Code in any event. Perhaps I might let the matter rest there until more information is before the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he
will close the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was simply going to raise a point of order in connection with the matter.
I had hoped to have the information here at the committee stage. I think the quesfcon raised is one that may require a little discussion. If that is satisfactory, I propose we go into committee. If we are going to debate the matter on second reading, then I should like to have the opportunity to close the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, as to the question that has been raised, it is true that during wartime we had what was to all intents and purposes a tax on parimutuel betting. I think it was 2 per cent. That money came into the treasury of Canada directly. The present proposal does not interfere in any way with the right of the provinces to take a certain proportion of the amount wagered at each race meet. In some of the provinces the amount is as high as 12 per cent. This measure does not interfere in any way whatsoever with that right. The amount of one-half of one per cent is taken off all wagers apart altogether from what the provinces do and does not restrict in any way their rights to impose whatever tax is provided now.
The half of one per cent is simply to finance certain things which are already being done but to finance them in a slightly different manner. Previously we have charged large or small fairs and race meetings of any size so much a day for each mounted policeman or civilian who went there to supervise. The average up to now has been $27. The average under the new plan will be about $40 a day. A small race association may only have retained an amount totalling $70 to $80 a day, and if we have to send two officials to do the job it will require more money than the total intake of the race meeting. At the present time supervision is not being carried out at many of these places because they just go ahead and conduct races without supervision. That is not very satisfactory. Under the law we would probably have to prosecute in such cases or someone, most likely the province, would have to prosecute.
Therefore it is thought to be advisable to make sufficient money available in order to see to it that whatever supervision is necessary will be provided. If one man can do the job, all well and good. If we have to send two, then two will be sent, but there will be no interference with the intake at any particular race meet. My friend calls it a tax. We call it a fee charged all race meetings that take place in the country. It is the amount necessary to pay for the supervision whether at large or small race meetings.
Criminal Code


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Operation of parimutuel system.
Mr. Diefenbaker:: I think that this is the most unusual piece of legislation, under the guise of criminal law, that has ever been brought before this house. I wonder if that is one of the reasons why the Minister of Justice himself is not piloting this legislation through the house. To me this represents a situation that should not find its place in any criminal code of this country. I am referring particularly to subsection 3 and the words additional thereto.
In the explanatory notes it states:
The purpose of the amendment is to permit an additional combination of heat races and dashes.
To that there can be no objection. However, subsection 3 now provides:
No parimutuel system of betting shall be used upon any race course unless the system has been approved by and its operation is carried on under the supervision of an officer appointed by the Minister of Agriculture,-
No\v, that has been the system in the past. However, this very indirect subsection is brought into being. The amendment reads:
and the person or association conducting a race meeting shall pay to the Receiver General of Canada one-half of one per cent of the total amount of bets, made through the agency of a parimutuel system operated under such supervision, on any race run at such meeting.
This appears to me like a subterfuge whereby an offence is created under the Criminal Code in anticipation. The parimutuel is operated and there is no offence in the operation of a parimutuel which is subject to supervision at the moment. However, this does not provide that a person is exempted from responsibility under certain circumstances. It makes it an offence for any association conducting a race meeting not to pay to the Receiver General of Canada one-half of 1 per cent.
If it were intended to be an exculpatory section, it would read something like this: No parimutuel system of betting shall be used unless the system has been approved by-and I am not objecting to the words there-an officer appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, and unless the person or association conducting the race meeting pays to the Receiver General of Canada one-half of 1 per cent of the total amount of bets.
This is the most strangely drafted piece of legislation. I believe it is the first amendment to the Criminal Code since the new Criminal Code came into effect. In my opinion this is an indirect method of the

Criminal Code
Receiver General of Canada enforcing the collection of money, and making it an offence for failure to pay money. Supposing they did not pay it, what happens? They conduct a parimutuel operation this year at a fair and they do not pay the amount to the receiver general. How long have they got within which to pay it? When is the offence created? Supposing the fair does not pay it for six months or eight months? Is the offence created after the date the receiver general finally decides he wants the money? In other words, when does the statute of limitation start to run? It does not say it shall be forthwith, and it does not say how long after the race it shall be paid, the day of the race or a week after the race? When does the offence begin?
I object to this section on two grounds. One, it is the first time that, under the Criminal Code, an offence has been created for the failure to pay money, because unless there is an offence under this section it is a meaningless addition to the Criminal Code, if it were to be an exculpatory provision' unless the person or association conducting the race meeting pays to the Receiver General of Canada one-half of one per cent on the day of the race, a week after the race or a day provided for.
These two objections should be given consideration, because surely we are not going to make it an offence under the Criminal Code to fail to pay taxation. This is the first time it has ever been tried. It has meritorious possibilities, because if the Minister of National Revenue wants to make it an offence under the Criminal Code punishable by a jail sentence on failure to pay income tax it can be done. He has never tried that. This is the first time under the Criminal Code, as far as I have been able to examine it, that an offence punishable with a maximum fine of $500 under the summary conviction sections or six months in jail for the failure to pay a tax levied by the receiver general has been tried The receiver general is to have made available to him one-half of one per cent of the total amounts of the bets. I suggest that some further consideration should be given to this matter and that certainly parliament should not be asked to provide for the thin edge of the wedge so that from now on this can be taken as an example from which the revenue authorities may make it an offence punishable with a fine and jail sentence for failure to pay taxation.
I presume it was never intended that this section should have that result; but in the wording, in the form and in the general 
set-up it provides for imprisonment for failure to pay a debt, either a fine under the summary convictions provisions or in default of the payment, fine or imprisonment.
I should like to hear from the attorney general, the Minister of Justice, on this matter because it is a singular circumstance that the Minister of Agriculture is piloting through the house this novel piece of legislation which cannot be justified in any way unless parliament is to be asked to make it an offence punishable by a fine and imprisonment for failure to pay a debt.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, before the Minister of Justice speaks on the matter I might only say that for the 20 years I have been here there never has been any doubt so far as the minister bringing in the bill and piloting it through the house is concerned. There has been amending legislation brought in on at least half a dozen, maybe a dozen occasions. I have not checked them all, but there has been legislation dealing with these very sections on many occasions in the last 20 years, and long before that-I do not know how far back these sections have been under agriculture-but this particular item has always been under the Minister of Agriculture in my time, and it so states in the code.


John George Diefenbaker: Administration.


James Garfield Gardiner: Unless this house changes it, it is under the Department of Agriculture. The original reason for putting it under the Department of Agriculture is that agriculturists are concerned with the promotion of the breeding of light horses, including standard bred horses, running horses and all other kinds of horses. This has always been considered a part of the exhibitions that are put on for the purpose of encouraging agricultural production; that is, small fairs or big fairs or any other kind of meet of that nature. Therefore, agriculture has had something to do with it.
If it was the proper thing in those earlier days, it is still more necessary now. The kind of horse that is most necessary on a farm today in this northern country is a light horse. Out in our part of the country where you are not able to get to town in the wintertime from most of the farming areas without horses it is not a heavy horse you want, it is a light horse. Therefore, the department is more interested today in promoting the breeding of light horses than it ever was before.
We were very much interested in promoting the breeding of draft horses at one time, but today it is mostly light horses. For

that reason it has always been under the administration of the Department of Agriculture.
I am not a lawyer and my hon. friend is. Of course, so is the Minister of Justice. But I still think I can read the English language and understand it. I think the suggestion made by my hon. friend would result in the claim that it was the intention to make something criminal much stronger than the way it is worded. Although I had very little to do with drafting the bill, yet I did state what we wanted put in it. As a result of that I presume some good draftsman drafted it and it is worded as it is. It says:
No parimutuel system of betting shall be used upon any race course unless the system has been approved by and its operation is carried on under the supervision of an officer appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, whose duty it shall be to stop the betting before each race and to see that no further amounts are deposited,-
That is the wording as it was and as it is. There is added:
-and the person or association conducting a race meeting shall pay to the Receiver General of Canada one-half of one per cent of the total amount of bets, made through the agency of a parimutuel system operated under such supervision, on any race run at such meeting.
All the provinces have provisions which provide payments must be made to them. The provision in Quebec is for 51 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 5 per cent; Ontario, 7 per cent; Manitoba, 10 per cent; Saskatchewan, 5 per cent; Alberta, 5 per cent; British Columbia, 12 per cent. These amounts are set up. With respect to the enforcement of them, I do not know that there has ever been any enforcement necessary. The payments are made automatically as a result of whatever the funds are that come in and so far as I know there has never been any necessity to prosecute anybody. I do not see how there would be in this case.
This is something which the associations themselves want to do. They desire to have it done this way so that there will be supervision of all fairs, and similar supervision of all race meets where there is parimutuel betting. You will not have one kind of supervision at one and another kind at another, and when it gets to be so small it is impossible to have that kind of supervision they have all suggested this means of meeting the situation, and not have people appealing to them all the time to see that this or that fellow is prosecuted but to have the thing operated without prosecutions. That being the case, I doubt very much whether there would be any prosecution in any case in spite of the fact the Criminal Code says there are certain penalties if you do not carry out all the terms of the code. The suggestion really
Criminal Code
is that instead of this being stated in the Criminal Code we pass other legislation. I assume the reason for this being in the Criminal Code is that there are some kinds of betting that are considered to be illegal. This kind of betting under these circumstances is made to be legal. It is not a matter of making a criminal out of someone; it is a matter of trying to operate in a manner that will be satisfactory without making people criminals.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps I might now supplement the information which I think is necessary to a proper view of this bill. As I understand the amendment, it requires the payment of one-half of one per cent of the total amounts of bets at every race course using the parimutuel system, which of course involves the whole of Canada, and I should think some very substantial sums of money. Can the minister give the total amount that is bet under the parimutuel system in the course of a year? My recollection is that it would run to perhaps $200 million or more. While one half of one per cent may seem a small amount, actually it might mean a levy of from $10 to $12 million. That is much greater than the amount which the Department of Agriculture is endeavouring to recoup because of the administrative costs of supervising betting at the smaller fairs.
Apparently the department has been charging smaller fairs the cost of two inspectors at $35 per day each, or a total of $70 a day. I do not think anyone will agree that there should be a continuance of a levy of that sort on the smaller fairs because it makes it impossible for them to provide the same facilities as are enjoyed by the larger places.
I am not quarrelling with the objective of the minister, that is, to remove from the smaller rural fairs the proportionately heavy cost of supervision which is necessary in order to make legal the parimutuel betting system, but that could be accomplished in other ways. That is a problem for the Department of Agriculture.
As my colleague has indicated, we have here an amendment to the Criminal Code which I agree, as has been suggested, is an entirely improper way to raise funds, even though there is a direct association of ideas because this matter has been under the Department of Agriculture before. As a matter of fact the Minister of Finance is involved here as this is really a second budget. The Minister of Agriculture is bringing down a budget today in which he wants $10 million or $12 million, and that should be added to the budget we have already had.

Criminal Code
I should correct my figure, it is perhaps $1 million or $2 million, but in any event it is a sizeable sum in any budget, whether brought in by the Minister of Finance or by one of his colleagues.
We should have the exact amount before us. As I said, I agree with the suggestion which has been made that this matter might well be reconsidered, for two reasons. First, because of the way in which it is being done. It is not proper to have it in the Criminal Code. Second, because of the objection I made originally that we have here a return of the federal taxing authority into the parimutuel field which was abandoned in 1947 so that the provinces could enjoy that field of taxation themselves.
It is all part of the agreements and the fiscal relationships between the two levels of government. The provinces count on obtaining a certain amount of money from this field and now we have the federal government returning to a competitive position in that field.
Then I would raise briefly the question of jurisdiction. The Minister of Agriculture has indicated that all provinces are concerned with the supervision of fairs and they all take a levy from the parimutuel betting. Is it necessary to have two governments in this field of supervision of the parimutuel betting system? I suggest that it is not necessary and that the whole matter might be reviewed with a view to making arrangements under which the government which taxes the parimutuel betting-that is, the provincial government-should also have responsibility for the supervision. However, that is a matter of procedure.
As I say, I am not quarrelling with the objective of seeing that the parimutuel systems where they are operated legally are operated fairly and in the interests of those who enjoy that sort of pastime. Of course that involves supervision, and it then becomes a question of how that should be done. I object seriously and strenuously to what has been called taxation through the Criminal Code.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the figures of the amounts wagered are not as high as have been suggested and I can understand why the figures might not be available to members in the exact amount. The figures for 1953, which is the last year for which we have the full figures, are as follows:
Running Trotting Races Races Total
Amounts wagered .. $77,796,588 $4,715,537 $85,512,125
Assessments	 7,488,618	460,927 7,949,545
Provincial taxes   6,412,104	320,274 6,732,378

The estimated cost of supervising parimutuel betting is $257,650 and with the present trend of wagering there should be a revenue of approximately $400,000 on the basis of an assessment of one-half of one per cent of the total amount wagered to cover the cost of supervision. If it is felt that this rate of assessment is too high it could be reduced. It is hoped that some of the smaller places where we have not been giving sufficient supervision, where we have been sending out only one man because they could not pay any greater cost, will now be properly supervised as there should be sufficient to cover these extra costs.
This money is not secured by the department, as has been suggested; it goes into general revenue and estimates will have to be submitted to this house from time to time in order to get the money necessary to carry on. That is the full explanation of it.
Just by way of illustrating the point made earlier, take the Humboldt agricultural society. Under the present system of assessment, the total wager earnings at the Humboldt agricultural society are $886, and the total percentage retained would be $79.74. The cost of supervision assessed per day would be $40. We think there should be more expense than that at that particular point, but it is not thought by anyone who associates with this that that small association should be called upon to pay that amount of money. Therefore the general wagers made throughout the country are drawn upon. Now, to illustrate the point further, a larger one, the Ontario Jockey Club, Woodbine park, had wager earnings of $304,820, and the total percentage retained was $27,433.80. In the case of the Toronto jockey club, $304,820 is the total wagers. The total retained is $27,433.80, and the total cost of supervision is $240. Comparing the $240 in Toronto with the $40 in Humboldt, it will be very evident that the smaller place cannot have proper supervision or their costs are too high. At the larger place the cost is small as compared with the total retained. This simply makes it possible for some part of the wager earnings in Toronto to be used for the purpose of taking care of places like Humboldt and other smaller places all over the country.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is a point raised by this amendment which has not really been dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture and which it does seem he has not grasped. Under the section which now exists there is the exception to the ordinary prohibition on betting by the Criminal Code. There is a provision under which parimutuel betting shall be allowed where its operation is

carried on under the supervision of an officer appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. The existing section provides that that shall be at the expense of the operation. Whether we agree with this new method of dealing with things of this kind, the fact is that the exception that has been made provides that the cost of the operation be borne by the association.
This amendment introduces an entirely new principle. The Criminal Code says that, in spite of the prohibition on betting generally, parimutuels may be conducted in certain cases and under certain terms where there is an officer on hand to supervise the activities and that this officer shall be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. Then the amendment goes on to say, and I quote from the amending clause:
The person or association conducting a race meeting shall pay to the Receiver General of Canada one-half of one per cent of the total amount of bets, made through the agency of a parimutuel system operated under such supervision, on any race run at such meeting.
That introduces two entirely different ideas. First of all, there is a provision that this payment shall be made. Then this immediately creates an offence under the section. The law is clear that where there is an offence created without a penalty accompanying it, there are certain general provisions that apply. The penalties in fine and otherwise are established. They would operate immediately in this case. So the possibility of fine, and other penalty in the event of the fine not being paid, is immediately established by this amendment. That is a new idea.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I ask a question, for information? Is it not just as true that it would be an offence if the Humboldt association did not pay the $40 charged them.


George Alexander Drew: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why not? Toronto has to pay $240, and if they did not pay, it would be an offence.


George Alexander Drew: At the moment it is a declaration that this shall be done at the expense of the association. This is a provision that the money shall be paid to the Receiver General of Canada. The second point I wish to make is that this is a new idea. This is not a provision that the operation shall be carried on at the cost of the particular organization. It is a provision that a certain percentage be paid to the Receiver General of Canada. It is true that in the fantastic figures placed before us, to a minister who would say, "What's a million anyway?", $412,000 may appear almost insignificant; but the fact
Criminal Code
remains that there is a new idea that the Criminal Code is now becoming a taxing law. That has never been done before. There is no other provision in the Criminal Code that makes it a taxing law. This is a completely new principle and a very dangerous principle. Mark you, the one-half of one per cent does not approximate the present cost. The present cost is given as a figure in excess of $200,000, but this is simply taken out of the bag and one-half of one per cent is put in. If one-half of one per cent is justified, 10 per cent would be just as much justified. It would be simply for the government to decide what tax is going to be paid by the associations for the privilege of conducting activities of this kind.
The federal government was in the parimutuel tax before, but at the request of the provincial governments, which have the constitutional responsibility, it got out. Now it is getting back in again under another device, and this is making the Criminal Code a taxing law. There is no other section of any act in the Criminal Code that produces a corresponding situation. The remarks I am making are in no way directed against the provision of a method of this kind for supervision, but it would be just as logical to charge a particular tax for those who are doing this because some officer must be there as to say to a warehouse man, for instance, that because the warehouse near a dock requires special police protection, therefore a certain percentage of the cost of the operation of that warehouse shall be paid to the Receiver General of Canada. In fact, it would be just as reasonable to say that every one of us who does not like to be set upon on the public highways and otherwise requires protection by policemen shall pay to the Receiver General of Canada a certain percentage for that protection.
The Criminal Code at all times has been a code dealing with laws that protect the rights of the people of Canada. The enforcement of that in general is under the provinces. There are, of course, special circumstances where the federal government under some sections has a particular obligation. In general, however, through the fact that the exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of justice is under the provincial governments, they have the responsibility. In fact, we know that the supervision of race tracks is under the provincial governments, and at least one provincial government and perhaps more have set up racing commissions for the purpose of supervising these activities.
The responsibility of the federal government is to deal with the criminal law. It

Criminal Code
is the responsibility of the provincial governments to enforce these laws. In addition to the various penalties and exceptions that are created, this is a completely new idea. It makes the Criminal Code for the first time a taxing law. No matter how small the amount may be in the opinion of the government, that fact does not change the principle involved; and I should think the government would be well advised to drop this bill and let the matter stand where it is now or to provide some other method of facilitating the opportunity to small fairs to carry on a provision of this kind by creating penalties and exceptions which will be easily enforceable by the provincial authorities who have that responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, a little while ago I made a suggestion and I think the attorney general might give consideration to it. No one has any objection to the objective of having the matter of light horses and the connection with light horses remain with the Department of Agriculture. The objective is most laudable. The purposes in mind are desirable ones to be achieved. But it is not desirable that parliament turn itself into an institution which prescribes that the penalty for failure to pay a debt to the crown is a fine and imprisonment. Sending people to jail for failure to pay debts has been abolished. It used to be a novel and easy way of dealing with the matter. Certainly the present plan could be very well carried on until I think many of the difficulties of the Minister of Finance would be relieved. We just need to put in ano.ther "and" and make the provision read, "and unless income tax is paid on this amount" or any other type of tax. Whoever drafted this bill failed to realize what was in fact being done, however eminent that person was.
I want to point out again how, if the word "unless" were in this section, the entire situation would be changed. In other words this is supposed to be an exception. You are not going to operate betting unless certain things are done. You are not going to operate parimutuel machines unless certain things are done. As the law stands now, it says:
No parimutuel system of betting shall be used upon any race course unless the system has been approved . . .
And so on. That sentence ends with a semicolon and a new sentence begins:
. . . and the person or association conducting a race meeting shall pay to the Receiver General of Canada one-half of one per cent of the total amount of bets, made through the agency of a parimutuel system . . .

Surely it is perfectly clear that you are by that provision creating a disjunctive offence. You are making an offence the failure to pay the Receiver General without stating when the offence begins. When is the offence committed? Is it committed at the time the first bet is made, or the second bet or the last bet, or is it committed at the end of the year when the fair winds up its business? When does the offence begin? That is the reason I make this suggestion, and it removes the criticism that this legislation provides imprisonment for failure to pay taxes. This was meant to be an exception, and a desirable one. If my hon. friend would simply accept this suggestion-and I am not saying it is perfect; the matter of the exact wording will have to be considered-I think it would meet the objection. There can be a semicolon and then he can say:
. . . and unless the person or association conducting a race meeting pays to the receiver general one-half of one per cent of the total amount of bets made through the agency of a parimutuel system operated under such supervision or any race run at such race meeting directly after the conclusion of the race meeting
Then you create an offence which has a beginning. Then you remove from this section the dangerous import of the section which is that we have arrived at a point where, in order to achieve the laudable end of properly controlling race meetings, we are going to make failure to pay tax an offence punishable under the Criminal Code.


Mr. Garson:: With some of the generalizations which have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Prince Albert I am in agreement, as I think is my colleague the Minister of Agriculture as well. I agree that the whole system of parimutuel betting is, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, an exception to those sections of the Criminal Code which make most forms of gambling an offence. The right hon. Minister of Agriculture has rightly said that since the principle of this exception to the general prohibition of gambling is that of the encouragement of the breeding of horses, especially light horses, it has been properly considered for the whole period of time that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture has been in this house the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture to supervise these particular sections of the code and also to introduce any amendments to them that may be required from time to time.
I personally had not anything to do with the drafting of this legislation which is before us. But I must say this. After having heard the hon. member for Prince Albert and the Leader of the Opposition and after

having perused the bill which is before us, I agree with the draftsman of the bill. This is not the first time that the draftsman of a bill has been in disagreement with the hon. member for Prince Albert and perhaps it will not be the last. But on this particular occasion I must say that I think the bill is properly drawn and that it should be passed in the form in which it now stands.
As to the suggestion put forward by the opposition to the effect that it is improper to visit any kind of penalty upon a person for failure to pay sums of money to the government which the law calls upon him to pay, I am sure that they will upon reflection agree that all taxing statutes are filled with such provisions. A man, for example, cannot get by with failing to file his income tax return-


John George Diefenbaker: The Criminal Code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; in the Criminal Code. If the hon. gentleman from Prince Albert will look at the Criminal Code he will see section after section in which, after having described the crime, it prescribes the punishment; and the punishment is often a fine.


John George Diefenbaker: Regarding the payment of taxes? Under the Criminal Code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not the payment of taxes under the Criminal Code. This is one of the points upon which I am in agreement with the hon. member. The Criminal Code of course is not a taxing statute. The only justification for the imposition of the present tax by this section of the Criminal Code is that it seems to me to be a reasonable way of adding this present provision to the statute law to put it in the parimutuel sections of the code where people would naturally expect to find all of the statutory provisions relating to parimutuel betting rather than having to hunt through some other part of the statute law for it. My understanding was that it was suggested-I am not sure whether it was by the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Prince Albert-that the failure to prescribe any penalty in the proposed addition to subsection 3 of section 178 therefore made it defective. But to begin with, as I am sure both these hon. members will recall when the point is mentioned, there is a section in the Criminal Code that provides that where a statute has been broken for which no penalty is provided the punishment shall be so and so.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. I made no such suggestion. I said there is a general section which will be applicable whereby there will be a $500 fine and six months' imprisonment.
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I said I was not sure whether it was the hon. member for Prince Albert or the Leader of the Opposition, so I conclude it must have been the latter. There is one subsection of section 178 of the code which, not being before the hon. members in the amending legislation, may not have come to their attention. But if they had the Criminal Code before them as I now have it they would see that section 178, subsection 6, reads as follows:
The Minister of Agriculture may make regulations with respect to the carrying out of the provisions of paragraphs (e), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) and subsections (3) and (4), and may, by the regulations, impose such fines, not exceeding in any one case $500 for any violation of any such regulations, as he considers necessary to ensure compliance with the regulations.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not cover this situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: It covers all the points raised.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I must say, having had no direct personal familiarity with the matter, that I presume there are regulations in effect at the present time, although I have not seen them.


James Garfield Gardiner: About the very matters raised.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. That would be the place where the penalty would be provided. So that what we have here, as the Leader of the Opposition has rightly said, is a general prohibition of most forms of gambling and a specific exception from this general prohibition of parimutuel betting which is justified upon the principle that we should thereby encourage the breeding of horses. In that connection, as the minister has explained, in order to secure proper and adequate supervision of parimutuel betting not only at the large tracks where the turnover will justify the cost of such supervision but at all tracks all over the country, so that the humble citizen who wants to place a bet at some small race meeting will know he is getting the same kind of square deal that the man at the Woodbine track at Toronto is getting, we have this present provision before us. I cannot see any substantial reason why we should not pass it in the form in which it now appears.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, in what the
Minister of Justice has just said he has in no way dealt with the fact that this introduces a principle which has no parallel in the Criminal Code. His reference to section 178, subsection 6, only emphasizes the difference. It does not satisfactorily explain. What he has pointed out is that under subsection 6 of section 178 there is power to

Criminal Code
impose fines. Of course if such fines were imposed there would be the penalties that flow from the imposition of the fines if they were not paid. That happens all through the code. There is nothing new in that. There has been no place in the code at any time where the code has become a taxing act.
The Minister of Justice nods his assent to the proposition I have put forward. This measure declares for the first time that as the result of a certain provision in the code a tax-and it is nothing else-of a certain percentage of the take from the betting shall be paid to the Receiver General of Canada. I point out this is a new principle. I suggest it is an unsound principle. If you once accept the proposition that half of one per cent can be paid, then for the purposes of revenue there is no reason why at some future time it might not be 5 per cent, 10 per cent or any other figure. It is all very well to say that the half of one per cent is being imposed with some relationship to the anticipated cost. I think the Minister of Justice would be well advised not to support a measure of this kind, which he knows has no parallel, because if he does so he is starting a new concept of the code, that it is not merely a code of laws defining the things that shall not be done to injure society or individuals within society, subject to certain exceptions such as the one we have here, but that in addition there shall be a tax for the service rendered.
If there is to be a tax in this case for the service rendered, there is no reason why there should not be a specific tax for policing, a specific tax for our protection from certain dangers that are dealt with in the code, because unquestionably the setting up of many of these protective features in the act does involve public expenditure. Heretofore that public expenditure has always been part of the system of the administration of justice except in those special cases where federal authorities such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or others have taken their own special field of duties.
I urge the minister to consider carefully how dangerous and unwise it would be to open the door to a new type of disguised taxation, a system of taxation that at some time in the future might very conveniently become the device by which some other government at some other time could say: Well, here is a very easy way for us to raise additional moneys. I may say that within our ranks we have some who are known to be very strong advocates of the encouraging of the breeding of horses of this type. I know there are those within our ranks and doubtless on the other side who have a personal interest, as well as an interest based

on their public responsibility, in the proper organization of these races which have the effect of encouraging the breeding of light horses. We are in hearty agreement with that. We all want to see the small fairs encouraged so that they will be able to do the things that will help them finance their general activities as well as give local encouragement to horse breeding.
But let us not in the name of that encouragement, let us not simply because we all want to make it possible for the small fairs as well as the large racing organizations to have their fair opportunity, introduce a system of taxation which, once started, can expand upon itself and can then be extended to other sections of the act very readily if the principle can be regarded as sound in this particular case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I am not anxious to protract the debate but there are one or two points I should like to make quite clear because I think it is most important that the position of the government should not be misunderstood in relation to them. I am sure that I can agree quite unequivocally and unreservedly with the Leader of the Opposition that the Criminal Code should not be a taxing statute. Were it not for the fact that the very group of sections with which we are dealing here providing for the carrying on of a parimutuel system throughout Canada are in themselves exceptional, I do not think there would be any desire to add this amendment to them. I think that those in Canada who have conscientious, strong views in opposition to gambling in any form, even parimutuel, would not take kindly to the idea that the general body of the taxpayers should have to pay money to supervise the operation of a parimutuel system.
That being so, the Leader of the Opposition's fear that the operation of this amendment is something which can be extended to raise money for the general revenue of the country is, I suggest, and I am sure upon reflection he would agree, that it is quite without foundation. The only way in which we could possibly justify, the only way in which we do justify this deduction of one-half of one per cent of the bets, is merely to defray the necessary costs of the supervision of these parimutuel race meetings. That being so, while I am in complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition on the general principle, I think that the application of a little common sense to the matter with which we are specifically dealing at the moment indicates very clearly that we are trying to provide for the proper supervision of parimutuel betting throughout Canada by those

Canadians who see no harm in it and who like to place a bet. Throughout Canada we provide for such proper supervision, but we provide it properly at their expense. We make it quite clear in this amendment that we are not going to affront those who have strong feelings against gambling, by saying that they have to dig down in their pockets as taxpayers and put up part of the cost of running the parimutuel system of which they disapprove.


Mr. Hodgson:: We have heard a lot about the legal aspects of this bill. I am somewhat like the Minister of National Revenue when it comes to the legal aspects of parliament. I am a babe in the woods, as I think he said he was. I should like to turn to some of the practical aspects of this bill.
In the first place, the Minister of Justice was talking about the supervision of parimutuel betting, and up until now I believe that has been a provincial responsibility. I can say to him that so far as parimutuels are concerned they are supervised by the provincial authorities, because I believe they get about 5 per cent from that source. Provincial officials are at every race meeting to look after their interest in that 5 per cent. In addition, the provincial police are always on hand.
I agree with the Minister of Agriculture that the harness horse needs some help in this country in filling the place it should occupy. On many, many of our farms today the draft horse is giving way to this type of horse, which is big enough to do farm work and also able to enter the light harness show class and run races. In order to make horse raising profitable, you have got to facilitate ways and means for horses to make some money as race horses. If the farmers of this country get well-bred stock, they can show these horses at the fairs as well as race them.
I should like to ask the minister if this amendment was requested by the small fairs. It seems to me that on the one hand you are taking this half of 1 per cent but you are not handing it over to the small fair. You add $40 or $80 per day as the cost of policing or supervising the racing, and you are doing nothing to help these people. You are taking your pound of flesh from that small fair. The minister knows that I have been to him many times seeking help for the small fairs in my riding. I know the same condition exists throughout the whole of Canada in so far as these small fairs are concerned. If, under the terms of this bill, the minister is going to take his pound of flesh, then he should put something in the bill that is going to help these class B and C fairs.
Criminal Code
When you come to the standard-bred horse association and the trotting association of Canada, you find that they are taken care of by qualified members and officers. I believe that this bill will result in a lot of duplication of services. How are you going to protect the collection of your half of 1 per cent? It is suggested the mounted police will be there to supervise some of these small fairs and the parimutuel betting. I believe that today the small fair cannot afford parimutuel betting because there is never enough money coming in. It has been tried many times at small race meetings and small fairs. I cannot see how this bill will help the small fair in that respect because when you come to taking care of all the officials it takes to run a parimutuel machine, you will find there will never be enough money taken in through the deduction of this half of 1 per cent to pay these officials. This bill will not help the small race meetings; it will just take the pound of flesh from them.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to deal with the matter as I understand it, I must admit that I do not know much about wagering at exhibitions or small fairs. I have never put a wager on a horse under this system or any other.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You have missed a lot of fun in your life.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know I have missed a lot of fun in different ways, but I just do not do it. I just want to say it is not a thing on which I am personally informed or able to instruct others.
The Criminal Code provides that certain kinds of betting are illegal, that certain things that are done are illegal in connection with wagering of any kind. Then it goes on to set up a system or indicate that if we are going to have this parimutuel betting, then it must be supervised to see that illegal things are not done. One of the illegal things that might be done is for the association to keep too much of the money that is paid in, and not allow those who are running the horses to get a sufficient proportion of the money that is bet. It is for that reason we set out in the code the provision that the association can take a proportion, that the provinces can take a proportion and so on.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: May I ask the minister whether or not that is totally under the jurisdiction of the provinces in this country?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not when it comes to parimutuels.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is.

Criminal Code


James Garfield Gardiner: No; if you are operating parimutuel betting and have supervision it must be by the Department of Agriculture for the dominion government. The reason this amendment is put forward is that the smaller fairs, as my hon. friend says, cannot afford parimutuel systems. They have just gone along without supervision, and we are asked to prosecute these associations. We say it is the responsibility of the province to prosecute. The buck is passed back and forth between the two and some people say, "Well, they are breaking the law, why are they not prosecuted?" The only reason I can find for their breaking the law is that, as my hon. friend has said, at these smaller places there is not enough money taken in to cover the entire costs. Therefore, the cost is not going to be charged up against the small fair and the small operators of race tracks who cannot afford to pay these costs. It is going to be charged against the whole wagering, and the result will be those wagering at the smaller fair will pay only a small proportion of it. Those wagering at the larger operations will pay the larger proportion. Their reason for being favourable to it, as they expressed it to us, is that they do not want racing to get into bad repute simply because those smaller places are not properly supervised and some people get the idea that parimutuel betting is carried on in larger places just the same as it might be in some places where it is not properly supervised. So they say, have them all properly supervised and take sufficient funds in order to see that they are. That is what we are attempting to do.
Under the present provisions of the Criminal Code the expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of parimutuel betting at race meetings is borne by the racing associations, and they are assessed by means of a fixed rate per supervising officer detailed for each day of racing. We do that now. We put a supervising agent in there, and we have the authority to close the place up at the end of any race or before any race starts if the race is not being carried on in accordance with the regulations which the Minister of Justice referred to a moment ago when he said that our department has the authority to make regulations.
We go on to say that this rate of assessment, which was fixed at $27 per day under the system, required some $200,000 for the cost of administration. I think it was $257,000. The cost of administration was fixed at $27 per day for each supervising officer detailed for the 1953 and 1954 racing seasons. An increase to $40 is necessary to cover the total expenses of the department incurred in connection with race track supervision in
[Mr. Hodgson.j
1954, even though the various supervising details were already below the required strength and all operating costs were cut to a minimum. In carrying out the Criminal Code in its present state it will be necessary to raise the fixed rate of assessment to $40 per day for each supervising officer detailed to cover the entire cost, although even with this increase the department will still be compelled to operate below the desired strength and at restricted expenses, as in 1954. It was found that the $27 per day fixed rate was creating a hardship on the smaller racing associations, fairs and exhibitions, and the increase of this fixed rate to $40 per day will undoubtedly, if enforced, compel smaller associations to discontinue operations.
If the proposed amendment is enacted the greater proportion of the revenue derived from such a method of assessment would be forthcoming from the larger centres at no cost to any racing association. The anticipated increase in revenue would enable this department to carry out proper supervision to provide the necessary services at all racing meetings regardless of size and location.
To answer the question as asked, it simply means that the smaller association will pay only this 2 per cent of the entire amount which is wagered there, and which will be very much below what will be necessary to pay their costs of supervision.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Two per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: One-half of one per cent, rather. The old rate was 2 per cent during the war. One-half of one per cent of the total amount wagered, and the large associations will at the same time pay one-half of one per cent and the necessary funds to conduct proper supervision at the smaller places will be taken from the wagering at the larger operations. That money will be available through estimates of the department and used accordingly.
One thing that I cannot go along with was said by the Leader of the Opposition and also by the hon. member for Prince Albert, namely, that some new principle is being introduced into this. There is no new principle in this.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Justice agrees.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not agree with either of you, then, because the fact is that now we collect $40 from, say, Humboldt under the regulations as they are. We go there and collect $40. If they do not pay the $40 we will close them up. We have that right. If our regulations say they must pay $40, there is a $500 fine under this section if they are

not acting in accordance with the regulations. That is not changed at all. The fact of the matter is that we have practically removed the offence in so far as anybody is concerned who would be liable to anything of that kind. We said we are not going to inflict on you $40; we are not going to inflict a particular amount in that way. We are simply going to say that one-half of one per cent must be taken out of the amount wagered. Then there would be no offence committed by anyone. Now there is an offence if the $40 is not paid. If there is any change it is that there may be an offence now. With this amendment there will be none. The one-half of one per cent will not amount to anything like $40; therefore no new offence is being introduced, or no new element is being introduced into it.
I think that is fully borne out by what is stated in the section referred to by the Minister of Justice. Subsection 2 of section 235 of the old Criminal Code reads as follows:
. . . the Minister of Agriculture if he is not satisfied that a proper proportion of gate receipts and percentages taken from the parimutuel pools is being given in purses to horses taking part in the race meeting,-
And all these things affect it; the amount that you are taking out for this purpose, that purpose and the other purpose, affects the amount that goes to the persons taking part in the race meeting. The section continues: -or that the provisions of this section are not being carried out in good faith by the person or association conducting the race meeting, may at any time order the parimutuel machines to be locked and their operation stopped for such time as he may think fit.
That is done, of course, through those men who are there supervising. In most cases it is a mounted policeman who is sent there to supervise. We send him there and he checks every one of these activities following the races, or he has officials who are sent there under this provision and they report to the police if they are not carrying on as the regulations state. The police has the authority to close it down, to stop the betting. And, as is said in the section that we are proposing to amend, he can stop any race where provisions are not being made for the proper distribution of those funds. Therefore I cannot see that there is any change in principle between what is done now and what is to be done under this. We are simply making sure that at the end of the different races a certain amount of money has been wagered. It is a very simple matter to figure out what one-half of one per cent is of the amount that has come in, and that one-half of one per cent goes to the federal treasury.
The other 7 per cent, which is mentioned in the legislation with regard to Ontario, goes to 50433-3244
Criminal Code
Ontario. A certain amount goes to the association and all the rest of it must be divided among those who race the horses. It is protection of people who raise these horses. If anyone has any doubt that it is not important to have that kind of thing encouraged, may I say this. Every time I want to breed a mare on my farm in Saskatchewan I have to load her into a truck and take her at least 35 miles; that is, if I want to get a cross with a light horse. It is about 35 or 40 miles from my place to Lipton. The closest horse I can find in that part of the country is at Lipton; it is owned by a man who raises horses; and that is true all over the country. The men who are racing horses have these sires. You can take your mares to them and have them bred. That is the reason why the agricultural department is in it at all. We are interested in making certain that there are enough of these horses around to do the necessary breeding that must be done by farmers. Farmers cannot keep sires for light horses the same as someone who is interested in racing, and the result is that the farmers can take their mares there to breed. This act is intended to encourage the keeping of enough horses around the country to be used as sires in order to get the type of horse we want.
I cannot see that there is anything wrong in it. If there is any difference in principle between enforcing the collection of $10 and enforcing the collection of $40, I cannot see it. Now we are out to collect $40, let us say from Humboldt. On the basis of one half of one per cent of the amount that I read here a few moments ago, the total would be $886. One half of one per cent of that amount would be $4.43. We must enforce the collection of that smaller amount under the amendment, and before we had to enforce the collection of the $40. I cannot see that there is any new principle involved. I think the bill should go through as it is. It is not going to do any harm, either to the principles of taxation or to anything else.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am glad the minister mentioned the fair at Humboldt as an example because I have been there on two or three occasions and I know something about it. If you imposed a fine of $500 I wonder whom you would get it from; and if you could not find someone to get it from, who would go to jail-the president or the secretary?


Mr. Charlton:: Not being a lawyer I hesitate to get entangled in this debate. I think there is a misunderstanding here. I agree entirely with the minister when he says that there is justification for trying to help the smaller racing associations. I know there will be

Criminal Code
advantage to the horse breeding associations and to horse breeders across this country. I realize that they are trying to help them out.
Our objection is not on that basis at all, our objection is simply to the fact that the Receiver General of Canada is going to have this one-half of one per cent of what is bet at these races. As the hon. member for Prince Albert and the Leader of the Opposition have mentioned, this is an innovation in connection with the Criminal Code which should not be a taxing statute.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only alternative would be to have the Department of Agriculture collect this money. I objected to doing that on the ground that if I brought such a provision into the house there would be a long debate on the matter. As it is, we collect $40 but we would not be allowed to collect a smaller amount. If I was wrong in that, that might be a way of correcting it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am quite serious in saying that I think the minister was wrong in suggesting that the receiver general get this instead of the Department of Agriculture. The department should collect this and set up a trust fund. If the surplus of that fund got too large the percentage could be reduced or eliminated altogether.


James Garfield Gardiner: If these collections came into the department I would have absolute control over the expenditure of that money. I could do anything that the department advised should be done, up to the total amount.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you know of some of the things your department can do.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have heard a lot of things said about that. I have an idea what would be said if I brought that into the house. As it is, the money will go to the receiver general and if I want any of it I will have to come to the house with an estimate.


John Alpheus Charlton: The same thing would be true the other way. It would appear in the estimates of the minister's department and he would have to come to the house and state where that money had gone.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only if it comes in to the receiver general.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would you not have to provide it by a vote?


John Alpheus Charlton: In 1945 the dominion government returned this taxing field to the provinces and now they are going back into it by collecting one-half of one per cent of the amounts wagered. As the Leader of the Opposition just said, there is nothing to stop

them raising it to 5 per cent or 10 per cent. By a simple amendment to the act it can be changed to anything.
I suggest that the department should collect this money and retain it in a trust fund from which costs would be taken. If the surplus got too large, either you could eliminate the assessment for a few years until the fund got back to normal, or the percentage could be reduced to one-quarter of one per cent. That would eliminate all this trouble. I can understand why this is obnoxious to some hon. members in the house who realize that it is an innovation in connection with the Criminal Code. Surely the Minister of Justice would have something to say on this.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I can add anything to what I have said already. I think everything has been said that should be said and we might just as well settle it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Will any more officials be required to administer this, or will it be done by the mounted police?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will not need any more officials. The supervision out in the country is done by the mounted police and unless it is necessary to have a plain-clothes man go some place to check up something, they would handle it. It is indicated here that the cost of supervision has been $27 a day, but with an indicated daily cost of $40 there may be some new help used.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You think that occasions of that kind will be few and far between?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, my remarks at this time are directed chiefly to the Minister of Justice. This is one occasion when I think we can agree that what we are concerned with is the encouragement of the small fair or other meeting place where races of this kind are held. I think everyone will agree that any method of supervision of the particular exceptions to the Criminal Code in connection with the prohibition of betting and gambling should not discourage the operation of that exception in those smaller fairs where these races constitute an important part of the activities.
If there is one place where the breeding of light horses will be encouraged it is in the smaller places where these races are held. That is highly desirable, and it is also highly desirable that appreciation of the light horse and interest in the light horse be created by races of this kind. It is not only the breeding of the light horses that is important. The breeding of the light horses will be encouraged if the general public understands the value of the light horses. For that reason we all agree that anything that

is done to make it easier for the small fairs to operate within the exceptions provided by the Criminal Code should be done as long as it is consistent with the general application of the Criminal Code and the general enforcement. Now let us see what the Minister of Agriculture has really said. He has told us that this change will not involve the appointment of any additional staff.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had not intended to say it will not require the appointment of any additional staff.


George Alexander Drew: At least the impression was given that it would certainly not involve the appointment of any substantial number. The minister was careful to point out that in the rural areas the enforcement in the ordinary course of events would be by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We must remember that the argument that is being presented to us is in regard to those small places. Therefore on the basis of the minister's own argument the enforcement is going to fall mainly on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a force maintained by the government for the general supervision of our laws and for carrying out police duties related to federal legislation. That being the case, I suggest to the Minister of Justice that in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture he consider the advisability of following an entirely different course than is suggested here.
It seems to me that the new amendment introducing for the very first time since confederation the principle of taxation under the Criminal Code is the outgrowth of something that perhaps never should have been done in the first instance. There were sections that prohibited gambling and betting and various activities, which would have prevented and did prevent the operation until these amendments were made in the first place of the parimutuel system of betting. Then under the section which it is now proposed to amend there was a provision that parimutuel betting could be carried on where it was authorized by the government and where there was a certain type of supervision. We are told that in the rural areas, where this is most important from the point of view of the present discussion, it will be done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is not possible that the first mistake was the insertion in the sections of the provision that this should be done at the expense of the association? If this is to be done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, why have it at the expense of the association at all? Why not let the Royal Canadian Mounted Police carry out these
Criminal Code
duties just as they carry out other duties in relation to other laws passed by the dominion government? Why would it not be just as well to drop this amendment?
May I ask both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice to look carefully at the effect of my suggestion. If they dropped the proposal to have the present amendment adopted and, in the place of that, introduced an amending section which would contain any specific provisions they saw fit in regard to the number of race heats permitted and so on, but, in so far as this question of the cost is concerned, deleted the words in the old section, "at the expense of the association", then they would leave the section so that there would be permission to carry on these activities under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture. As has been pointed out by the minister, this will be mainly done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are already engaged for the general service of the government in the enforcement of our law.
This is not a case of suggesting any reckless expenditures of money. It is true that the estimated cost of the supervision that has been carried on is something in excess of $200,000. The government has raised many amendments to the Criminal Code that have automatically imposed an expense of a much larger sum of money. We have all supported those amendments in the belief that they were good amendments and that the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or other enforcement bodies should be extended to those activities. I know that what happens here will depend upon the agreement or otherwise of the government, represented in this case by the Minister of Agriculture as the minister piloting this act and the Minister of Justice as the minister mainly responsible for the interpretation and, in the ordinary course of events, the Criminal Code.
Now I leave the situation there. I believe you will be doing the thing that would most help the small fairs and you will be avoiding anything in the way of introduction of an unsatisfactory principle, which is an extension of the beginning that was made by putting the cost on the fairs themselves, if you drop this part of the amendment and bring in an amending section which we will approve, which would strike out the words "at the expense of the association" from the existing section. If the minister is prepared to consider that seriously, then this would be an appropriate point to call it one o'clock and let the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice consider this. We will give immediate agreement to that proposal,

Criminal Code
and I think it is consistent with all our law enforcement. The mounted police are there. That will avoid any problem of appointing new officials to go out and collect that money, and it will be consistent with the way in which we bring in new duties to the mounted police from time to time by the introduction of new laws.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I just say a word, Mr. Chairman? The difficulty with that is that altogether too much responsibility is being put on the mounted police. The mounted police who are sent out to do this work are specially trained to do it and they are sent out from time to time; but there must be a staff there, and a much larger staff at the bigger race meetings than at the smaller. It is necessary to have accountants. We have Mr. Higginson here at the centre in Ottawa, who administers the whole thing, and it is civilians in those offices who check everything that goes through. For instance, the amount paid on each horse has to be determined.


An hon. Member:: That is done by a machine now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but an individual has to be there checking the machines.


John George Diefenbaker: How large is the staff?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot give the exact figures, but there needs to be a considerable staff. That staff reports to the police. The reason police are used is that everyone knows that a red coat at a place of that kind is looked upon as just as important as he is around this building. They take it that, if that man is there, as soon as he gets the information that the law has been broken, the race meeting will be stopped by him. They are experts on that. It will be necessary perhaps at some places to put on more staff than at present, and the reason it is not there now is that they cannot pay the cost. Our chief reason is that we do not wish to be accused of not prosecuting people who ought to be prosecuted when there is a way of providing for the operation to go on legally without any fear of prosecution at all. As long as it is operated properly, there is no prosecution.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that not one word that I have said would produce a result that would limit in any way the opportunity for the government, through the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Justice, to enforce the laws. I merely point out that if you go back to the section as it now is- dealing with the question of cost of supervision-and strike out the words that it shall be at the cost of the association, these duties

will be carried out, whether by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the other staff which, as the minister has pointed out, is not a large staff although it is a staff that must be employed, and you will be doing the best thing you possibly could for the small fairs. You will be removing the cost of supervision. You will not merely be helping the fairs more than you are helping them now by removing any cost of this kind and avoiding this special bookkeeping that would be involved in this procedure and the special supervision that would be involved in it- which in itself is an additional cost-but you would simply be absorbing one of the ordinary cases of the cost of government supervision. I am going to leave the matter there with the suggestion that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice consider this suggestion, and ask that we call it one o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before the hon. gentleman takes his seat would he permit a question so that we may understand what his suggestion really is?


George Alexander Drew: Surely.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that we should place upon the backs of the general body of the taxpayers the costs of supervising the parimutuel system at the Woodbine track in Toronto, or at the tracks in Winnipeg or in Montreal or Vancouver-in other words the large operations-or is he merely suggesting that they should pay for the supervision of the small race meets?


George Alexander Drew: I am sure the minister knows perfectly well that the cost of supervision of the Woodbine track and of these other tracks is borne almost entirely by the provincial governments. Federal government officials are there but they are just there for the purpose of seeing that the general duties are carried out. The fact is that one way in which they could avoid the necessity for those officials being there at all except for the purpose of supervising the method would be to carry out my suggestion of removing the words I have indicated.
May I just deal with one point that was made a moment ago to the effect that the general public might not want to share the responsibility in paying what it costs to enforce the law in connection with the operation of race tracks because they perhaps do not like racing. I know hon members opposite who do not drink, and I assume it is because they do not like to drink; but nevertheless they pay their share of taxes for the enforcement of the liquor laws, whether federal or provincial.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; they do.


James Garfield Gardiner: The man who drinks pays more taxes than anybody else; he pays 300 per cent more, which is more than the cost of administration.


George Alexander Drew: There is no doubt about that. Also the man who bets at the race track at fairs pays far the largest share. As a matter of fact, I think his proportionate share is larger than that paid by the man who drinks. But the fact remains that there are law-enforcement officers all over this country who are maintained at the cost of the general taxpayers and who are enforcing our liquor laws. I only mention that fact because of the ingenious suggestion that perhaps that part of the public which does not like race track betting anyway would not like to feel that any money was going out of their pockets for this enforcement. The suggestion I have made is consistent with the general application of the Criminal Code and I suggest that it be considered. If it is considered, we can dispose of this matter in a very few minutes. We know that the government is going to be able to pass this legislation. I am putting this suggestion forward with the idea that it would be a thing that would help these small race tracks better than anything else.


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No. One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


William Alfred Robinson: When the committee rose at one o'clock we had been considering clause 1. Shall this clause carry?


George Alexander Drew: No. Once again I would point out that the minister has based the whole argument on the desire to help the smaller fairs and to encourage them to carry on races so that in that way there will be an inducement to more people to breed the light type of horse. The way in which that will best be done is to relieve these fairs of any expense for supervision, as most people are who get enforcement or supervision of various kinds. If that were done it would simply be a continuance of a practice that applies in almost every other case. The minister would thereby be encouraging the fairs and removing a practice which could be extended in a way that would be very unsatisfactory. I am referring to the system of taxing under the Criminal Code. I had hoped the minister might have given favourable consideration to that proposal.
Criminal Code


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition before lunch was that the words "at the expense of the association" in the legislation as it now reads be struck out, and that the proposal which has been made to amend the legislation should also be abandoned. The legislation as it now stands is set out on the righthand sheet of the bill and the words "at the expense of the association" are there. They have been struck out in the amendment and then we have added the latter part reading:
. . . and the person or association conducting a race meeting shall pay to the Receiver General of Canada one-half of one per cent of the total amount of bets made through the agency of a parimutuel system operated under such supervision, on any race run at such meeting.
If you take both of those out, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, it would simply be a matter of taking money out of the general taxation across the country and spending whatever had to be spent in order to give the service required. The suggestion is that in that way we could give whatever supervision we wished at the small fairs or small racing meets and also give supervision at the larger meets such as those held in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and elsewhere, and thus charge the whole thing up to the general taxes of the country.
I quite agree that the supervision might be just as good under the one system as under the other, but I do think we would be back into the same kind of discussion we had when the legislation was before the house in its present form years ago. It will be remembered that the person who was minister of justice years ago was a very strong opponent of horse racing and betting of every kind. The legislation was tightened up a great deal at that time and the one exception in the tightening up was in instituting proper supervision of parimutuels and then making those who wager pay the costs. We do not think it is going to be helpful so far as the question of administration of a matter of this kind is concerned to restore it to the position it was in before and ask taxpayers generally, whether or not they believe in racing, to pay the costs of supervision in order to see to it that the law is carried out.
We think it is better that the costs should be charged against the wagers that are made, and therefore we are opposed to doing these two things which would make it absolutely certain that everything would be charged against the general tax rates of the country. I suggest that the figures I produced this morning indicate what that would mean. The costs of the Ontario Jockey Club at Woodbine park, Toronto, are $240 compared with total

Criminal Code
wagering of $304,820, whereas the cost at Humboldt is $40 compared with total wager-ings of $886.
As I understand the suggestion, it is that instead of taking $240 and a little more from Woodbine park we would take the money out of the general taxes, and I do not think that is preferable to what is proposed in the bill. I think it is better to leave the proposal as it is so that the larger race meetings will pay a greater amount than they are now and the smaller ones will pay less. As a matter of fact, the charge is not now made directly against the association. The charge is taken out in the same way that all other charges are. According to the legislation a certain amount is taken out for provincial taxes, a certain amount is taken out to pay prizes and a certain amount is taken out to take care of the expenses of the association. All this proposal means is that another small amount will be taken out of the total wager-ings in order to level out the costs over the whole system so that the small race meet will pay less and the big race meet will pay more.
The whole thing is based on the idea that the supervision is a good thing. People come to see me complaining about things that may happen, and no matter in what way they are interested, whether they are interested because they wager, whether they are interested because they own horses, whether they are interested because they own a race track, they all say the supervision is a good thing. They all want it carried on just as effectively as it has been carried on. They all say they would not like to see themselves in the position where it was carried on under any other system, that this is the best system we have ever had. They say that they want to see the same supervision at every point where racing is carried on under the parimutuel system. They want to see supervision there and therefore they are prepared to see to it that some of the money wagered should go toward that purpose rather than for other purposes. Now, that is all the bill means, and that is all that is in it. I do not see how it can be made any better, and I am suggesting we pass it as it is.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to extend the argument because it is obvious the minister has made up his mind that he will not withdraw the measure which is now before us. I recognize that he will receive the support of the majority on the government side. I do not want to let this pass, however, with any acceptance of the completely erroneous arguments the minister has made once more in support of this measure.

In the first place, he says there might be objection on the part of those who do not believe in betting if part of their tax money went into supervision. There is going to be supervision in any event. We want supervision just as much as anybody else does. We want to see that it is made possible for this operation to take place. Nothing that I have suggested would in any way diminish either supervision or the opportunity to carry on these races. In fact, what I suggest would encourage the races. But I am interested in his repetition of the proposition that those who are opposed to betting or race meetings may object to having their tax money go towards supervision of this operation.
I can only point out that the hon. member for Fort William, for example, certainly would not favour the distribution of alcohol or the facilitation of that. Nevertheless, part of his tax money is going into the salaries of the supervisors who are right at the distilleries and breweries; that is coming out of the general taxpayers' money as well as the cost of the supervision of the liquor laws which is carried on by the police and others. The cost of all this is paid for out of the taxpayers' money, so that argument is not sound. It is denied by the kind of supervision there is of these other activities.
I simply point out that there is the introduction here of a wrong principle into the Criminal Code. I had hoped that would have been dropped, and that the method would have been employed which is adopted in other similar cases. I point out also that there is no suggestion that the expenses are heavy. In any event, you are only dealing with the net expenses because what is going to be done here is going to mean the employment of still more people in respect of handling these funds, so that actually the net difference is not going to be so very great after all. The minister has said he prefers this, so I shall let the matter stand there.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is probably one thing the minister can clear up. This morning the minister said the cost would be something over $200,000. It is my impression that the provincial government pays for the actual administration of these moneys taken in on parimutuel betting. The minister referred also to the fact that all these accountants had to be hired. It is my understanding these accountants are hired by the provincial governments to protect their rights at these race tracks, and the only thing the dominion government would be called upon to do would be to have a mounted policeman there. Then, if these people doing the accounting work suggested there was anything wrong, they could apply to the mounted policemen to have the race stopped.

If I am wrong, I wish the minister would tell me, but I think his estimate of expenditures under this measure should be limited. When the mounted police are actually policing all our other criminal laws, why is this different?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was wrong in one thing this morning when I was being questioned by the hon. member as to whether or not there would be any more officials. I hesitated to say that there would not be more, but upon inquiry during the lunch hour I found that what my hon. friend has just said is, in large measure, correct. We do not have accountants. This morning someone said the machines did the work. Perhaps some hon. members are a little closer to racing than I am, but I knew it was calculated in some way. It is mostly calculated by the machines. One can take the record off the machines, and the check is pretty well taken care of. The men we send there to supervise are mounted policemen but these mounted policemen are specially trained to take these figures off and make calculations quickly in order to determine whether or not the act is being carried out. It is, therefore, quite correct to say that practically all of this supervision at the races is done by the mounted policemen. It is only a matter of sending two, three or half a dozen to the big meetings and one or two to the smaller ones in so far as that cost is concerned.
I understand, too, that someone asked why that was not paid in the ordinary way. My understanding of it is that the funds which are paid are paid to the Department of Justice under whom the mounted police is operated. Therefore, the cost of the system right across the country is paid from this money which is collected out of the wager-ings, either by the method that is now employed at so much per day for each individual or the method which will be employed under this bill of having the half of one per cent calculated at the same time everything else is calculated. This sum would then go to the government instead of going anywhere else. In so far as the provinces are concerned, it is true that they do cover certain expenditures, and the total amount is worked out as well as the amount that can be collected. As I stated this morning, Ontario takes 7 per cent and some of the other provinces take 5 per cent. One province, I think it is British Columbia, takes as much as 12 per cent but we have no quarrel with that. We simply say that this half of one per cent will come here and we will then get estimates from this 50433-325
Judges Act
house from time to time covering the amount we are to spend in enforcing this measure.


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


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 505, to amend the Judges Act, and the judicature provisions of the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Salaries of judges of Supreme Court of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose to make any extended remarks on this clause, but the comment I shall make on clause 1 applies equally to clause 2 and to part of clause 3 because, as I indicated when we were at the resolution stage, we feel that before salaries are increased by the amount of $2,500 a year cognizance should be taken of what these salaries are at the present time. In view of the fact that most of the salaries under review in this legislation range at the present time from $14,400 up to $25,000 we feel that no increase in those salaries is necessary. I have obviously and intentionally omitted in that reference the group of county court judges whose present salary is $8,000 because, as I indicated yesterday, we feel that an upward adjustment of that salary is in order.
I ask again that hon. members take into consideration the additional monetary advantage, not to mention the other advantages, that our judges enjoy in the matter of their generous non-contributory pension provisions. I shall have something more to say about that when we reach the appropriate clauses of the bill. At the moment I wish to indicate that, in the view of my colleagues in this group, we feel that salaries ranging from $14,400 a year to $25,000 a year do not need to be increased.
I recognize that there are individuals who draw larger salaries than these. Indeed, there are those in this house, namely, the cabinet

Judges Act
ministers, who draw larger salaries, but they do not have the same security of tenure that the judges do. When a judge gets there, if he stays on good behaviour, he is there for life. So far as the cabinet ministers are concerned, we are doing our best to put them out of a job. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I wish to indicate my opposition to clause 1 and clause 2 of the bill. I am also opposed to that part of clause 3 which deals with salaries of $14,400 up. I may add that that view is the view of my colleagues.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
(Translation) ;


Mr. Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues in the house, as well as yourself, will be indulgent with me if, in saying a few words, I thereby delay prorogation of this session, something that can be legitimately longed for at this time of the year. I would have liked to set an example by remaining silent, but I deem it my duty as a member of the house and as a lawyer to stress the reasons and the motives likely to show the soundness and desirability of this step taken by our government, to ensure better administration of justice in Canada.
I shall try to be as brief, concise and logical as possible. May I say that I am not taking part in this debate to foster the interests of any particular group of society with which I am associated professionally. On this occasion I am not moved by any personal interest, either direct or indirect. On the contrary, in expressing my humble opinion, my sole purpose is to avail myself of a prerogative dear to all people interested in promoting the common weal.
Need I point out, Mr. Chairman, that by its constitution, the state has three essential powers to ensure its smooth administration in peace, order and justice. These are legislative power, executive power and judicial power.
The matter before the house today deals with this latter power, which is essential to the Canadian nation. It should not be brushed aside inconsiderately, or still less for some unavowable or unavowed motives, which would give rise, among the public, to sophistical arguments, provoke a clash between classes, disrupt social order and do irreparable damage to society itself. The duty of those who, like us, are members of the legislative power, is not to jeopardize public order but rather to foster the common good.

Society comes from God, like man himself and all other beings in the universe. It is governed by infallible and imprescriptible laws which cannot be violated without upsetting established order. Nor is society possible without an efficient authority capable of enforcing respect for the rights of the individual and of turning the collective will towards the pursuit of the same ideal; otherwise it would mean anarchy and the arbiters of nations could not administer justice.
But this authority which, by its laws, defines the rights of individuals is not allpowerful. It has its limits. It would be useless to tell a citizen that, in certain circumstances, he can do as he likes if others are not bound to respect his right. The legislator must ensure, by penalties, the exercise of individual rights; otherwise the law would fail of its purpose and would no longer be a principle of order. This is where justice comes in. Without this combined protection and coercion, the strong would crush the weak and no society would be possible.
We know that there are three kinds of justice: commutative, distributive and legal.
Commutative justice compels the individual to respect the rights of others. Distributive justice apportions the obligations, favours, honours and obligations of the members of society. As for legal justice, according to St. Thomas, the evangelic doctor, "It governs the relations of individuals with society, setting them in order and adjusting them for the common good. It is legal justice which leads good citizens into accepting the sacrifices necessary to the common good while, at the same time, it inspires statesmen with zeal and directs them in their solicitude for all that may contribute to it."
Justice is therefore the bulwark of the citizen's liberty, as there can be no efficient justice without freedom and no real freedom in society without justice. Justice serves mankind. It teaches that right takes precedence over power. Its administration is entrusted to the bench whose members must set themselves as "the echo of the law" and must identify themselves with the ideal pursued by the legislator, "for justice means to give to each his own." At all times and in every country, artists have personified justice as holding scales in her hand and armed with a sword, a symbol of peace, wealth and happiness. Justice and peace go hand in hand.
Without justice, there is confusion in law, and without law there can be no order. Can peace, abundance and happiness prevail without order?

Administering justice in this world is a great and noble undertaking. The work of a judge is a heavy responsibility, and it is often extremely difficult to perform. It nevertheless remains sublime since a judge's decision is a manifestation of that divine will of which human law is the expression. Even more than that, justice, as administered by the courts, is the "guardian and servant of charity". There can be no charity in disorder and it is to justice that we must look for the establishment and maintenance of order.
Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to a discussion of the subject matter of the bill which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has had the courage and the goodness to submit to this house, I have deemed it my duty to set out the basis of my argument and to remind hon. members briefly of the division of power in the state and of the part that authority plays in society, to define justice, its necessity in this world and its inseparability from charity, order and peace. All this I have done in order to emphasize the importance of the matter now under consideration and the seriousness of our responsibilities in this connection.
Integrity, independence and firmness, qualities which those amenable to justice require of magistrates, imply preparation, training, culture, improvement and work on the part of the latter. Any honest man, in these times when so much feverish activity is devoted to the acquisition of wealth, must feel relieved to know that we still can find unselfish men, of unquestioned knowledge and erudition who, for a nominal and so far inadequate salary, are willing to spend the rest of their life in administering justice in an impartial way. Their conscience is a safeguard for this country and a guarantee that the rule of law will be upheld. If incompetence must not endanger the common good, neither must this common good be endangered by financial insecurity.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to give my humble support to this bill. It is well known that in Canada today, and especially in the province of Quebec where I live, the number of judges is inadequate, as well as their salary. I congratulate the Minister of Justice for his determination to improve the condition of those under his "jurisdiction" and I do hope that the competent authorities will undertake to improve the fate of the others and to increase the judiciary.
No one will deny that our natural resources are undergoing such an extraordinary development that, while the population is growing, it tends to converge more and more 50433-325J
Judges Act
towards the cities. So it is, for instance, that 50 years ago the population of the province of Quebec did not exceed 1,648,898 and the number of judges of the superior court was 32. In 1952, the population had reached 4,174,000 but the number of judges had been increased to 46 only.
At the time, as we can see, the population increased by 153 per cent while the number of judges increased by only 31 per cent. And, of course, the Quebec population has kept on increasing these last three years, but the same cannot be said for the number of judges. It can be logically inferred that the number and the importance of disputes at law 'have greatly increased and that, consequently, the work and the responsibilities of the judiciary have also increased.
But that is not all. Fifty years ago the salary of judges of the superior courts and the queen's bench courts in the province of Quebec was $5,000 a year, and income tax had not yet been introduced. Today, apart from taxes and increased work, the cost of living is more than four times what it was, so that in fact our judges are in a position where their predecessors at the turn of the century were twice as well off as they. However, comparisons are generally futile. And yet, may I be allowed to add that it is high time that some consideration was given to the matter of putting the salaries of the judiciary on an equal basis with those of the heads of large commercial firms, whether public or private, without mentioning the special privileges that are benefiting the latter. Society does not attach so much importance to the number of rulings as to the wisdom of these rulings. On the other hand, wisdom can only come from thought, which is only possible in calm, serene and secure surroundings. And in order to be free from material worry, the judiciary must get fair salaries. According to some author "whoever in this world does a superior job is a superior man."
This fair salary, Mr. Chairman, is the basis of the satisfactory operation of justice, which is indispensable to the domestic security of nations and to their stability. We all have a part to play in the search for our common welfare and to that end we must be the friends of the law which, for society, is at the root of all order, peace, prosperity and happiness.
(Text):


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words on clause 1 in keeping with what I said yesterday. At that time I made the statement that I believed the present scale of salaries for judges was

Judges Act
quite in keeping with the salaries paid to those in the public service of Canada. I admit that it is necessary that we have judges in this country with wide training and experience, and after listening to some of the legal arguments advanced in this house I am more convinced than ever that such is the case.
However, let us look at what some of these appointments carry with them. I shall refer only to those in the lowest bracket, receiving $8,000 a year. They are in receipt of expense allowances of from $12 to $15 per day while on duty. They are in receipt of pensions on a non-contributory basis, with the pension continuing to the widow should she survive. On top of that there is a certain degree of permanency; unless there is some misbehaviour on their part they are assured of a permanent position until they reach the age of 75 years.
So, considering everything, we are still convinced that the scale of salaries paid to our judges is in keeping with salaries paid to those in the public service of Canada. Therefore at this time we are still expressing our opposition to any increases in salaries.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to criticize or oppose increases in salaries because I think they are a sign and symbol which is all to the good for the general pride and national well-being of Canada. However, in British Columbia we have what is largely a package deal. There is to be a new appointment to the appellate court and an additional appointment to the supreme court. Because of our increasing population there is considerable additional litigation in our courts.
However, if my memory serves me correctly these judges receive an additional $1,500 or $1,600 from the provincial administration, which brings up their salaries by that amount. On top of that, as has been mentioned by several hon. members, they come under a non-contributory pension scheme. Further, if they are away from their circuits in some other part of the province they are paid their expenses for such time as they are away. It seems to me that under such circumstances a flat increase of $2,500 is unjustified.
Truly I am quite in sympathy with the district court judges, and I am desirous of seeing their salaries increased by the amount set out in the bill, $2,500. I understand that here in the province of Ontario the district court judge is possibly treated with more respect than is the queen's bench judge. I do not know about that, but that is what I hear. He becomes more or less a squire

in the community, and many of the people passing him in the street doff their hats and address him as "Judge".
In British Columbia, the province from which I happen to come, that condition does not prevail. The supreme court judge there is, I would say, regarded at least on an equal basis with the district court judge, if not above him. In my experience of practically 30 years of residence in British Columbia, I do not know of any potential judicial appointments where the Minister of Justice had to twist anybody's arm to get him to accept. I do not think conditions will prevail in the next few years which will cause that situation to come about. As a matter of fact I can think of several dozen lawyers right now in British Columbia who would practically give their right arms to become judges of the supreme court, to say nothing of the appellate division.
In view of the situation it seems to me, when they are now getting $14,400 a year, this increase is not required. It is not required as far as their financial status in the community is concerned, and it is not required as far as the ability of the Minister of Justice to secure additional appointments to the bench is concerned. I noticed that this morning's Globe and Mail takes the government to task because the suggested increase is not as much as it should be. The Globe and Mail states that it should be on a percentage basis and, additionally, that it should be 50 per cent over and above the increase being given at the present time.
There is another factor that comes into this picture. Some of the learned judges of the supreme court will tell you that they have to live a very isolated existence. Maybe they do. Truly they cannot be seen at gatherings with men and women who may be going to appear before them the following morning on criminal charges; but by and large the life of a supreme court justice in any province of Canada is one that almost anyone in this house would rather enjoy.
As far as I personally am concerned I feel that this additional increase is not justified at this time. As I said, my objections, unfortunately, come into the category of a parcel deal. I am in favour of the district court judge getting this increase but, for those learned gentlemen from the supreme court up through the exchequer court to the Supreme Court of Canada, I cannot see that we are justified in making this increase at this time.
I believe I am right in saying that as far as Canada is concerned, the man who should be paid the highest salary in this country is the Prime Minister. The responsibilities of his office and the relationship he has to maintain

with all the people in Canada in my opinion justify an increase to far above what the Prime Minister is now receiving in indemnity or salary from the people of Canada. Consequently, in conclusion, though I have expressed my lack of desire to oppose increases in salaries in all vocations of life, I feel that this increase at this time is quite unjustified, and I would hope the government might reconsider this package deal. They should certainly give the district court judges an increase, but when it comes to the present holders of other judicial positions in the superior courts of Canada, we could well drop the increase at this time.


Mr. Knight:: I should like to endorse what has already been stated as the position of this group by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre. As a matter of fact I should like to endorse what has just been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, whose arguments were very logical. Let me say in the first place that I believe the proposed increases would make too great a gap between the salaries of judges and the salary of the average citizen of this country.
I am well aware of the arguments that could be advanced against that statement. I shall be told that a judge is not an ordinary citizen of the country. But, after all, it is the average citizen of this country who has to pay his taxes in order that these salaries may be paid. Like the gentleman whom I have already mentioned, I have no objection to the $2,500 increase in the salaries of those who are now in receipt of $8,000.
The argument has been advanced that the higher salaries are necessary for the better administration of justice. That argument does not appeal to me at all. To say that honesty and integrity can be preserved only by paying higher salaries to the very fine men who are judges at the present time is an allegation which certainly I personally am not prepared to make, though it has been advanced as an argument for the granting of such increases.
I have before me a list of the present salaries and a list of the salary increases as proposed by this bill. I shall not take the highest bracket, but I shall take the bracket with the present salary of $20,000. The new salary proposed by this bill is $22,500, and I notice that across from that the pension scale which is $10,666 for the judge himself and $3,555 for his widow. I understand that according to the legislation now on the order paper the $10,666 in this particular case would not be reduced in order to give the widow
Judges Act
a greater pension. If this judge were unfortunate enough to lose his wife he still would be entitled, after remarriage, to a pension of $10,666.
I am not going to review the other figures, though I have them before me, except to mention the last one, which is $8,000. I think it might be reasonably raised to the $10,500 stated in the legislation; and even here there is a corresponding rather satisfactory pension of $5,333 for the man himself, with the widow's pension being $1,777. For these reasons I am prepared to oppose the legislation, except the last part with regard to the district court judges.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the members of the House of Commons can complain that I have inflicted upon them any great amount of oratory in connection with the passage of this bill. I said at the resolution stage that I thought the bill was self-explanatory and self-justifying.
However, in view of the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Saskatoon, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard I think that I would not be discharging my duty as Minister of Justice if I did not point out certain facts which, it seems to me, should be upon the record if it is to be a well-balanced one.
What we are dealing with here is our endeavour to maintain, under present modern-day conditions, courts well staffed with competent judges. We all know that, as the years go by, the business of individuals, corporations, provincial governments and federal governments all grows in complexity and importance and that the amounts of money involved increase. The conduct of that business-whether it be the management of private concerns or corporations, or of municipalities, or of provincial governments or of the federal government-requires a wider knowledge and greater talent, training and skill. This, of course, is likewise true of the litigation which arises in the conduct of that business.
From the remarks that have been made by each one of the four hon. members to whom I have referred it is clear that they have a most inadequate comprehension of the qualities which a top-grade counsel must possess. From experience in dealing with such men I suggest to them that in order that a man be a top-grade counsel he must, first of all, possess a mind which is penetrating and powerful not only within the confines of his own study, but he must be able

Judges Act
public life. I want to make a flat contradiction of that statement. If the hon. member had taken the pains to examine the facts before he made the statement he would have found that even after these proposed increases go into effect there will be a number of deputy ministers in the service who will still be getting more money than a supreme court judge. To name them, they are the deputy ministers of agriculture, external affairs, finance, justice, national defence, trade and commerce, and the clerk of the privy council. I say, sir, that, properly discharged by a competent man, the duties of a judge of the high court are at least as important in our society as those of the deputy ministers I have named.
I think that is all I have to say upon these points that have been raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: First of all I want to indicate my pleasure at the interest the Minister of Justice has shown in the problem created by rising prices. I hope he will pass that interest along to his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who does not seem to realize what that problem means to the old age pensioners of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order nothing, Mr. Chairman; it is not only-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You mean you do not care anything for order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not only a valid argument, but it is relevant to the question we are discussing, as to whether we should be making these increases at this time. I do not blame the Minister of Justice for finding a good quotation, if he can, from a man for whom I have the greatest of respect, Mr. Clement Attlee, the leader of the Labour party of the United Kingdom. But I suggest there are several differences between the situation there and the situation here which have a bearing on the picture. I understand, for example, that there is a rigid line drawn in the United Kingdom between barristers and solicitors, and that it is members of one of the groups who move up into the position of judges, and not members of the other.
Then the Minister of Justice likes to tell us, when he is pinch-hitting for the Minister of Finance, that income tax rates are much higher in the United Kingdom than they are here, and particularly in the higher brackets. I have heard the same Mr. Attlee tell the story of how little was taken in income tax years ago in the United Kingdom, and how the picture now is completely reversed whereby there are some individuals in the United
[Mr. Garson.l
Kingdom today who have left the amount they paid in income tax some years ago.
I agree, as the minister does, with the contention of Mr. Attlee that we should be paying the right remuneration to our judges. It is our contention that in the light of our scales of salaries, in the light of the pension privileges, and in the light of the prestige enjoyed by these people, salaries of $14,400 up to $25,000 per year are nearer the correct figure we should be paying than would be the higher figures proposed in this bill. The minister is aware of the fact-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: I say we should decide the scale in Canada on the basis of the Canadian situation, not on the basis of the situation in other countries. No one is more apt to make that same argument than the minister and his colleagues.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend this question. Does he think that figure of $14,400 for superior court judges in Canada at the present time compares favourably with that of the deputy minister of agriculture at $17,500?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The responsibility of the deputy minister of agriculture is that of the man who is at the head of a department. The responsibility of these judges is that of a group of judges across the country. I do not think a comparison of that kind can be made. I might ask the minister a similar question. What does he think of the fact that the salary of the Prime Minister is less than the salary of the president of Canadian National Railways? Which one does he think has the greater responsibility in this country, and which one does he think should have the greater salary?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would be delighted to answer that question. Because of the fact that men in the public service, civil servants, politicians and judges, are paid on a uniformly lower scale than those in commercial life, the Prime Minister is paid a lesser amount than the president of the Canadian National Railways. I entirely agree with the hon. member that, ideally, he should be paid very much more. The question I am asking him is as to two persons, both engaged in the public service. When he says that one has the

responsibility of the head of a department, he should remember that the other man also has the responsibility of protecting our freedom and of standing out against the executive if necessary. What surprises me more than anything else in this debate is that the members of the opposition, who should be more interested than anyone else in protecting the position of the judges in the land, are the ones who are attacking it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I object. Surely the minister has reached the end of his argument when he says we are attacking judges, or that we are attacking those who are defending our freedom. I say we do not think a price tag should be put on this sort of thing. I have already mentioned the Prime Minister and I will mention as well his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If those two gentlemen had stayed out of politics and remained in private life, I believe everyone agrees they would be making far more money than they are today. Was it a price tag that brought them into parliament? Is it a price tag that keeps them here? It is the concept of service that keeps them here, whether or not we agree with the form of service they are rendering. I give them both full credit for the fact that they are prepared to take less than they might make otherwise, in rendering what they believe to be a service to the country.
I think the same thing applies to our judges. I am not asking that the judges work for nothing. I am not criticizing them. I have the highest regard for them. I had at least one very interesting experience for three days before a judge of one of the superior courts of this country. I remember the experience with a great deal of pleasure, and indeed it was an education that I enjoyed greatly. I know a number of judges personally, and my respect for them is very high. But I submit it is not going to make the difference between getting or not getting these high-priced lawyers-that is apparently the mark of high calibre-by increasing these salaries to the figures suggested.
The Minister of Justice is aware of the fact that some time soon, because of a recent death, he is going to have to make an appointment to the position of chief justice of the supreme court of British Columbia. I do not know whether he makes it or recommends it, but at any rate he has something to do with it. I ask him, would he have any more difficulty getting a thoroughly suitable person for that job at $16,000 a year than he would at $18,500?
The minister nods his head. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard does
Judges Act
not agree with him. I am sure he agrees with me that at $16,000 a year there are plenty of lawyers, not just run of the mill but good, capable jurists, who would be glad to take that job. They would take it not just because of the $16,000 and the pension that goes with it, or the security, but because it coincides with their interests, because they can render a service, and because they can enjoy the high regard which is accorded to men in that position.


John Lorne MacDougall: I do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily, and I greatly appreciate the very thorough way the minister dealt with our opposition to this particular item. However, I do believe there are a couple of points at least upon which he has not touched.
The minister spoke about it being so necessary that judicial appointments be made from counsel of extremely high calibre. I do not know how the people feel in the province of Ontario or in the other provinces of Canada, but in the years that have elapsed since I returned from the first world war I have seen in the various provinces in which I have lived many men appointed to high judicial positions.
I have found by observation that it is not a hard and fast rule that top-flight corporation counsel make good judges. I have seen, as I am sure many hon. members have seen, judges appointed from barristers at law who were by no means high-class; yet after they were appointed to the bench they became, in many instances, more studious, more efficient, and better able to render proper judicial decisions than the men who had been in so-called high corporation and counsel practices. That to me is not an absolute essential so far as requirements for appointment to the bench are concerned.
I rather feel that we are getting a bit confused on this issue when we bring freedom into the picture. That is an extraneous issue that should not be brought into the picture at all. However, the Minister of Justice made a point with respect to a strong bench, and a strong bar and a weak bench. I would not like to see that happen. Despite that possibility I still maintain my position, Mr. Chairman. Though my head may be bloody it is still unbowed, despite the assertion of the Minister of Justice.
We have seen in this parliament with respect to a certain department of government that the bar has not shown up too well. There are still many able members of the bar in Canada. There will be in the days to come as there have been in the days gone by. Whether you increase the emolument or indemnity you will still find among the

Judges Act
ablest members of the bar men who are very-happy to accept judicial appointment above that of a district court judge.
I do not want to continue at length on this theme, but it seems to me where they have not had an increase for some 150 years, as the Minister of Justice pointed out was the case in the United Kingdom, something should be done. It is not 150 years by any manner of means since we had an increase in judicial salaries in Canada. As I said in my initial remarks, I certainly do not want it to be thought by anyone either in the house or outside of it that I am opposing increases in salaries, because I am not. But it seems to me that in this situation we can go forward quite adequately without interfering with the sound judgment of the judiciary from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We can do it under the old set-up of wage scales or indemnities and do it to the credit not only of this government and this parliament but to the eternal credit of the people of Canada.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I am in a kind of predicament. I was allowed to come down here on the express understanding that I would keep my mouth shut. What is going to happen in certain quarters after it is heard that I did not do so, I do not know. I do not believe I would have risen to say a word in this debate were it not for the peculiar idea that seems to be abroad, namely that you can buy everything with money, including justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who ever said that?


Donald MacInnis: I do not know that the statement has been made here during this debate, but if it has not been made here during this debate it has been made during similar debates; that judges should be well paid in order that they would be under no temptation to go wrong in the administration of justice. I have heard it said in this house. The minister shakes his head, but I have been here longer than he has and I have heard that statement made. If we accept that statement, then we must admit that most people who go wrong do so because their economic conditions are not what they should be. There is no doubt about it that probably 90 per cent of the cases that come before judges, particularly cases of violence and things of that kind, come before them because of poor upbringing, economic difficulties, and so forth.
I was interested last winter in reading a statement made by a judge in the province of Quebec on sentencing a young man. He regretted the fact that the law allowed him no other course except to send this young man to the penitentiary. He said he would
[Mr. MacDougall.l
have liked to send this young man some place where he would have a chance to start rebuilding his life. He took into consideration his family upbringing and the conditions under which he lived after he left the family. I consider that was a good judge. A judge in Vancouver said something similar just the other day.
I should not like anyone to feel that I have not a high regard for the judges of this country. I have said on many occasions in this house, when statements were made that judges should not be allowed to sit on boards, commissions, conciliation boards and things of that kind, that I am all in favour of their being allowed to do so, because we probably get from a judge in such a position a valuation of the issue involved that we could not get from any other person.
As to appointments, I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that unfortunately the calibre of the person and his qualifications are not the only things that are taken into consideration in appointing judges. Of course I do not say that ability and fitness are not considered.
I have mentioned this before, and probably the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will not mind my mentioning it again. In 1935 the hon. member was opposed by a lawyer. Of course both candidates could not be elected and the Liberal candidate, the lawyer, was defeated. He was later appointed to the bench. Why was he appointed? Was it because he was an outstanding lawyer? Certainly not. I am not going to comment upon it, but I would not make an affidavit on it that he also is an outstanding judge. Then in 1940 the hon. member again had a lawyer for his opponent. The hon. member was elected, the lawyer was defeated, and before very long he, too, was made a judge.
This is not something that happens infrequently; it happens quite often. Unfortunately, judgeships are sometimes considered to be for lame ducks. We may as well accept it that such is the case. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that sometimes persons who have not shown very great ability when practising at the bar have shown good judgment when promoted to the bench.
I do not believe that justice or freedom or any of these things depend upon the salaries paid to the judges in the higher courts. When you take into consideration the salaries judges receive, the pensions, the pensions received by their widows, it must be agreed that not only are they in a good position, they are in a favourable position as compared with other residents of this country. They are in that favourable position without the present proposed salary increases.

If we are going to improve the quality of society, and I hope that is what we are here for, we must do so not by improving the position of those at the top but by improving the condition of those at the bottom. Otherwise we will never improve society; we will never lift society above what it is now and judges will be faced with the same problems they are faced with now, of sentencing young men and women to penitentiaries and jails when they know they will come out of those places much worse people than when they went in.
I should like to mention the case of a young boy of 14 years who was sentenced to the penitentiary for stealing a car. He had been in one of our provincial reform institutions and with some other young boys about the same age he took a car, was captured, brought to court and sentenced. There was an editorial about it a few days go in the Vancouver Province. The judge said there was nothing he could do but sentence the boy to the penitentiary for whatever the term was, two years or more. The Province is a staid and reasonable paper, and it made reference to what the position of that boy would be after he had associated during the period of his sentence with hardened, habitual criminals. The boy had said he wanted to be sent to the penitentiary in order to learn a trade, but the only trade he will learn will be that of crime and more crime. When he comes out he will be in worse condition than when he went in. If we are going to do something to better society we have to begin with these boys, not with the judges who pass sentence upon them.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, over a year ago I interviewed the Minister of Justice in connection with the salaries of judges. At that time the suggested increase was to be on a percentage basis, and I argued that the judge receiving a large salary would receive a larger increase than the judge receiving a smaller salary. I want to thank the minister for listening to practical common sense and making the increase the same right through.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a moment to comment on the remarks that have been made and to reaffirm our position as stated by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. We believe the present rates of salaries are adequate under all circumstances. They are particularly adequate in view of the fact that apparently the minister has no difficulty in securing competent jurists to fill these positions.
A while ago the minister quoted from a speech by Mr. Attlee, and on the surface it appeared that he had a case for these
Judges Act
increases. He read that statement with the idea of putting before the house the necessity of securing competent jurists to fill these positions. If the minister had said that he had found difficulty in getting competent jurists to fill these positions I think he would have had the sympathy of this group, and perhaps we would have been in favour of the bill. But the minister has no difficulty in getting competent jurists. Our amazement is that in the past it appears that the only competent jurists who were available were within the ranks of the Liberal party.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think the statement of my hon. friend in that regard is quite indefensible. He has made similar statements on previous occasions. If the hon. member will look up Hansard of June 27, 1951, he will find that on that occasion I made a detailed contradiction of all of his statements. I spelled it out and said that since I had been appointed Minister of Justice on November 15, 1948, until June 27, 1951, out of 68 appointments there were two former defeated federal candidates. When I said "former" I meant they had been defeated many years before. Then I went on to give the qualifications of the appointees one by one to indicate that they were amply qualified to go on the bench. So I do not think it is fair for my hon. friend to get up and make a statement of that sort.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall modify it to the extent of saying that most of them appear to be from the Liberal party. Mr. Chairman, I shall tell the minister a story and let it go at that. I was talking to a rather prominent individual in Edmonton not long ago, and I told him that the Social Credit party did not appear to have very many lawyers. He was a pretty wise gentleman, older than I. "Well", he said, "Mr. Hansell, just wait until you form the government in Ottawa, and they will swarm around you like bees".


Edmund Davie Fulton: They will be all dead by then.


Mr. Nesbitt:: They would all get out of the country if that happened.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Most lawyers have some brains.


Ernest George Hansell: Now, Mr. Chairman, once
again I say that if the minister had difficulty in getting competent jurists to fill these positions, then certainly we would not stand in the way of this bill. Of course, we do not believe he had. We believe it is an honourable position that many lawyers would like to have. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has already said, the present rate of salary plus the expense accounts, which we do not think are too high, plus the pension

Judges Act
rates, which we think are fairly substantial, plus the pensions for widows, which we think are reasonably substantial-all those indicate that the present rate of salary is such as to be attractive to most lawyers. If the minister had difficulty we would not oppose the bill, but we do not believe he had.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What were the salaries five years ago?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In 1950 the salary for the Chief Justice of Canada was $25,000; for the puisne judges, $20,000; for the chief justice of the provincial courts and the president of the exchequer court, $13,333; the puisne judges, $12,000; the county court and district court judges, $6,666.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister one question? What provinces supplement the salaries of the judges, and by what amounts in each case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can give my hon. friend an accurate answer to that question. I cannot vouch for these facts since they are not within my responsibility and I have not made inquiries concerning them, but my own impression is that the three provinces that do that are Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, British Columbia does not.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I may be wrong about that, but I think it does. The amounts vary a good deal from one province to another. In the province of Ontario county court judges receive an allowance in lieu of fees for their surrogate court work; and then they have also a number of duties imposed upon them under various provincial statutes for which they receive various sums.
This practice is in some respects a rather salutary one. The federal government pays the same level of salaries to judges from Newfoundland to British Columbia. It is very easy to see that the case load and other judicial work would vary a great deal. While our own federal salary has to be uniform, in view of the heavier load which Ontario judges would have to carry, in an industrial province like Ontario it seems entirely appropriate to me that the province should pay some such amount. The same is true of British Columbia and also so far as county court and surrogate court judges in my own province of Manitoba.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not give the amounts for Manitoba and British Columbia.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I am perfectly certain I could not give them for British Columbia, and I cannot give them with accuracy for 
Manitoba, but I think they are of the order of $2,500 for senior surrogate court judges and a lesser amount for junior judges in view of the surrogate court work they do.


Howard Charles Green: What about higher court judges?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In Manitoba I think they get nothing extra.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clause 2 agreed to on division.
On clause 3-Salaries of judges of court of queen's bench and of superior court of Quebec.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Clause 3 is the one that sets the salary rates for the judges of the courts of appeal in the provinces, and also for the county court judges. A moment ago the minister said it was correct, as far as his recollection went, that the three provinces which pay additional amounts are British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario. Initially I was disposed to disagree with him in so far as British Columbia was concerned, but I recall now that we do have a statute there that provides for the payment of an additional amount to judges.
What I had in mind, however, was rather the provision, such as is the practice in Ontario, that the county court judges are entitled to receive additional remuneration for their surrogate work, which is not the case in British Columbia. Our countv court judges, who have most of the powers of a supreme court judge in probate in those areas where there is no supreme court judge, get no additional remuneration whatsoever for that work.
That brings me to the point I mentioned yesterday in the discussion on the resolution. I said I felt that it would be well for the minister to call into conference the attorneys general of the provinces and discuss with them this problem of equalizing, as far as it can be done, the burden of work which falls on judges of comparable positions, and to some extent equalizing the remuneration by advocating some uniform practice with respect to the additional emoluments which sometimes come to the judges. My colleague from London, I know, has given a great deal of study to this matter and I am not going to go into it in detail. I shall leave him in a few moments to discuss the matter with the minister. I just wanted to refer to the suggestion I made yesterday, which I did not

press at that time. Before this clause is carried I would appreciate hearing from the minister on that point.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend from Kamloops realizes that the federal government has constitutional responsibility for the appointment of all judges of provincial and federal courts; but that after such judges have been appointed the responsibility for the manner in which their work is carried on in the provincial courts falls under the heading of administration of justice.
If I may say so, I would be inclined to differ with my hon. friend's suggestion that we should call a conference at which the federal government would take the initiative of suggesting to province A that it should follow a course of conduct in the payment of judges which is followed by province B. To follow this course would not in my view improve dominion-provincial relations to any extent.
I must say, however, that when we had an indirect interest in the case load and the way in which that case load was divided in a given province, which in turn had a bearing upon action which we had to take in the discharge of our own constitutional responsibility, I have not hesitated to discuss, as matters of joint concern to the provincial government and ourselves, the steps that might be taken provincially to get a better distribution of the case load. I must say that I received good co-operation indeed from the provincial authorities. But it requires no imagination to realize that this is a subject matter that must be approached with great discretion if one is to avoid being misunderstood.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Quite so. What I had in mind was not that the dominion government should in any way seek to lay down the law in this field. But since there are discrepancies in the gross remuneration which judges receive, the matter presents certain problems to the minister when he asks or contemplates asking this committee to make a uniform increase in judges' salaries across Canada. We know perfectly well, as does the minister, that judges in various parts of the country holding comparable appointments not only have greatly varying work loads but are in receipt also of salaries as to which there is considerable difference; yet he cannot make a differential in the increase that is recommended here.
As I say, the matter presents the government or the department or parliament with a problem. I felt that it would be quite appropriate for the minister to suggest, if
Judges Act
he likes, to the various attorneys general that they meet with him at some convenient time and discuss ways and means of achieving a greater uniformity. It may be found not to be possible but I think an effort should be made.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 3 carry?


Mr. Mitchell (London):: I do not wish to hold up this clause, because I support particularly the increase which is proposed for the county court judges. In fact I feel that the gap between what is paid to a county court judge on the one hand and what is paid to superior court judges on the other hand should, if anything, be closed. I am in no way against the increase which has been granted to the superior court judges. If I have any criticism of this bill it is that it has not sufficiently closed the gap between the salaries of county court judges and those of superior court judges.
The practice has been-and increasingly so over the past few years-that county judges are assuming many of the duties formerly carried out by the supreme court judges. That situation has arisen for several reasons. One is that the amount of litigation going through our courts has increased tremendously in the last 10, 12 or 15 years. It is simply impossible, with a reasonable number of judges on the supreme court bench, to deal with all the cases there are to be dealt with.
The second point I should like to make with respect to county judges is this, and it also applies to some remarks that were made by some hon. gentlemen with respect to supreme court judges when they referred several times to the question of buying justice. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the question of increasing the salaries of either class of judges is not a case of buying justice but simply a case of how much we are prepared to ask these men to accept by way of sacrifice in order to perform a service. Are we prepared to ask them to accept a larger sacrifice than that which is at present accepted? I think not. That sacrifice is particularly noticeable in the case of county judges.
I cannot establish this fact from the papers I have in front of me-the minister will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong-but some years ago county court judges were paid on approximately the same basis as were deputy ministers. I shall have something to say in connection with pensions, which were referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on section 8, I think it is, of the act. But we have been discussing the comparative salary scales as between superior court judges and senior members of the civil

Judges Act
service. We are now down to the case of the county court judge, who some years ago was on a par with a senior civil servant, but who is now away below par.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 3 carry?


Robert Weld Mitchell: No, Mr. Chairman. I should like to have the minister's comment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for London asked me to correct him. My own records go back only as far as 1919, but I think that is quite a distance back. At that time the county or district court judges received $4,000 and nearly all the deputy ministers received $5,000. That is a difference of about 25 per cent.


Mr. Croll:: May I ask the minister to turn to page 2 for a moment? There we find set out, under the salaries of the judges of the supreme court of New Brunswick an amount for "the judge of the court of divorce and matrimonial causes". It does not appear in any other section. What has that to do with?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is an additional amount that is paid to one of the superior court judges for acting as judge of divorce and matrimonial causes; that is for looking after divorce cases.


David Arnold Croll: Do not other judges look after them?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I do not think so; not in that province.


David Arnold Croll: What about the other provinces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend knows, in the province of Ontario-


David Arnold Croll: Yes, I know the situation in the province of Ontario.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and in the province of Manitoba and also, I believe, in nearly ail the other provinces, all superior court judges take divorces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just one other comment I wish to make. Some reference has already been made to the fact that the increase now authorized for county court and supreme court judges-in fact, for all judges affected [DOT]-is across the board, a flat increase, as against the percentage increase which was the pattern in the last two cases, to my recollection.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; the previous cases were a percentage.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what I say; the previous cases were percentage increases.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is now a flat or across the board increase as against a percentage increase in the last two cases.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to express approval of that pattern, and to commend what was said a moment ago by my colleague the hon. member for London. Since the trend is toward increasing the jurisdiction of county courts, so long at least as that trend continues-and I imagine it will continue for a good length of time-certainly we should not go back to the system of percentage increases which serves only to increase the disparity. I think the emphasis now should be rather on closing the gap between the salaries. These across the board increases have a tendency in that direction.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. White (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: I wish to say a word on section 3, which deals with county court judges. I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for London. I want to express to the minister my regret that as to the county court judges' salaries he did not see fit to go as far as the bar association recommended, or as far as was recommended in the brief submitted by the county judges' association. Even with the increase of 25 per cent across the board, in my opinion there is still too wide a gap between the salary paid to a county court judge and that paid to a judge of the superior court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is a 31.25 per cent increase in connection with county court judges.


George Stanley White: The increase is $2,500. I would point out that it is an increase across the board, and that there is still a wide gap between the increased salaries of county court judges and those of judges of the superior court.
As the minister is aware, in Ontario the county court, by consent, has the same jurisdiction in practically every subject as has the supreme court, with the exception of divorce and certain major matters under the Criminal Code, such as murder, treason, rape and things of that nature. I would point out to the minister as an example that in the county in which I reside, when I started to practise we had two county court judges and a local master of the supreme court. Today we have one county court judge; there is no second judge, nor is there a local master of the supreme court.
The population of my county is approaching 100,000. To give the minister an idea of the amount of work passing through our county court, I have here a list of the cases set down for hearing for the session that

started on the 6th of June this year. There are four criminal cases with a jury. The first criminal case took eight days, and it was estimated that at least three days would be required for each of the other three criminal cases. Then there are eight civil cases to be tried before a jury, and it is anticipated that will take at least to the end of July. When they are disposed of there are 18 nonjury cases. I point that out to the minister and those hon. members who say that county court judges have ample time and do not have enough work to keep them busy.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The minister did not say that.


George Stanley White: No, but I
am pointing it out to the minister. How can any hon. member expect the judge in the county of Hastings to attempt to handle a list like that and carry on all the work that ordinarily passes across a judge's desk? In addition he also has twelve division courts to cover.
The minister mentioned the salaries of various civil servants. If he goes over the list carefully he will find that not only deputy ministers but a great many other senior civil servants are at the present time receiving salaries much in excess of what county court judges will receive even after the increase of $2,500 brings them up to a salary of $10,500. I do not think it is unfair to say that the authority vested in a county court judge is at least equal in importance, and in my opinion far more important, than the authority vested in any of these deputy ministers or other officials. After all, as somebody mentioned, a county court judge has jurisdiction over our liberty. He also has jurisdiction over many other things, and I do not think it is unfair to suggest to the minister that the salaries of county court judges should at least be on a par with those paid to deputy ministers and other senior civil servants.
In replying to an hon. member the minister also mentioned something about the salaries paid to judges in various courts in the United States. I think the minister will agree that the salaries paid there in what correspond to our county and superior courts are, even with the increases being granted by this measure, greatly in excess of what are being paid in Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that will depend a great deal upon the state to which my hon. friend is referring. Some of them are quite a bit lower, and of course some of them are higher. The federal salaries are certainly higher.


George Stanley White: The federal salaries are higher and, as the minister knows, there are many states where the
Judges Act
salaries are a great deal higher than what will be paid in Canada even with the increases. However, I commend the minister for making the increases, even though they are not as great as I had hoped they would be. I presume it is too late for him to change his mind and bring county court judges up to the level where I think they should be.
I think I should also point out to the minister that at least in eastern Ontario there is a system in operation whereby the judges rotate. There are four judges on the circuit. When one county judge has a great deal of work he is assisted in that work by the judge in the adjoining county, and so on. Whether the same system applies in other provinces I am not sure, but I quite realize that is something within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Annuity upon retirement at age 75 years, judges of federal courts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under clause 5, which
amends section 24 of the act, I think it would be appropriate to put on the record what this section does by way of establishing a pension schedule, so the picture will be complete for those who may wish to study the matter. If I may say so, without speaking about a clause we have not reached yet, I am glad to note that the minister has put in a provision which will have the effect of preventing any increases in pensions consequent upon the increase in salary.
I shall have to qualify that statement when we get to another clause, but I think it should be pointed out here that we are providing for our judges pensions equal to two-thirds of the salary they are now drawing. I understand that even after the salary increase the pension will be two-thirds of the present salary, and not two-thirds of the new salary. That means we are providing as a pension for the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada the sum of $16,666 a year. For the associate or puisne judges of that court the pension will be $13,333. The pension for the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada and for the chief justices of each of the various superior courts of the provinces will be $10,666 a year. The pension for the associate justices of the Exchequer Court of Canada and the associate justices of all superior courts of the provinces will be $9,600 a year. The pension for county court

Judges Act
judges will be $5,333 a year. Those are the figures which now obtain; this clause continues them.
There is also the matter of the provision for widows, but that comes under a later clause so I shall leave any comment on it until we have reached the appropriate clause. Since the Hansard record for yesterday and today contains a good many of the facts I felt that it should also contain as part of the total picture the pensions we make available to our judges on a non-contributory basis.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Annuity to widows.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Is subsection 3 of the proposed new section entirely new?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is not new. It is subsection 5 of section 27 of the existing Judges Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word with regard to clause 6 and the amending job it does on section 27 of the act. I have tried to read the clause very carefully, and if in what I say I indicate I have misunderstood it I hope the minister will correct me immediately. That is one hope I can count on being fulfilled; I am very sure of that.
At the present time section 27 makes what I think is quite a fair provision, so long as you start with the basic premise of a certain size of a pension for a judge. The provision is that a judge may elect to have his pension divided into two parts, one part being two-thirds of the pension, which is for himself, and the other part being one-third of the pension, which is for his wife. If the judge so elects and then dies while on pension, the amount that is his wife's continues as long as she lives. On the other hand, if the wife dies first the judge knows that he will have to get along on two-thirds of his pension after the death of his wife. At the present time the judge has the right to elect that or not elect it. He knows that if his wife dies first he will have less than would otherwise be the case. The satisfaction he gets in return is the knowledge that if he dies first there will be a pension for his widow.
The rates of pension for widows under these circumstances are as follows: $5,555 in the case of the widow of a chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada; $4,444 in the case of widows of associate justices of the Supreme Court of Canada; $3,555 in the case of widows of the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada or the chief justices of the superior courts of the provinces; $3,200 per year in the case of widows of associate justices of the Exchequer Court of Canada

and associate justices of the provincial superior courts; $1,777 a year in the case of the widows of judges of the county courts.
Let me go back for a moment. I think the picture at the present time is very clear. The judge elects, and two-thirds of his pension is his and one-third is his wife's. As a matter of fact, I believe while both are living they are actually paid that way, two-thirds to him and one-third to the wife. It is crystal clear, therefore, that whoever dies first the other pension continues. As I understand clause 6, however, this business of election is being discontinued and the matter is being put on a fixed basis. The provision will be that the judge will get the full amount of the pension whether or not his wife is alive at the time he goes on pension. As I read it, it would also seem to follow that that full pension continues even though his wife may die. It still holds that the widow gets her one-third of the pension or a corresponding amount if the judge dies while in office. But I think it should be pointed out that if I understand this correctly, whereas a moment ago I congratulated the minister on putting in a clause that prevents the increase in salary from increasing the pension he has by this clause made what virtually is an increase in the judge's pension.
At the present time a chief justice of a provincial superior court, if he has elected, draws a pension of $7,111 and his wife a pension of $3,555. If one or the other dies, the other pension continues. Under the new arrangement the pension of the widow, if she becomes a widow, will be the same, $3,555, but the pension of the judge will be the full $10,666, whether or not his wife is alive.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, no, not whether his wife is alive and pensioned or not; that would convey a quite wrong impression. Under the new arrangement, since there is no election, the judge gets his full pension and he continues to get it, whether or not his wife is living, until he dies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is just what I said; if after he dies she survives, she gets one-third. I was saying it was $3,555.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry; I thought my friend said that a judge gets his pension and the wife gets her pension as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite clear that the two pensions are not paid at the same time. This particular judge, who at the present time is guaranteed a pension of $7,111, knowing that the other amount is paid only if his wife is living, now has it guaranteed to him as long as he lives whether or not his wife is alive, that his pension will be $10,666, which is quite a substantial increase.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that members across the way do not like this reference. I know I can only make it as a relevant argument, and I cannot go into it. But I submit that as long as this government refuses to raise the old age pension from $40 a month it has no right to be increasing the pension of a man whose salary will now be $18,500 from the present figure of $7,111 to $10,666 per year. I submit that though the words the minister used yesterday are technically correct he did not tell the whole story. He said, as recorded at page 5075 of Hansard for June 21, 1955:
As in the case of the increase in judicial salaries in Great Britain last year, there will be no increase in pensions paid to Canadian judges consequent upon the increase in their salaries as provided in this bill.
That statement is quite correct. There is no increase consequent upon the increase in salaries, but there is an increase in the total pension of a judge on the basis of clause 6.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All that has been done in this case, as I am sure my hon. friend is the first member of this house to know, is to bring the pension arrangements of the judges into accord with those which prevail for all civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the civil servant's pension is on a contributory basis, and this does not correspond to it at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am saying, in respect of this subject matter my hon. friend is discussing. In other words, in most cases where provision is made for pensions to continue to the widow, the usual arrangement is for the man to get it for his life and after his death a half or, as in this case, one-third goes to his widow. It is not a costly arrangement to the treasury and it is an arrangement which, on the basis of experience, we think will work out very well and to the advantage of all concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not objecting to the pension provided for judges' widows. I am not objecting to the principle-in fact I support the principle-of a survivor's pension for the widow. But I think when a judge already has a guaranteed pension, which in the case of the chief justice of a superior court is $7,111 per year for himself and $3,555 for his wife, and is getting an increase in salary from $16,000 to $18,500, he does not need an additional benefit in the form of an increase of over $3,000 in his own pension if he is alive after his wife dies.


Mr. Fleming:: I think all members of the house realize that it is not fair to approach this matter simply on the basis on which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has
Judges Act
approached it. It is a fact beyond any question that the pension arrangements have been attractive to the men whose services have been sought on the bench. There is honour attached to being one of Her Majesty's judges. But when men of substantial income have been invited to accept appointment to that high office some of them, faced with a substantial reduction in income, have had to weigh very carefully the pension provisions made for them on their retirement or for their widows against the immediate loss of income in leaving their practice.
Now, two wrongs never make a right. The matter of the old age pension is one to be decided on, its merits. The matter of the judges' pension and the judges' wives' annuities is a matter to be decided on its merits. It seems to me the two are not to be confused in the way the hon. member has approached the problem this afternoon.
There is one aspect of this subject which I have raised previously, as the minister will recall. No provision is made for it in this amendment contained in clause 6 of the bill.
I wish some note had been taken of the problem there. It is a problem, however, that is not going to rise hereafter if section 6 is adopted.
There have been cases where married judges, under the law as it was heretofore, made an election to share their pensions with their wives and outlived their wives. In such cases, the treasury benefited by the election made by the judge, because he submitted on his retirement to a reduction of one-third of the pension he would otherwise have received. I raised this problem at the time of the last increase of the judges' salaries several years ago. I indicated I thought it was not fair in a case of that kind for the treasury to seek to reap a benefit from the death of the wife while the judge was still living. The Minister of Justice indicated he was not prepared at that time to recommend any change in the law to meet that case.
I observe that clause 6 of the bill makes no provision for such cases. There is no provision in clause 6 that is retroactive in any respect. The best that can be said in that regard is that if clause 6 is adopted the problem will not arise in the future. But what I conceive to be an injustice in the case of judges who have already retired does continue to exist. There might not be many such cases, but I do not think it is becoming to the government of this country, where a judge has given faithful service on the bench, often very distinguished service and not infrequently at personal financial sacrifice, that because he has the misfortune to have his wife predecease him, the treasury of this

Judges Act
country should reap a benefit in the form of a reduction of one-third in his pension. In a case of that kind it seems to me it should be open to the judge to receive his full pension notwithstanding the sequence of deaths in the light of the election he had previously made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question as to the effect of this particular case? My case is hypothetical. I do not know whether or not such a case exists. Suppose there is at the present time a retired judge who under the previous arrangement elected to divide his pension two-thirds for himself and one-third for his wife. Suppose in this case his wife has predeceased him, and he is now drawing just two-thirds of his original pension. What will be the effect on his pension of this clause as amended?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to my hon. friend's question is that the clause will have no effect if the pension has vested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are these pensions vested? They do not come out of a fund. They are paid on the basis that the governor in council may grant a pension.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, but once the pension has been granted to the judge and received by him as a judge who has elected and his wife has predeceased him, then it will continue as it was before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the case I put.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I express my regret that
there is no provision here for dealing with the existing cases. There may not be many of them, but I think I shall go so far as to say it is a shame that advantage is taken of that sequence of deaths where the judge has made his election and retired heretofore.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I recall the occasion on which that question was debated previously. I thought the hon. gentleman put up a very good case, and I thought I had made an adequate reply on the basis of the act as it stood at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We never give up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure my hon. friend will realize that if we start any retroactive pensions in relation to any of the large number of persons who receive pensions under the government, we are opening up a very large question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is stating a
broader case than the one I am discussing. He is talking about retroactive reopening of IMr. Fleming.]
pension cases in general, without dealing with the specific case. I wish it very clearly understood that I was dealing with the specific case of a judge who had made his election to share his pension with his wife should she become his widow. He retired either before or after the death of his wife. She predeceased him. That is the case with which I am dealing. I am not speaking about anything stated in broader terms than that. I do not think any such bogey as the minister is raising now should be introduced against an attempt to deal seriously with a specific . problem where it seems to me an injustice is being permitted to continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact I should like to support the last sentence or two uttered by the hon. member for Eglinton. I do not think these things should be put on the same level. After all, what the hon. member for Eglinton is discussing is the matter of amending the law to change a condition that was basic to the pension. In most of these other cases that are under discussion it is a question as to the rate of pension itself, whether or not it is adequate. In this case it seems to me the hon. member is asking for a person to be given it both ways. The judge in question had the option whether to elect or not. He gambled on the division. He elected in such a way as to leave his widow with a pension if he died first. It turned out the other way. Now apparently he wants to have it the other way as well. Is that not asking to have it both ways?


Robert Weld Mitchell: I should like to say one or two more brief words in support of the county court judges. I refer back to several remarks made by the minister this afternoon when I was suggesting that the salaries of judges had at one period been somewhat in line with the salaries of deputy ministers and other senior civil servants, and he pointed out to me that there was a difference of $1,000-$4,000 and $5,000-in 1919.
I should like to suggest to the minister that the history of the judges' salaries all through the years since then has been that increases to the judges have followed increases to the civil servants. I am sure the minister will agree with me, when he reads the list of salaries paid in the civil service at the moment, that many civil servants are drawing more than the $8,000 heretofore granted to the judges, and that in some junior ranks of the civil service.
I would suggest that this is a case where the county court judges have, by the very fact of their low salaries, purchased their pensions. My only suggestion here would be that in so far as the county court judges are

concerned, the pensions should be based not on their $8,000 but on their increased salary. I would ask the minister when he speaks to the clause to comment on the truth or otherwise of the statement that the county court judges have, in fact, as a result of their reduced salaries, bought their pensions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the point which the hon. gentleman raises in relation to the facts is in some respects rather complex. In 1919, as I indicated, most of the deputy ministers were at the $5,000 a year mark. The salary of the county court judges was then $4,000. That was not true, however, of the deputy minister of justice, who then received $10,000, twice as much as the deputy minister of finance. In relation to the responsibilities he carried at that time he was considered to be, and I agree with that idea, worth twice as much as any of the other deputies in relation to the work they then carried on. I might remark in that connection that the deputy minister of justice was engaged, like the judges, in legal work.
What I do suggest is that in many other spheres of governmental activity the responsibilities and the character of the work have changed enormously in the interval between 1919 and 1955. For example, you find that the deputy minister of finance who was paid $5,000 in 1919, in relation to our present-day budgets and all the ramifications of the Department of Finance, is now paid $20,000. Going through the list of deputies you will see that the greatest changes and the greatest increases have been in those departments where the character, responsibility and nature of the work have changed. The deputy minister of justice now receives $20,000, which is up 100 per cent from what it was in 1919, whereas the deputy minister of finance is up 300 per cent.
I think it is quite correct to say that the work of the county court judge having to do with legal matters and that of the deputy minister of justice are comparable and have not changed so much in character as the work of these other deputies. I believe that is what distorts the picture and accounts for some of the points that seem to give some difficulty to the hon. member for London.
I could not admit that the county court judges in Canada have purchased the right to a larger pension at the present time because of the low salaries they have received.
I have pointed out that the salaries we provide for county court judges are provided for county court judges in all parts of Canada. I grant that in a highly industrialized province like Ontario, which I think is almost unique by reason of the provincial statute
Judges Act
setting up the county courts which prescribes a field of jurisdiction which, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac, is almost equal in many respects to that of the superior court-I think the hon. member for London mentioned this as well- the county court judges have a heavier degree of responsibility than they have in almost any other province. It seems to me that the only one near it at all would be the province of Alberta.
That being so, it is very difficult for parliament to work out a fair salary for county court judges from one end of the country to the other and make allowance for the heavy responsibilities which are cast upon the county court judges in Ontario by provincial legislation. As I said earlier this afternoon, it seems entirely appropriate that the provincial legislature which imposes these additional duties upon county court judges should take some cognizance of having done so by allowing the county court judges some extra provincial remuneration. They have done that, and I think very properly so.
Not only have they done that, there are also a number of statutory functions which the county court judges in Ontario have to discharge and from which they receive by no means unsubstantial perquisites which add materially to their incomes. The exact amount would vary from judge to judge, and I could not give even an approximation of what they would amount to altogether. But they do receive this additional income to a greater degree than county court judges in most of the other provinces. They receive that for somewhat the same reasons that they are granted this statutory amount by the provincial government, because they have a great deal more work to do and therefore it seems only proper that they should be paid these extra amounts.
I think upon balance this practice works out reasonably well. We are glad to see that take place, because adjustments can be made in this manner, whereas it would be most difficult for the federal government to pay a higher salary to a county court judge in Ontario than to a county court judge in British Columbia, Manitoba or New Brunswick.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Repeal.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Might I suggest that the act be amended by adding this clause to the act to be amended. I notice that this clause does not become part of the act, and I am wondering if it would not be better to provide that the said act shall be further amended by adding the following clause as whatever the appropriate section number might be. This

Judges Act
clause would then stand as a part of the act it is amending, so your office consolidation would then show it as part of the Judges Act. Otherwise where is it going to appear in the office consolidation? I know it is not customary to include a repealing clause in the act, but here we are adding something to the act and I suggest that it should read to amend the act by adding the following as section so-and-so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps my hon. friend has a point there. We will have the draftsmen consider it and if it appears to have been well taken we could have this change made in the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Tenure of office of judges.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I can hang what I want to say on clause 10 because of its reference to the retirement of these particular judges upon attaining the age of 75 years. If lawyer members have not felt like applauding many of the remarks I have made today they may feel like applauding this suggestion.
Has the government given any consideration to taking whatever steps are necessary, even if it means amending the British North America Act, to provide for the retirement of judges of provincial superior courts at a fixed age? As I understand it, the judges of what we call the federal courts, namely the Supreme Court of Canada and the Exchequer Court of Canada, together with the judges of the county courts, and now the judges of the courts in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, are retired automatically at 75 years of age. But I understand that because of section 99 of the British North America Act judges of the superior courts go on forever.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not without merit. As he will see in looking at the bill before us, the age limit of 75 which is provided is solely in relation to the courts which are set up by virtue of federal legislation, the supreme court, the exchequer court and the northwest territorial court. We have always had and have exercised the power to set an age limit of 75 for judges in these federal courts. As my hon. friend knows, under-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Section 99.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, under section 92, paragraph 14, of the British North America Act, it is the provinces which have the exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of justice

in the province, including the maintenance and organization of provincial courts, etc. When these provincial courts have been established we have the authority to make appointments to them, but it is provided in section 99 of the British North America Act that the judges of these 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." That would be for cause.
I am sure my hon. friend is well aware that as long as this section remains in the British North America Act and amendments, it is not within our power to provide that judges in provincial courts must cease to hold office at the age of 75 years. I know my hon. friend makes the suggestion that we should take every step, even to the calling of a provincial conference, to discuss a basis upon which to get such a constitutional amendment, but I myself think that in a matter of this kind it would be wise to delay the calling of such a conference until one was fairly sure there would be unanimity of opinion with regard to this particular point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it from what the minister says that the point is one worthy of consideration?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes, indeed. The federal government has been considering it since long before my advent, and of course since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The lawyers will be glad to hear that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Coming into force.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister when other clauses of this bill come into force? I suppose I am going to get the answer that they will come into force on assent, unless there is something else in the bill I have missed. It seemed to me rather odd that clause 9 of the bill was picked out to come into force on the 1st day of July, 1955. I do not find any provision as to when the salary changes, pension changes and so on will come into force.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The coming into force of section 9 fits in with other plans that have been made in our own department and in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Then, so far as the balance of the sections are concerned, my hon. friend is quite right in saying they come into force on assent.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Next sitting of this house.



TRANSPORT ACT


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 449, to amend the Transport Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in May, 1954, Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon was appointed a commissioner under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the application and effects of agreed charges as authorized under part IV of the Transport Act taking into account (1) representations made by the province of Alberta requesting that legislation be introduced to extend the application of the one and one-third rule to the making of agreed charges, and (2) other relevant considerations including developments since the royal commission on transportation submitted its report on February 9, 1951.
The inquiry began by the holding of a meeting in Ottawa on September 13, 1954, which was attended by representatives of the interested parties. In October regional meetings were held in Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver, and the final public sittings were held in Ottawa beginning on 2nd November and ending on 21st December. Thirty-nine sitting days were devoted to the inquiry.
A good deal of publicity was given to the sittings of the commission. Representations were submitted on behalf of the governments of the four western provinces, by the maritime transportation commission representing the four maritime provinces, by a number of shippers and associations representative of shippers, by the railways, by trucking associations and others.
The report of the commissioner was submitted on February 21,	1955, and was
afterwards tabled in this house. His recommendations will be found at pages 36 and 37 of the report, but are also embodied in a suggested amendment to the Transport Act which is annexed as appendix "A" of the report. The terms of this suggested amendment are embodied in the bill now before the house, which contains also one addition to which I shall refer presently and which was not specifically recommended by the commission.
A comparison of the provisions of the draft bill with those of the sections of the Transport Act which they are intended to
Transport Act
replace shows that no change is proposed in the principle of agreed charges which was accepted by this house when the Transport Act was adopted unanimously in 1938 and agreed charges were first introduced in Canada.
The principal change it is now proposed to make concerns the procedure to be followed in order that an agreed charge shall be effective. Perhaps a few words of explanation would enable hon. members to appreciate more readily the nature of the changes now to be considered.
An agreed charge, I may explain, is a charge for the transport of the whole or of a part of the goods of a shipper, negotiated or agreed upon between the shipper and one or more carriers for carriage by rail, or by rail and water. The charge is less than the normal rate because by the agreement the shipper agrees to give the carrier a stated proportion of his business between the points specified in the agreement. The parties, of course, enjoy a wide latitude in the making of the agreement and obviously its terms must afford advantages to both of them because, unless there are advantages for both of them, neither will make the agreement, being under no compulsion to do so.
To give an example, I might refer to an agreed charge made relating to the shipment in carload lots of canned goods and preserves, pickles and table sauces. This agreement obligates the shipper to deliver to the carrier for carriage for not less than 85 per cent of the shipper's traffic moving from stations in the eastern provinces to stations in Alberta and British Columbia. It will be noted that this leaves the shipper free to forward the remaining 15 per cent of his traffic into Alberta and British Columbia by other means of transport, if he so desires, and also free to forward the whole of his traffic destined to other western provinces of Canada or to stations in the eastern provinces by any means of transport that suits his convenience. I might give other examples to show that the percentage of the shipper's traffic is not invariably 85 per cent-it may be much lower-but I do wish to emphasize that the agreement is designed to meet the needs and wishes of the shipper.
An agreement having been negotiated between the parties, under existing legislation, particulars of it must be submitted to the board of transport commissioners, and notice of an application to the board for approval of the agreed charge must be given at least 30 days before the hearing, by publication in the Canada Gazette and in such other manner as the board may direct. Any shipper, or any representative body of shippers, or any

Transport Act
carrier is, after giving notice of objection, entitled to be heard in opposition to the application for approval. The board in considering the agreed charge is bound to have regard to all considerations that appear to be relevant, including the effect of the agreed charge on the net revenue of the carrier and on the business of any shipper by whom objection has been made to the charge. These formalities, which I may point out involve a delay of 30 days at the least and often much longer, having been followed, the board may approve the agreed charge which it does by issuing an order to that effect.
The commissioner, Hon. Mr. Justice Turgeon, has expressed the opinion that this procedure for bringing an agreed charge into effect should be simplified and shortened. He has recommended doing away with the requirement of the board's prior approval and allowing the agreed charge to become effective upon the expiry of a reasonable time after it has been filed with the board, and he has suggested that 20 days would be a reasonable time. This, I think it will be generally conceded, is the most important of his recommendations. In support of it I can do no better than quote the following passages to be found on pages 35 and 36 of his report. Mr. Justice Turgeon says:
X have endeavoured in the foregoing pages to describe the situation which exists today in the field of Canada's transportation economy, particular consideration being given to the position of the railways. The result of my analysis convinces me that this situation is unsatisfactory but also that it can be remedied in some measure by a reform in the practice of agreed charges, the only subject upon which I am directed to make recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize particularly what next follows:
This reform must tend to enable the railways to grapple more expeditiously and therefore more efficiently with the strong and supple competition which confronts them.
In other words, the commissioner believes that the railways in making agreed charges should have much more freedom of action than they now have and be able to negotiate an agreed charge without the long delays now characteristic of our present procedure. The commissioner continues:
In my opinion the time has come to do what the royal commission on transportation refrained from doing in 1951 when conditions were very different from those which now exist and sufficient time had not gone by to test the value of what was still looked upon as a most radical and therefore potentially dangerous departure from sound methods of rate-making.
Having considered the suggestions made to me by the railways, on the one hand, for an almost perfect degree of freedom in the carrying out of their agreed charges practice, and, on the other hand, those made by others who believe that agreed charges, if allowed to continue, should be

hedged about with various degrees of restrictive regulation, I take the view that the object to be attained, as nearly as possible, is to set the railways free, but with the safeguard of certain precautions intended to preserve the rights of other interested parties.
I should now like to discuss the precautions which are contained in the present bill and are intended to preserve the rights of interested parties.
First, an agreed charge must be given publicity so that other shippers not parties to the agreement shall know what charges are to be payable on the traffic carried for their competitors.	[DOT]
Second, a reasonable delay must elapse before an agreed charge comes into effect so that during that delay other shippers who are not parties to the agreement may apply to the railway to be included in the agreement as if they were originally parties to it. The proposed bill contains a provision-and this is the addition to the commissioner's recommendations to which I referred earlier 

enabling a shipper, with the consent of the railway, to become a party to the agreement for an agreed charge merely by filing a notice of intent with the board.
Third, the proposed bill retains the provision of the existing legislation by which a shipper who considers that his business is, or will be, unjustly discriminated against by an agreed charge may at any time apply to the board for a charge to be fixed by it for the transport by the same carrier of goods of the shipper that are the same as, or similar to, and are offered for carriage under substantially similar circumstances and conditions as the goods to which the agreed charge relates.
In connection with the last two provisions I should like to say that experience has not shown that a complaint of unjust discrimination should make it necessary to cancel the agreed charge; rather it has shown that unjust discrimination can best be remedied by giving the complainant shipper a similar charge, either as a party to the agreement with the consent of the carrier, or by an order of the board fixing the charge if the carrier does not consent and the shipper meets the conditions of the statute.
Fourth, under existing legislation a shipper who considers that his business has been unjustly discriminated against as a result of the making of an agreed charge, or any representative body of shippers, can apply to the board for the withdrawal of its approval of an agreed charge only after the expiration of one year from the date of the approval of such charge by the board. The present bill provides that after an agreed

charge has been in effect for at least three months, any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality may complain to the Minister of Transport that the agreed charge is unjustly discriminatory against it, or places its business at an unfair disadvantage; and the minister, if he is satisfied that in the public interest the complaint should be investigated, may refer it to the board for investigation.
Fifth, existing legislation permits the Minister of Transport, upon the complaint of a representative body of carriers, to refer an existing agreed charge to the board for investigation. The present bill would extend the same right to complain to any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality, in respect of any agreed charge that has been in effect for at least three months. Where the complaint is referred to the board in this way, the board may make an order authorizing or cancelling the agreed charge complained of, or may make such other order as in the circumstances it considers proper. It has, under the new legislation, the same extensive powers as at present.
Sixth, the existing legislation does not fix the term of an agreed charge, though the board may approve it for such period as it thinks fit or without restriction of time. The present bill makes it clear that, notwithstanding anything in the agreement for an agreed charge, any party to the agreement if it has been in effect for at least one year may withdraw from it by giving 90 days' written notice.
The other changes in the act which it is proposed to effect by this bill are of minor importance and are designed to preserve the principle that agreed charges are not to be a means of competition between the railways themselves, or between the railways and regulated carriers by water.
(1)	The bill will allow a railway company incorporated in the United States and owning or operating on a railway line in Canada (a) to make agreed charges between points on its line in Canada served exclusively by it and (b) to become a party under the conditions specified in the bill to agreements for agreed charges entered into by Canadian railways. This would apply to United States railways operating wholly within the United States where they form a through route between two points in Canada.
(2)	The bill permits a carrier by water to become a party to an agreement for an agreed charge made by a railway in respect of transport from or to a competitive point or between competitive points served by the carrier by water.
Transport Act
I should like to emphasize that the principal purpose of the present bill is the simplification of the present procedure required to bring an agreed charge into effect.
In the course of the investigation by the royal commission the trucking industry took exception to the use of agreed charges by the railways and opposed any liberalization of the conditions under which they might be used. To the extent that this opposition reflects fears that the railways will thereby be enabled to eliminate highway transport, I must say that I find no basis for such theories. Even with the measure of freedom which this legislation will give to the railways, the agreed charge will still be under greater restrictions than the vast majority of highway freight rates in this country. I may say that the government is thoroughly aware of the necessity of maintaining a sound, healthy and efficient transportation industry in which each means of transport will develop according to its own particular characteristics and the demand for its services. This cannot be done, however, if the railways, and only the railways, are required to make their services available under regulations designed to meet conditions that have greatly altered or no longer obtain.
In conclusion may I say that I share the view expressed by the royal commission that it is desirable to enable the railways to grapple more expeditiously and therefore more efficiently with the strong and supple competition which confronts them. I do not ask the house to give the railways a preference over other forms of transport, but I do ask that by this bill parliament give the railways the opportunity of competing on nearly equal terms with those other forms of transport.
After the bill has received second reading, Mr. Speaker, I shall move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, before which I think any representative association might appear to make representations concerning the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has undertaken to have the bill referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I do not intend to speak at any length today. From the start the official opposition have believed that the bill should be referred to that committee, and we are glad that it is to be done. We reserve our position until the witnesses have been heard and there has been an opportunity to consider the various details of the bill.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, we believe the government has been at fault in delaying for

Transport Act
so long the introduction of the bill. Hon. Mr. Turgeon submitted his report to the cabinet on February 21 of this year. It was not until more than a month later that the minister tabled the report, namely on March 23. On that date I asked him, as appears at page 2300 of Hansard, whether it was expected there would be legislation arising out of the report at the present session. The minister replied:
I might say that matter is under consideration at the present time.
That was just three months ago tomorrow. It is regrettable that a measure of this importance should be brought in at this stage of the session, even though it is to go to a standing committee. With the house now sitting in the morning it is very difficult for any committee to give careful consideration to a bill referred to it. I can only hope that the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch), will not try to rush this matter unduly and will see to it that the people who wish to appear are given a reasonable opportunity to state their case.
There are groups of Canadians who are very much concerned about this measure. The story is not all one-sided. The trucking industry in particular feel that these changes may deal them a body blow. Whether or not such is the case remains to be seen, of course, but they certainly should be given an opportunity to make representations. It would appear from the terms of the bill that once the measure becomes law the truckers will no longer be able to protest an agreed charge before the board of transport commissioners. The law as it now exists is found in section 36 of the Railway Act. Under that section the board of transport commissioners is given the power to act upon its own motion on any question which is brought to its attention. I believe that under that provision-the minister can correct me if I am wrong-it has been the practice to allow the trucking industry to appear and make complaints against agreed charges if they wished to do so.


George Carlyle Marler: I may say that is not my understanding of the practice.


Howard Charles Green: I understand the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners is wide enough at the present time to enable that to be done. But under the bill a new code for complaints is set out which I think will take away that power which is now in the hands of the board of transport commissioners. They will probably have to follow very closely the provisions of the new section 33.
[Mr. Green.j
Not only are the trucking people very much interested, but also some of the shipping companies. Hon. members will notice that the Transport Act defines "carrier" as follows:
"Carrier" means any person engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward to whom this act applies, and includes any company that is subject to the Railway Act.
The Transport Act has never been made applicable to a large proportion of the coastal shipping of Canada. I believe it has only been proclaimed in effect in so far as shipping on the great lakes is concerned, and shipping on the St. Lawrence river and its tributaries west of the western end of the island of Orleans, and in the Mackenzie river basin. On all other waters of Canada the Transport Act does not apply. Therefore carriers engaged in business in other waters, such as those of the maritime provinces or the Pacific coast, do not come under the Transport Act and would not be considered as carriers. Therefore under the wording of the new bill they would not even have the right to appear before the board of transport commissioners to register a complaint against an agreed charge.
This brings up the question of whether this bill will interfere with the work of the royal commission which is inquiring into coastal shipping. It would appear that this commission should be able to investigate this very question of the effect of agreed charges on the shipping on our coasts. I know that some shipping firms are anxious to have representations made before the committee, and I hope they will be given that privilege.
The minister has dealt at some length with the history of agreed charges in Canada, and I do not intend to go over that history today. The authority for these charges was given in 1938 by a provision of the Transport Act which was passed in that year. This provision has been very little used until recently. In his report Hon. Mr. Turgeon pointed out on page 13 that to the end of the year 1950 -that was after the agreed charges provision had been law for 12 years-only 45 agreed charges had been made. By the end of 1954 there had been 35 additional agreed charges, making a total since 1938 of 80. It will be seen from this that the railways have taken very little advantage of this provision for agreed charges. Evidently they have now decided to move into that field on a much wider scale.
Hon. Mr. Turgeon found also that at the end of the year 1954, 6-2 per cent of the revenues of Canadian railways was earned under agreed charges, as compared with 2-4 per cent in the year 1949. This shows the increased use of these rates.

Hon. Mr. Turgeon was chairman of another commission, known as the royal commission on transportation, which reported in 1951. That commission went into this question of agreed charges but reached quite a different conclusion from the conclusion reached this year. I refer hon. members to page 95 of the earlier Turgeon report, where that commission deals with the purpose of agreed charges and points out that they should not be used to run competitors out of business. This, of course, is what the trucking industry fears. This was one of the conclusions in 1951 on the question of agreed charges:
It appears obvious that parliament did not intend the agreed charges to be a weapon to destroy or eliminate competition but rather to enable the railways to meet competition. This is clear from the reading of section 35 (1) :
The report then quotes that subsection as follows:
. . . the board shall not approve such charge if, in its opinion, the object to be secured by the making of the agreement can, having regard to all the circumstances, adequately be secured by means of a special or competitive tariff of tolls under the Railway Act or this act.
As I read the bill before us today, that restriction has been removed; and the reason for such removal should be one subject for consideration by the committee. As the minister has pointed out, the bill does simplify the procedure for putting the agreed charge into effect. It does away with the need for approval of the board before the agreed charge actually can go into effect.


George Carlyle Marler: It does away with it completely.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, it does away with the need for approval of the board. It seems to make the provision for complaining about an agreed charge rather restrictive. I am very doubtful whether the new section, which enables certain groups to apply to the minister, will ever be of any use. There was a somewhat similar provision written into the law in 1938, and I believe Hon. Mr. Turgeon found that it had never been used at all.


George Carlyle Marler: Under the 1938 act it existed only in favour of the carriers.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Well, the provision seems to be more restrictive. However, that is another point which we can consider in the committee.
In so far as the bill helps the railways to meet competition, I do not think there can be great complaint about it. The question which will have to be considered is whether it goes farther than that and constitutes a weapon to destroy or eliminate competition. This was the fear of Hon. Mr. Turgeon and his associates in 1951. I believe that can only be 50433-326
Transport Act
decided when the bill has been reviewed by the committee. As I said in opening, we propose to reserve our stand on this measure until it has been before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as has been made clear by questions asked on the orders of the day by my colleague the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell), we felt from the start that this important bill should be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. In view of the announcement made by the minister that this will be done, we are prepared to have the subject matter of this bill dealt with by our representatives on that committee.


Ernest George Hansell: I believe I can voice the same sentiments that have been voiced by the speaker for the Conservative group and the speaker for the C.C.F. group, that we are pleased to learn the minister is going to move that this bill be sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to say more, either in the committee or when the committee's report is received by the house.
However, I wish to say that I have taken note of the fact that the minister states he does not hold the same fear in respect of this bill that some do. The minister may take a good deal of satisfaction to himself in not holding these fears, but I would suggest that some fears have been expressed by some very responsible people and some very responsible bodies. The trucking industry of Canada has expressed some considerable fear. The mayor of the city of Calgary has expressed fear. The mayor of the city of Edmonton has expressed fear. The Alberta government, through its representatives, has expressed some fear. The automobile dealers' association has expressed fear. The representative of the Chrysler corporation in Alberta has expressed fear.
I am not going to pit the wisdom of the minister against the wisdom of the representatives of these organizations. I would say that these organizations are composed of very responsible men, and for the most part men who have had some practical experience in shipping. They do express some fear in respect of this matter. The trucking industry of Canada, for instance, in a press dispatch appearing in the Montreal Gazette the other day, said:
William C. Norris of Montreal, president of the trucking associations, said the truckers are not fighting the proposed streamlined procedure for making agreed charges. However, they wanted the same right as water carriers to protest contracts they believed to be discriminatory.

Transport Act
The mayor of the city of Calgary-I am reading from a press dispatch in the Calgary Herald; I am sorry I have not the date, but it was when the transport commission was sitting in Edmonton-said:
The recent development of agreed charges between the railways and some eastern Canadian shippers "reflects anything but credit to those associated with it". Mayor D. H. Mackay said in Edmonton Thursday when he submitted a brief on behalf of the city to the royal commission on agreed charges.
Mayor Mackay went on to say:
The principle of agreed charges should "find itself completely and without reservation" included in the one and one-third rule, the mayor said. He added that the railways' "new wrinkle" was a "wilful disregard of the intent of principle".
That is pretty strong language. The mayor also said:
"We cannot continue to favour one section of the country at the expense of the other, and excuse ourselves on the theory that western provinces must be sacrificed upon the altar of competition that may exist on the coastal waterfronts of this country."
Now, the mayor of Edmonton-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must draw the attention of the hon. member to citation 265, which states that it is not in order to read articles in newspapers reflecting on proceedings in the house. I have permitted the hon. member to read quite a few quotations. Since the hon. member is now embarking upon another quotation, in fairness I think I should advise him that he should not do so.


Ernest George Hansell: I understood that rule referred to quotations from press reports in respect of proceedings in the house. I am quoting from press reports of a submission that was made to the royal commission on agreed charges.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is quoting press reports concerning matters which are not before the house, it is not relevant, and therefore it should not be read. If it is relevant to this bill, it necessarily reflects upon the proceedings and it is against the rule, whereby a member must express his own views and not those of others.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I did not read that rule correctly. However, I will say that the mayor of Edmonton expressed himself before the commission in a similar way to the mayor of the city of Calgary. The automobile dealers' association has claimed that this will seriously affect the price of automobiles, to the detriment of

their sales or to the detriment of the consumer. The trucking industry has even declared that this will perhaps mean the end of the trucking of automobiles on the main highways from the manufacturers to the retailers.
I should like to read further, but according to your ruling I evidently cannot do it. I shall have to think that ruling over a little further, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall read citation 265. It is not invoked very often. I can tell the hon. member that latitude is too often given to hon. members to violate this rule during debate. I must remind hon. members from time to time that the rule exists. The citation reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
The discussion of the second reading of a bill is a proceeding in the house.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall not debate the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it is because of the latitude that has been given that the seriousness of the point was not indelibly impressed upon my mind. It is nearly six o'clock, and I shall not detain the house beyond another half minute.
We have all received telegrams and requests from various organizations asking that the bill be sent to the committee. Perhaps it was not the intention to send the bill to the committee. If the concession is granted by the minister, then we wish to thank him very much. I am sure the organizations concerned will appreciate that concession, if it can be called one, and we shall deal further with the matter either before the committee or when it comes back to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act, the Railway Act and the Tariff Board Act to provide for increases in

the salaries of the members of the income tax appeal board, the board of transport commissioners and the tariff board.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall this resolution carry?


Mr. Macdonnell:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.
Public Service



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the third reading of the Judges Act and continue the debate we have just adjourned; then we shall take the departments of fisheries and justice.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
504:« [DOT] \mi
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 23, 1955