Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) moved:: That the following resolution, namely: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration steps which would: (a) provide for periodic medical examination of the Canadian people; (b) afford medical relief for those suffering from disease, be restored on this order paper under the provisions of standing order 52.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. 0. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, in order to well establish that the population is bilingual and that the country was settled by two great races, it is desirable that Canadian currency should be in both official languages of Canada, be restored on the order paper under the provisions of standing order 52.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
INTERNATIONAL convention limiting manufacture AND REGULATING DISTRIBUTION
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the international convention for limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of narcotic drugs, Geneva, July 13, 1931, signed on behalf of Canada by the plenipotentiaries named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: In moving the resolution which stands in my name, I desire to make a short

explanation inasmuch as this convention is a matter of considerable importance to the dominion. It was drawn up by an international conference held in Geneva, from the 27th May to the 13th July, 1931, in which fifty-seven states participated. Thirty-eight have now signed the convention.
The convention was signed for Canada by Dr. W. A. Riddell, Canadian advisory officer accredited to the League of Nations, and Colonel C. H. L. Sharman, chief of the narcotic division of the Department of Pensions and National Health, who represented this country at the conference.
The convention will become effective ninety days after the secretary-general of the League of Nations has received the ratifi-caton or accessions of twenty-five members of the League of Nations or non-member States, including any four of the following: France, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States of America, which, of course, is not a member of the League.
Seven of the eight named states, that is all except Turkey, (have already signed the convention, and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom has introduced legislation which is now before the British parliament to give effect to the provisions of the convention.
The convention supplements and develops the earlier efforts for the international regulation of the traffic in narcotic drugs which were embodied in the Hague Convention of the 23rd January, 1912, and the Geneva Convention of the 19th February, 1923, to both of which the Dominion of Canada is a party. Under the provisions of the conventions now in force a fairly effective system of control of international trade in narcotic drugs has been worked out, and I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that there are few matters of more universal import to this country than the trade in narcotic drugs. The main lines of this system of control are probably familiar to the members of this house, for on more than one occasion we have debated the matter. They are embodied in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and the regulations made by order in council to give effect to that act. In substance, they require that all imports of narcotic drugs into this country should be accompanied by an official import 'certificate issued by a competent government department, which has satisfied itself that the consignment in question will be used solely for medicinal purposes. Within the limits of the earlier agreements this system has worked satisfactorily, but it was obvious that no system of control of 'trade could be

Narcotic Drugs
completely effective if no restrictions of any kind were placed upon the manufacture of drugs whose distribution was regulated. It will be recalled that on more than one occasion the medical doctors who are members of this chamber have discussed that phase of the situation, and the difficulty of adequate control based upon restrictions was apparent when no control or restrictions were exercised upon manufacture. That discussion, I think, will be within the memory of most members of the chamber.
The task of inducing the manufacturing countries to agree upon restricting their output of habit-forming drugs has been an extremely difficult one. The kernel of the convention before the house is Article 6, which stipulates:
1. There shall not be manufactured in any country or territory in any one year a quantity of any of the drugs greater than the total of the following quantities:	.	.
(a)	The quantity required within the limits
of the estimates for that country or territory for that year for use as such for its medicinal and scientific needs including the quantity required for the manufacture of preparations for the export of which export authorizations are not required, whether such preparations are intended for domestic consumption or for export.	....
(b)	The quantity required within the limits of the estimates for that country or territory for that year for conversion, whether for domestic consumption or for export.
(c)	Such quantity as may be required by that country or territory for the execution during the year of orders for export in accordance with the provisions of this convention.
(d) The quantity, if any, required by that country or territory for the purpose of maintaining the reserve stocks at the level specified for the estimates for that year.
(e)	The quantity, if any, required for the purpose of maintaining the government stocks at the level specified in the estimates for that year.
An extensive illicit traffic in such drugs as morphine, heroin, and cocaine is carried on in many parts of the world. In fact, almost every day one reads in the newspapers of efforts that are being made to convict those who are so engaged. We in this country are neither exempt from the operation of these habit-forming drugs nor yet from the illicit traffic in them, but our efforts to repress the traffic have been marked with a certain measure of success. The effectiveness of regulatory action has, however, been limited by the fact that narcotic drugs are being manufactured in quantities vastly in excess of legitimate requirements for medical and scientific purposes. The restriction of manufacture to these requirements is the primary object of the convention before the house. Its
prompt ratification and rigorous application promise the ultimate eradication of a wretched and evil trade.
The importance of securing a satisfactory solution of this problem of manufacture to a country like Canada, which is technically a "victim country" cannot be over-emphasized. We do not manufacture narcotic drugs but depend for our legitimate requirements upon the countries in which these industries are already established. It is, therefore, a source of great satisfaction to all engaged in preventive work in Canada that an agreement has been reached on such a measure of limitation as this convention represents.
I may say that our representatives at the convention at Geneva were confronted with many difficulties in securing assistance from countries similarly situated and lending assistance to other countries determined to suppress the traffic. The result is the convention now before the house. It will be necessary to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Aot of 1929, and notice to that effect stands upon the order paper. That will enable the ratification of the convention, which will take place immediately, and the bill, as I say, will give effect to the provisions which the convention provides.
It may be pointed out that if this convention is approved and the government authorized to proceed to its ratification Canada will be the first country to complete ratification of the convention.
The attached report may be of some interest to members of this house who have been following these matters, for these words were used at the fifth committee of the assembly of the League of Nations on September 18, 1931, and give a fair indication of public opinion as represented by the delegates there assembled. The language is as follows:
The convention marks an entirely new and highly important development in international cooperation, since this is the first time that an industry has been brought under international regulation and that manufacture in its economic aspect has been wholly subordinated to higher humanitarian and moral aims. Thanks to the system established by this convention and the Geneva convention, there will be at the headquarters of the league itself a sort of central counting-house for the world traffic in drugs. . . . The new convention covers a far larger number of drugs than preceding conventions. It brings codeine under control, whereas for many years morphine converted into codeine has to some extent escaped all supervision. It prohibits the export, except on very strict conditions, of a substance which has in the past bulked very large in the illicit traffic-diacetylmorphme- and raises the question of its replacement by

League of Nations

less dangerous substances. It contains stipulations relating to reserve stocks and surplus stocks, which will be gradually brought into use for legitimate consumption by a corresponding reduction in output or will be disposed of under the sole responsibility of the government.
Above all, through a system of estimates furnished by governments, the convention enables a world total of the quantities to be manufactured to be fixed, and sets up a supervisory body to examine those estimates. . . . The new convention strengthens the powers of various league organizations, especially the advisory committee and the permanent central board. The fifth committee emphasized the importance that attached to the provisions instructing the advisory committee to draw up a model administrative code to serve, as it were, as a body of regulations for the application of the convention, and as a pattern for national laws and regulations. Furthermore, the system of annual reports and reports of seizures, which forms an essential part of the committee's work, is for the first time effectually incorporated in an international convention. The powers and responsibilities of the permanent central board are also enlarged.
Those are the words used in submitting the convention to the assembly in September last. I have, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the greatest satisfaction in moving the approval of this convention which has been entered into and in connection with which I should like to say that the Canadian representatives, and especially the chief of the narcotic division of our own Department of Pensions and National Health took a very important and at times not indecisive part.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRICE OF SEED WHEAT On the orders of the day:
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) yesterday asked for information arising out of a letter he had received as to why the elevators were receiving 58 cents a bushel for wheat, and the farmers receiving only 52 cents for the same grade of wheat. My information is that the elevators are receiving only 52 cents a bushel.
LOBSTER FISHING On the orders of the day:


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) yesterday asked me a question. Previously he had sent a note to my office which I did not receive until I had left the office and the chamber had assembled. His inquiry has been forwarded to the State department.



SEED AND FEED RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) yesterday asked a question with respect to an order for a return which was passed a few days ago. Upon inquiry I learn the return involves the work of several departments. Undoubtedly my hon. friend is aware of the procedure in such cases. The information from the several departments is forwarded to the Secretary of State, who, in turn, submits the return. Speaking only for the Department of Finance, I can say that I shall undertake to expedite the answer.



CANADIAN SETTLEMENT IN COLOMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiska-ming):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon), I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I have in my hand an Associated Press cable from Colombia to the effect that the government of that country intends to expropriate
1,000,000 acres of land and to place thereon 20,000 Canadians and 30,000 Europeans. Is the government aware of that movement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask that the question of the hon. member stand as a notice for the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon). I have heard that some Doukhobors from Canada were contemplating removal to Colombia. During the last few days, however, I have not had occasion to look into the matter.



LEAGUE OF NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister who is representing Canada at the special assembly of the League of Nations now sitting at Geneva?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Canada's representatives are the Right Hon. Sir George Perley and Hon. Maurice Dupre.


Ernest Lapointe: What about the lady?

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Richard Bedford Bennett: She is not a member of the government.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my right hon. friend, replying to a question addressed to him by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) mentioned that the lady representative at Geneva had not been appointed as a delegate to the assembly because she was not a member of the government. I should like to ask my right hon. friend if there is any new ruling which governs representation at the assembly of the league, because I have always understood the government was free to name any delegate it wished, whether the delegate was a member of the government or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I dare say Hansard will indicate that is not what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
we understood.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not responsible for
that. The ex-Minister of Justice asked a question, "What about the lady?" And I said that she was not a member of the government. That is a statement of fact; that is all. There is no rule that I know of which compels the appointment of a member of a government, or that does not leave the widest discrimination to appoint anyone. I named two members of the government and that, I thought, answered the question which was asked. I did not think it was necessary to say why someone else was not appointed, and I gave my answer in that way. Then the ex-Minister of Justice, thinking this a matter of importance, when his question as to who had been appointed had been respectfully and courteously answered, asked a question and received an answer. Then he volunteered something which had nothing to do with the question. I said "She is not a member of the government" in the same sense as he had asked the question.


Ernest Lapointe: It was a most improper answer, because the fact that she is not a member of the government is no reason why she should not sit at the assembly of the League of Nations. My right hon. friend himself has appointed people who were not members of the government to go to the assembly of the league. Other governments have done so, and I am quite sure that at the present assembly there are many delegates, in fact a majority of delegates, who are
not members of any government. I cannot see why the lady from Canada has been singled out to be left out of the delegation.



THE PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 3, consideration of the following proposed resolution (Mr. Rhodes):
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize deductions of ten per cent from the amounts of certain salaries or other compensations or indemnities payable by the government of Canada during the fiscal year 1932-33.
And to provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of all current contributions payable under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act in respect of the salaries payable during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933, of all employees who receive not more than one thousand two hundred dollars per annum.
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night at eleven o'clock I had stated I felt it was inevitable that this resolution should be accepted by the house. I did urge the government however to reduce interest charges on money or, as it is commonly known, money wages. I do not think there is any justice in reducing the salaries and wages of 90 per cent of the people of Canada and at the same time increasing money wages. We are moving in opposite directions.
I then proceeded to protest against some of the exemptions proposed in the resolution. I can see no reason why lieutenant governors' salaries should not be reduced, or why judges' salaries should not be reduced. They are the very highest paid officials and in such times as these their salaries could very well be reduced. I wish however particularly to refer to the military officers whose salaries under the proposed resolution are exempt. I can see no reason for such exemptions. It would seem that military men are being exempted while the salaries of civil employees are being cut; thousands of civil servants are to receive cuts in their salaries. Some of those servants were in the forces overseas; some of them served four years in the great war, and made great sacrifices. For that service they received the handsome salary of SI .10 a day, after which they returned to Canada and were placed in the civil service. Now they ai'e to receive a ten per cent cut, while the military officers, the generals and colonels who drew high salaries during the war are to be
796	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
allowed to maintain their regular salaries. I can think of no reason for such discrimination. Particularly do I feel that there is an injustice when I consider what is happening in the air force. Recently we learned that some of the men in that force who have been laid off sought service under a foreign government. I think they cannot be blamed for adopting that course. In most cases they have wives and children dependent upon them for support. Some of the very finest men I have known in Canada have been members of that force, and it is not necessary to remind this house that in every branch of military service Canada's soldiers were second to none among those who took part in the great war. I do not wish to make any comparison between the different branches of the Canadian military forces, but certainly I can say that Canada's air men were second to none. I believe every member of this house must admit that.
Recently a statement was made in the house that 70 officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force had been laid off. I believe 42 of them are ex-service men, and nearly 40 are married. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is a discrimination against married men who are also war veterans, when by common consent of all parties in this house war veterans, and especially married men, should at all times receive the greatest consideration. Forty-two returned men and dependents would number about 100 souls. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot let this resolution pass without protesting against the proposed cut. If these men are to be let out of the air force Canada is going to lose the services of her most experienced flyers. These men have flown over northwestern Canada and have charted air routes across that great country. They charted the air routes over Labrador, they laid out the routes for our air mail service. If they are to be dismissed now Canada is going to lose the very cream of her flying men. As a matter of general policy I think the government is making a mistake in reducing the civil service at this time. I realize that perhaps a cut should be made in the amount that is being spent on the civil service, but with hundreds of thousands of people unemployed surely it is not good policy to add to their ranks by discharging men of this type. I think a much better way of dealing with the matter would be to keep these men on the pay list at reduced salaries, that is, by cutting down the number of days' work so that nobody need be laid off. This would involve no increase in the appropriation for

the civil service, and all these men could be taken care of as vacancies occurred in any of the departments. We are only adding to the number of unemployed when we discharge civil servants at a time like this. I think most of us realize that there are no other jobs available for these people, which means that within a short time some of them will be in need of direct relief.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Why should the taxpayer be burdened?


George Gibson Coote: What I am proposing will
not add to the burden of the taxpayer. Under my proposal the reduced hours of labour would enable these men to be continued in the service without additional cost. I urge that this method be adopted to take care of these men now forming part of Canada's air force. Why should these men feel compelled to seek service under some foreign government-to provide as a matter of fact a fighting air force for that government in order to provide for their families? Flying is the only work these men are fitted for, and there are no positions in civil aviation to which they can turn now. They served in the war when they were young, in the very best years of their life, the formative period as we term it, and they are not fitted for any other work. For the work of our air force, however, they are better qualified than any other men whom we could put in their place.
Again I urge the government to adopt my suggestion that these men be retained in the service at a reduced salary. I am sure they would not object to a reduction in salary. Naturally they feel that they are not being treated fairly. A reduction of ten per cent applied to the salaries of all the officers of the National Defence department would take care of the salaries of these forty married men, all of them ex-servicemen, under the proposal which I am now putting forward. If the government will not consider such a reduction in the salaries of the personnel of the National Defence department, I suggest that these men be retained, and the total amount which is provided for the air force after the proposed ten per cent cut is put into operation be distributed among all the men who belong to the air force; let them all share in the reduction.
I suggest that the government abolish the lieutenant-governorships. The saving thus effected would more than take care of these forty married men and their dependents, and I am sure the service rendered Canada by

Public Service-Salary Deduction
these flying men is far more important than any service rendered to the country by our lieutenant-governors. Any judge of the supreme court in each of the provinces could very well discharge the duties of lieutenant-governor. Surely there is no question as to which is the more necessary national service.
I might also point out that a reduction of ten per cent in judges' salaries would provide far more than is being saved by the discharge of these flying men.
May I say in conclusion that these men have done the most dangerous work of any branch of the civil service. But what is the reward they are receiving? They are not being asked to submit to a cut of ten per cent; they are being retired, in most cases at one month's notice. If they return to civil life it is impossible for them to get jobs as flying men, the activities of civil aviation being now at a minimum. In a word, these men are facing unemployment-a most distressing prospect for their wives and families. These flying men have given Canada their best. Is Canada now going to let them be turned out in the cold? I do hope the government will take some action to see that these men are retained in the service.


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, before this debate closes,
I wish to add a few comments with reference to this resolution which does not do honour to the government. It is useless to refer to the numerous pledges made throughout the country by the Conservative party in the last election; pledges of charlatans, made with the view of capturing the people's confidence, pledges according to which the serious problem of unemployment was to be solved in three days, and an opportunity would be afforded to farmers to sell their products at better prices and secure new markets for our manufactures. It will soon be two years since this government has taken over the affairs of the country. The economic depression which existed at the last election far from abating has become worse. This is a clear proof of this government's incompetence and shows up their lack of ability to govern the country.
In order to balance its budget, it asks this house through a resolution to cut the salaries of civil servants by ten per cent.
The principle upon which rests this resolution, that is a horizontal cut applied to all salaries is no surprise to me. Ever since this government has been in power it has always been the poor, the small wage earner and the humble citizens who were called upon to contribute and in the same measure as the wealthy, the millionaires that sit in large numbers on your right, sir. They are responsible for the present state of our finances through the enforcement of a high protective tariff.
The quota of the civil servants who receive $1,200 per year, in justice should be less than that of the official who is paid $5,000 or $10,000. In fact, those receiving $1,200 should be entirely exempt from contributing to the treasury. As to judges, it would only be fair, during this depression that they do their bit in helping the state, they should not be exempt. The same may be said as regards gold lace officers who travel around the country and who perhaps have not even won their spurs on the battlefield. And these millionaires who sit facing us and have never known the sweat of labour, should also contribute on a larger scale than the wage-earners in order to relieve the present economic depression. It does not behoove the latter to open their purse, but those who have large fortunes and surpluses they cannot spend should contribute largely.
For these reasons, sir, I am opposed to this resolution, and not because I am called upon to contribute $400, as my share-I can well afford making this sacrifice-however, I strongly protest against this resolution which forces the small wage earner to contribute in the same ratio as those who can better afford it.
Yesterday, I heard the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) state: "Those who should be taxed for the administration of the country are those who have inherited millions through estates." I shall add that is also those who during the war-and they are friends of the present government-built up fortunes by selling horses, bacon, drugs and scrap iron, and, to-day, travel over the country displaying the millions they accumulated at the expense of the poor soldier who on the battlefield shed his blood to uphold freedom. Let the millionaires who accumulated their wealth during the war open widely their purse, and let us not allow the government to put through a resolution which asks the small wage earners, the lower grade civil servants to contribute equally with those who are in receipt of $10,000 or over $15,000 per year. In this contribution, one must not forget those who, last year, voted themselves $2,000 in prevision of this ten per cent cut which they are called upon to contribute in order to help the country out of the hole where this government has placed it, an administration directly opposed to the true interests of the Canadian people.
.	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
This is why, sir, I am strongly opposed to this resolution. If the situation is so bad that civil servants' salaries must be reduced, let it be at least in proportion to their earnings. I trust that these few remarks will be received in the best of spirit by the government and they will realize that if they wish to truly serve the people, and have at heart to do justice to all, they will, when the bill comes before the house, have it drawn up in such a way as to deal fairly with the small wage earners and that the latter will only be called upon to contribute in proportion to their earnings. In closing my remarks I would ask the government to exempt not only those who earn SI,200 but to also include those earning $1,500 and even $1,800. Should they grant my request I shall support the resolution. Otherwise, should they persist in being unfair to the small wage earners, I shall oppose it, and publicly I shall say: Stop 1 Do not ask from the humble and small wage earner the same contribution as you ask from those who are high up, rich and millionaires. The former are entitled to be fairly treated and as legislators we should see that they are.


John Power Howden: 
Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


John Power Howden: I was paired with the
hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MARCIL:: J was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryck-man). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WILLIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DUFF:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. EMBURY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-well). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired
with the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CAHAN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of tihe deputy speaker I would ask the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Morand) to take the ohair.
The house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Morand in the chair.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: What are the categories of employees to whom the ten per cent reduction does not apply?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Governor General of Canada, the lieutenant-governors of the several provinces, the members of the judiciary, the members otf the military, naval and air forces, and 'the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Ernest Lapointe: Will it apply to employees who are working by the hour?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: There are certain classes of employees whose wages have just been reduced. I have in my hand a list which was issued on March 1, giving the new rates of pay for men working on the La-chine canal maintenance. These rates will be effective from February 16 of this year. For instance, a blacksmith first- 'class was paid 82 cents per hour and will now be paid 65 cents; second class is reduced from 69 cents to 55 cents; helper first class from 62 cents to 50 cents; helper second class from 55 cents to 45 -cents; assistant -carpenter foreman from 82 cents to 70 cents; carpenter foreman from 89 to 75 cents; -carpenter first class from 75 cents to 65 cents; -carpenter second class from 62 cents to 55 cents; carpenter helper from 55 cents to 45 cents. There are many other classes. For ex-ample, there is labourer foreman who has been reduced from 75 cents to 60 cents; labourer from 48 to 40 cents; machinists foreman from 96 cents to 75 cents. And so on. They are all reduced. Now it would be most unfair, after having already reduced these men

Public Service-Salary Deduction
by a good deal more tlban ten per cent of what they were earning, to take off a further ten per cent from the rates which wild now prevail as from ithe 16th of February.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When the bill is introduced I think my hion. friend will find that apparent inequalities such as he refers to will be taken care of. It is not the intention that 'there should foe a double reduction in salaries or wages.


Mr. MANION:: In reply to ithe remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) may I point out that these reductions of Which he speaks are reductions which have been made throughout Canada not only on the Laohine canal but on canals in every other part of the country, under the 'prevailing rates of pay. In other words, there were a number of these men who were out of alignment with the prevailing rates of pay in the sections of country affected; they were not in line with the prevailing rates as paid by contractors, private corporations and so forth. Prior to this discussion of a ten per cent reduction this whole matter had been taken up with the Department of Labour and the prevailing rates of pay had been decided upon in different parts of Canada. And so far as these revised rates are concerned, the men in the different sections of the country were notified that they would be ,pu!t into force as the prevailing rate acceptable throughout the country. So that this is not a cut in wages but a realignment.


Mr. VENIOT:: What is it then?


Robert James Manion: It is not a reduction below the prevailing rates; it is simply a readjustment of wages. Laying aside the ten per cent, these men are getting now what they should have been getting previously. Let me give the information that was submitted to me by my officers. This was done on recommendation of the officers, and I am not blaming them; I am assuming responsibility. After I had gone into the matter I agreed with them. Some time before the last election these men had their time cut down to 44 hours per week and they retained their pay at the old rate per week, so that a number of them were out of alignment with the prevailing rates in the sections concerned, and this was merely to put them on the same rate of pay as was given in the different sections of the country by private corporations or contractors or any concern hiring the same class of labour.


Charles Marcil: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question. My chief reason for voting against this resolution is that certain 41761-51
classes are exempt under the proposed bill. Will the minister tell us why the judiciary and military and naval officers as well as the others are exempt?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Because in all these instances the relationship is one of contract.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask whether the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) still holds good after the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion)? The Minister of Finance intimated that when the bill is introduced these men will be taken care of so that they will not be subject to a double reduction, because according to the rates which I have read they have been already reduced by a good deal more than ten per cent. It amounts to twenty-five or thirty per cent, and I do not think it is fair to these men to add to that another ten per cent.


Charles Marcil: Following up that question-


Ernest Lapointe: I want an answer first.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have nothing to add to nor to subtract from the statement I made a moment ago.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend puts me in the dark.


William Duff: If I understood the Minister of Railways correctly, he said that these reductions of which the hon. member for Quebec East spoke were made in order that the people affected thereby should be in line with the same class of employees on canals in other parts of the country.


Robert James Manion: Not on canals particularly.


William Duff: Or any other work in his department. Prior to that the Minister of Finance said thait when the bill came down these men would be looked after and not affected because they had already taken the reduction. May I ask either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Railways what will happen if the statement made by the former is correct? What is going to happen to the men outside those whom the hon. member for Quebec East spoke about, men in other parts of the country who are working in the Marine department, in the minister's own department, and so on; will they receive now the amount of pay which, as the Minister of Railways has said, is intended to bring the men referred to by the hon. member for Quebec East into alignment with other classes in the country?

802	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction


Robert James Manion: I should say that the matter is a detail which will have to be considered by the government in applying the cut. That is the answer.


William Duff: That is not a satisfactory
answer to me. The Minister of Finance, in reply to the hon. member for Quebec East, said that because the men spoken of by the hon. member for Quebec East were mentioned in the reduction, they would be provided for in the bill. If no further reduction is made in the wages of the men referred to by the 'hon. member for Quebec East, is there going to be a reduction in the wages of the other employees all over the country, in whom the Minister of Railways is interested?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My statement made a
moment ago will appear in Hansard and I adhere to it. May I submit, with all deference and without the slightest desire to curtail discussion upon the resolution itself, that we could to far better advantage discuss questions of this kind when the bill itself, with its provisions, and the machinery which it intends to apply, is before the house.


William Duff: Is the minister in that statement referring to the Minister of Railways?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am referring to the whole house.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It will be altogether too late then. Now is the time to discuss this or not to discuss it at all. It may be as the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance have said with respect to the prevailing rates of those who have already received a cult, that 'those rates may be adjusted; but what will happen to those who are to-day working under prevailing rates and whose prevailing rates will be decreased on the first of April, after this legislation has gone into effect? If this goes through, and if there are certain regulations to be made, the ten per cent cut will, I understand, affect all those who are on prevailing rates, Whether or not they have already been reduced to the existing Standard of prevailing rates. If after this goes into effect, their wages will also be cut, then they will have to suffer a second cut when the prevailing rates in this district are readjusted on the first of April. They will thus have to suffer two cuts and it will be too late to talk about the matter then; the legislation will be already in operation, and therefore the situation must be cleared up now. The answer of the Minister of Railways is no answer, much less the intended answer given by the Minister of Finance.
[Mr Duff.]
Then there is this other aspect of the question: clearly all these people receiving under $1,200 will be affected. The answer is that all those who contribute to the superannuation fund will have to pay only five per cent. How many of those receiving less than $1,200 contribute to the superannuation fund? When the minister has answered that, so that nobody may intervene, I shall ask him this: Do these dispositions apply to those who pay into the retirement fund? They do not apply to them ait all. Those are the questions to which we must have answers before we allow the resolution to pass. The question is: How will the minister adjust the prevailing rates of those men who will suffer another cut on the first of May?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In view of the remarks of the senior member for Ottawa I would hesitate to answer the question, because I submit that to the best of my ability a moment ago I gave a correct reply, which my hon. friend says is not a correct answer at all. Therefore I do not know why he addresses a question to me.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: To whom then can I address it? Will someone else answer it on behalf of the government?
t Mr. RHODES:	What particular question
is it that my hon. friend has in mind at the moment?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I ask the minister or
anybody else on that side who can understand it and who has the ability to answer it: What will happen to the men now working under prevailing rates who will suffer this ten per cent cut and who will suffer an additional cut when the present prevailing rates are readjusted downwards on the first of April?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have nothing to add to or to subtract from the statement I made.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I trust the hon. minister will have something to subtract from the cut.


Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Chairman-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Let the minister answer.
I am prepared to stay here until I get an answer.


Peter Heenan: While the minister is
figuring out what answer he will give to the senior member for Ottawa, let me offer him my sympathy because at the present time he is in charge of a resolution the meaning of which his own colleagues of the cabinet do not understand. If there was no other justification for the opposition to this horizontal

Public Service-Salary Deduction
cut, it is now quite manifest that the members of the cabinet themselves do not know what it means. The Minister of Finance, I think, took the right and fair position in the matter when he answered the ex-Minister of Justice that any irregularities-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Inequalities.


Peter Heenan: -and inequalities-it is
all irregular anyhow-would be taken care of when the bill came down. The Minister of Railways, however, disagrees on that point-


Robert James Manion: I did not disagree at all.


Peter Heenan: -because of the fact that he has in his own department allowed or acquiesced in a reduction already even before the introduction of the bill. Is that not a justification for those on this side voting a few minutes ago against a horizontal cut? For the information of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Labour in particular, if they do not have it, I might give it to them now. When they reduced the wages of those men whom the ex-Minister of Justice mentioned a few minutes ago, they did an injustice to them.


Robert James Manion: I deny that.


Peter Heenan: In doing so they violated the law of this country. When the fair wage and eight-hour day bill went through, it provided, if I remember rightly, not only that the prevailing rate of wages should obtain but that the prevailing rate of wages should obtain only if it was a decent or reasonable rate of wages. Therefore it is not necessary that the prevailing rate of wagee should obtain if the Minister of Labour deems it not fair or reasonable. Consequently, when we put the eight-hour day into effect, in some instances we increased the wages of the lower paid men so that they would receive as much for an eight-hour day as they did for a ten-hour day. In other words, the then Liberal government-and I have never before been so proud of belonging to a Liberal government as I am at the moment-


Mr. ERNST:: But the hon. member does
not.


Peter Heenan: I mean that literally.
When we put the eight-hour day into effect we adopted the principle that the wages that the men were then receiving for ten hours should prevail. There was no man in the civil service whose hours were reduced from ten or nine to eight hours a day, who lost a proportionate amount in his wages or salary. That was why the Department of Labour in some instances increased the wages in particular of the lower paid men. Now the present government-and it seems to me the Minister of Railways quite approves what he did in the matter-actually stole, according to the laws of this country, so many cents an hour from these men. The Minister of Labour sits smiling behind the Minister of Railways and yet the other day he stood up on the floor of the house and said that he represented the great body of labour men in this country. When at the next election he returns to his constituency and travels throughout the length and breadth of the country, he will not be regarded as a gladiator on behalf of the labour forces of Canada, especially after the present exhibition of the Minister of Railways in glorifying the fact that he reduced the wages of these men and that now apparently, according to his own words, he is satisfied that they should take a further cut. I do not know how to discuss this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: I admit it. There are
many gentlemen on the other side who are giving that egotistical "ha ha" who simply do not know what they voted for recently. Even the members of the cabinet who are bringing in this legislation do not understand it.


Mr. SHORT:: 
Peter Heenan: 
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
Finance minister replying to the hon. member for Bonaventure said that exemptions were made in the case of the judges, the army and navy, and lieutenant-governors because in their case it was a question of contract. Does the minister seriously suggest to this committee that parliament cannot break any contract? The government themselves with regard to the members of the House of Commons and the Senate are breaking a contract by this legislation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Parliament is, of course,
all-powerful and can break any contract if it wills to do so, but it does not follow that

Public Service-Salary Deduction
if parliament does an unethical thing it is right. So far as those who are asked to make a contribution in virtue of this bill are concerned, there are no contractual rights.


Mr. POWER:: Does the minister think
that there are no contractual rights in the case of a civil servant when it is specified in the government's advertisement for the position that there shall be an annual increase of $120? Is not that a contractual obligation just as much as any contract with the man who enters the army and does not really know what he is going to be paid?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: May I say one word?
I do not want to enter into this discussion because I do not think it should be permitted at this stage, but in the case of the police, and the army and navy, these men are recruited. They cannot leave. They are there for three years, and if they leave before that time they are arrested as deserters. The civil servants are not in the same position. They can leave to-morrow if they so desire, if they can better their condition or they do not wish to carry on; but not so with the other class.
The point I was going to state, Mr. Chairman, was this: This is a general resolution. There are no exceptions mentioned in it. The bill is not before the committee, and the discussion must be general and in the terms of the resolution. When the bill is brought down, if there are exceptions, and I assume that there will be, there will be full opportunity in committee or on the first and second reading of the bill, to discuss them. The practice is pretty clearly laid down, and the extract I give is from May, thirteenth edition:
Debate on money resolutions is confined to the terms of the resolution and must not he extended to the bill.
We have a right to discuss the general terms of this resolution. We have already discussed them; we did so when the resolution was moved. The resolution is that there shall be a ten per cent reduction in the salaries of the service. There are no exemptions mentioned here, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion must be on the resolution as presented. If the bill contains other material, it will then be open to hon. gentlemen to discuss it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am quite prepared to discuss these matters as they arise.


Hugh Guthrie: I am only quoting the
rule of procedure in this house, and I am going to ask the chairman to rule on it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am going to discuss
the terms of the resolution just as it is.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: I rule
that the hon. member must confine himself to the terms of the resolution.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am going to read a
portion of the resolution. I am trying to help the Minister of Finance out of his difficulty. Now that the minister is in the hole, see if he can get out of it. I knew exactly where he was heading for. The resolution reads, in part:
And to provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of all current contributions payable under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act in respect of the salaries payable during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933, of all employees who receive not more than one thousand two hundred dollars per annum.
I asked the Minister of Finance if this applied to prevailing rates men, and I was told, yes, it did. Now if it does apply to the prevailing rates men, how will it affect them? I certainly have the right to ask that question. I have pointed out to the minister the difficulty. There are some who have already been reduced in salary, but there are others who will not be reduced until after this measure goes into effect on April 1 or thereafter. I have asked the minister in plain English, how is he going to take care of those cases? Has * he thought of them? That is my question, and if he cannot answer it I am sorry, but I want to get an answer from someone who can answer it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not going to take
exception to the lecture from my hon. friend from Ottawa, but I submit in all deference, and I suggested it a short time ago, that he can discuss the details to much better advantage when the bill itself is under discussion. However, my answer to the inquiry which my hon. friend has just put to me is precisely the same as my answer to the question put to me by the hon. member for Quebec East. I have precisely the same answer to give to him.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: All right, but that is no answer at all. If the Finance minister cannot give me an answer, then probably somebody else on the treasury benches can. I am going to put this question to the Minister of Justice who is now leading the house, and I would ask him to answer it or let anyone on the other side who can answer it do so.


Robert James Manion: I do not think I can let the remarks of my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) go by without some *correction. The hon. gentleman has a haibit of rising in this house and making speeches and not only in this house but outside, which contain more irresponsible statements than

Public Service-Salary Deduction
those of all the rest of his party put together. He has been frequently corrected during the last few years since he came into this house, and shown on innumerable occasions to have made statements which were not true.
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Order.


Robert James Manion: He has been disowned by the people of his own riding. Within the last week in this house statements which he had made regarding unemployment in his district were declared to be false by the town council of Kenora, his home town where they know him best, and as well by the Canadian Legion of the town of Kenora, which also knows him well, and by the board of trade of Kenora. If he were at all sensitive, if he were not so thick-skinned, after the showing up which he got here from the Minister of Labour the other evening he would have been ashamed to open his mouth in this house for weeks to come. The hon. gentleman is a great boaster of what he does for labour. He is always standing up as a great champion of 'the labour people of this country, and yet for years he was in this house as Minister of Labour and he talked all over this country of old age pensions and while he was talking of them in London, his leader the then Prime Minister was saying in the city of Ottawa that they would not have them. Despite all his talk of old age pensions in London and elsewhere throughout this country he never made any move to bring them into effect.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I rise to a point of order.


Robert James Manion: But it was associated-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, you ruled, and quite properly so, that we were to discuss the terms of this resolution, and I confined myself to the resolution. I have had no answer yet to the question I put to the minister, and I submit 'that the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals are far afield, that they have nothing at all to do with the resolution.


Eccles James Gott: In answer to the hon. gentleman-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I would ask an hon.
gentleman who knows more about procedure-


Eccles James Gott: I know something about
onions; I assure the hon. member of that.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Let the chairman decide the point of order.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I submit, sir, that on
the point of order you should rule that we confine ourselves to the terms of this resolution, and not refer to what happened in Kenora.


Robert James Manion: I shall now direct my remarks to the resolution-now that I have said what I had to say in reply to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. That hon. member made the statement that I gloried in cutting the-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: I am dealing with a clause of this measure.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member must speak to the resolution.


William Duff: I should like the chairman to
decide on the point of order which has been raised.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The point of order is
well taken.


Robert James Manion: I accept the ruling of the chair. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, dealing with the so-called cut in wages on the canals-because that is what promoted the discussion-said that I gloried in what he called a cut in wages. I did nothing of the sort. I justified what he called a cut in wages. I can think of no reason in the world why the employees of a government should be paid a greater hourly rate than the employees of private corporations. On that ground I stand, and it was on that ground that the officers of the department drew to my attention the fact that these men, under the prevailing rates of wages, were receiving more than men working for private corporations doing the same class of work. After consultation with the Department of Labour the recommendation was made to me that those men should be put on the prevailing rates of wages for the districts concerned. I agreed with their recommendation, and the change was made. I did not glorify it. I have no desire to cut anybody's wages, but on the other hand I can think of no reason why employees of a government, whether they be carpenters or any other type of employee, should receive more than men doing similar work for private corporations. That attitude I took, and I do not withdraw any word or part of it.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, it is quite
evident that the Minister of Railways and Canals is glorying in the position he has taken regarding the cut in wages of the men
on the canal 'because he has no aipology to



S06 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Public Service-Salary Deduction
make. He has the kindliest words for the employees whose wages he cut-but who could expect anything else from a gentleman who says he can see no reason why government employees should not receive any more than those employed by private concerns. Even if the private concerns ground their labourers down into the mud the government-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Peter Heenan: -is prepared to follow in the same footsteps-


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheap.


Peter Heenan: 
Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: At the same time he was talking about something about which he knew nothing. He took as an example an occasion when the former Minister of Labour spoke in the city of London concerning old age pensions-


Robert James Manion: I was ruled out of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Please keep to the matter under consideration.


Ernest Lapointe: You had your innings.


Robert James Manion: But he had his first; however, I shall have another.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Confine your remarks to the resolution.
Mr. ST-PERE: Take your medicine.


Peter Heenan: The former Minister of
Labour was talking in London about the old age pensions when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, was discussing something to the contrary. I want to tell the minister that I was not talking about old age pensions at all. I was referring to unemployment insurance-but I do not think you ever read that word in your life.


Mr. STEVENS:: Order; address the chair.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must confine his remarks to the subject matter.


Robert James Manion: May I say that I meant unemployment insurance, instead of old age pensions. The use of the term "old age pensions" was a slip of the tongue, because I meant unemployment insurance.


Peter Heenan: I quite understand that the Minister of Railways did not know what he was talking about.


Robert James Manion: Well, I am glad my hon. friend understands something.


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Railways,
together with some of the gentlemen who sent the telegrams a few days ago to say that I was not telling the truth, came over into my riding during the last election campaign and told my constituents what an untruthful man I was.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: Notwithstanding that, I
was elected.


Robert James Manion: Not by very much.


Peter Heenan: At that time the present Minister of Railways and Canals said I was a member of a cabinet-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: -that was talking all over the country about old age pensions-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: -and yet did nothing about those pensions. Does the Minister of Railways and Canals not know that the Liberal party brought in-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must remind the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that under this resolution he must not discuss old age pensions.


Peter Heenan: I am replying to the Minister of Railways.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Your remarks are out of order.


Peter Heenan: Why did you not rule the Minister of Railways out of order?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: He went too far, too; but he was ruled out of order.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, will you please tell me why our Minister of Railways and Canals does not know that there is an old age pension system in Canada at the present time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not a point of
order.


Peter Heenan: Will you permit the minister to tell me that?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Please stay within the resolution; the hon. member surely must know he is not conforming to the rule.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I may be permitted to answer the hon. member. I confess I used the words "old age pensions" instead of the words "unemployment insurance," but the mistake was made merely by a slip of the tongue. As the hon. member must admit, while in London he referred to unemployment insurance. By a slip of the tongue however I used the words "old age pensions."


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, are you
going to permit the Minister of Railways to discuss unemployment insurance and old age pensions, but forbid me to do so?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I shall not allow anybody.


Peter Heenan: I quite accept the minister's statement; I knew he was making a mistake, because he makes them all the time. I wish to point out however that the Minister of Railways is taking a position different from that of the Minister of Finance, so far as this resolution is concerned. The prevailing rate of wages in Canada to-day is protected by law. The eight-hour day and fair-wages on. government contracts and government works must be accepted; it is the law of Canada, and is not a regulation of the Department of Railways and Canals. The law provides that if the prevailing rate of wages is fair and reasonable, such rate will obtain. However the Minister of Railways and Canals, in fact the whole government, evidently has decided that it makes no difference whether or not wages be fair or reasonable, those wages must be the prevailing wages paid by private contractors. I am in all kindness trying to prevent the Minister of Railways and Canals from-


Robert James Manion: I do not want kindness
from you.


Peter Heenan: I am elected to try to
keep my hon. friend straight, and if I cannot do it-


Robert James Manion: You are too busy trying to be crooked yourself, to keep anybody else straight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Peter John Veniot: Withdraw.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member has pointed out that he is trying to keep me straight. I think he was getting pretty close to the line, and probably his remark was as objectionable as my statement that he was busy trying to be crooked. However, I bow to your ruling.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members will
please keep within the resolution.


Peter Heenan: I understand the minister has withdrawn his statement; it does not matter to me whether he did or not, because any time-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That has nothing to
do with the subject before us.


Peter Heenan: Any time anybody on the other side of the house talks about being crooked-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Peter Heenan: Do you think I am going to stand and allow that statement to go on Hansard without telling you this, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: Any time any man sitting on the other side of the house says that someone is crooked, I want to reply to it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was withdrawn.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, the statement
was withdrawn.


Peter Heenan: I am elected to this house to try to keep the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the remainder of the government, straight on these matters, so far as the interests of the working men in Canada are concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: When they reduced the prevailing rates of wages in order to bring them down to a level with those that were paid by private interests, they were robbing the workmen of whatever reduction took place.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: They were robbing them because the laws of the country provide that the workmen shall get fair and reasonable rates of wages-not the prevailing rates altogether. I want to say to the Minister of Finance that if the bill is to contain a pro-. vision that those who already have received a reduction in wages shall not be affected, I will support the bill-I take that back.


An hon. MEMBER:: You do not know what you have said.


Peter Heenan: I do not know whether to support it until I have seen the other provisions of the bill; but I will support that particular feature. I am Sony that some of the minister's colleagues, not knowing what

Public Service-Salary Deduction
they are talking about, have introduced the subject of some petty patronage in Kenora by some defeated candidate and his henchmen, for by so doing they have thrown a monkey wrench into the machinery and made his position far worse than it was.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Can the minister say
how many of these people who earn less than $1,200 will be affected by the resolution?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not sure that I have the exact figures before me.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I understand the minister's difficulty.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be able, I hope, to get accurate figures before the bill is disposed of in committee.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the minister implement that information to this extent? Some months ago a certain number of civil servants earning less than $1,200 were retired or released. Have there been any further dismissals or retirements of this class who will be affected by the disposition of the five per cent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I submit that this has no bearing whatever on the resolution, blit I shall be glad to get the information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister admitted that there would be inequalities when he stated they would be dealt with by a provision in the bill. As I recollect, the Prime Minister when introducing the resolution intimated that the bill would leave the adjustment of inequalities in the hands of the governor in council. Might I ask my hon. friend if that is a correct impression, or can he tell us what will be the provision in that regard?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend will see at once the difficulty of attempting to discuss the bill while we are discussing the resolution. Under the circumstances I can best answer him by saying there will be a .provision in the bill whereby the treasury board can make rulings with respect to inequalities which might arise in the administration of the act. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. That is practically what I thought the Prime Minister meant. I may say quite frankly that this is one of the reasons why I am inclined to take exception to the measure. After all, it seems to me that a body such as the Civil Service

Commission would be much better qualified to deal with irregularities and inequalities than would the treasury board, which is a committee of the cabinet. This gets back again to placing everything in the hands of the government by order in council, even to the adjustment of admitted inequalities. I confess I have not quite the confidence in the administration that I should like to have, and that has a bearing on the point of view as presented here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend's
remarks bear out the suggestion which I made some time ago as to the hopelessness of our attempting to discuss a bill which is not before us. Admitting that what my hon. friend has just stated is a fair subject of discussion, perhaps some other machinery might be set up for the purpose of ironing out inequalities which might arise in application of the act, but we can only discuss that feature when the bill itself is before committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared not to press this aspect of the matter further at present. I wanted, however, to clear up the one point as to whether the inequalities were to be dealt with by the ministry or by such a body as the Civil Service Commission, which has been constituted by parliament to deal with all civil service matters. May I ask my hon. friend a question, too, in regard to the exempted classes. As I understood, he gave as a reason why certain classes of public servants were not included in the proposed ten per cent reduction that their position was one of contract. Later on he or one of his colleagues mentioned that members of the civil service were free to leave the service whenever they desired to do so. Is not that equally true of our judges, who come within the exempted classes? Is there any contract which obliges a judge to remain on the bench if he desires to withdraw?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think the cases
are comparable at all. If my right hon. friend will refer to his colleague on his left (Mr. Lapointe), who for some time occupied the distinguished office of Minister of Justice, he will find that a judge is not free to retire from the bench at will, not by any means.


Ernest Lapointe: He may resign.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He may resign at any time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And his resignation may or may not be accepted.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to know any cases where resignations have not been accepted. Are not the indemnities of members of parliament fixed by statute, and to that extent are they not in the same position as the salaries of civil servants?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would say that it is
quite competent for us to deal with our own indemnities. I would put them in a class entirely apart from the salaries of civil servants. But I would think that every member of the house without question would wish to make a contribution to the treasury under the conditions that exist at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to concede that at a time like this members of parliament as such will wish to set an example that will be appreciated by the country at large. But the point I want to bring out is this: My hon. friend says they do that of their own volition because they are here assembled. This proposed bill does not assume they are doing it of their own volition; it assumes that parliament is going to do the will of the ministry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Have the civil servants been given any opportunity to act in a similar manner? Before this resolution was placed on the order paper was any approach made on the part of. the government to any organization of the civil service to consider the question of voluntarily making a percentage deduction from their salaries in order to meet the present situation? In other words, in the matter of a voluntary deduction why should not the public service of Canada be put in precisely the same position as members of parliament at this time? Has any attempt been made to allow the service itself to express what it will do voluntarily?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With respect to the last
question submitted by my right hon. friend, of course there was discussion with any number of civil servants. My right hon. friend will realize that while there is a civil service federation, a highly reputable and very representative body, it by no means represents the whole body of the civil service of Canada. We heard, as a government, a deputation from the civil service federation, as well as any others who cared to make representations to us, so I think it is a fair statement, without the government being called upon to consult every individual civil servant in Canada, to say that there was a reasonable and fair canvass made of the situation prior to this resolution being brought in.
Now I must take exception, quite deferentially, to my right hon. friend calling in question the procedure of the government in bringing down a bill of this character and assuming that parliament must pass it. My right hon. friend knows full well that it is the responsibility of the ministry of the day to initiate legislation touching financial matters, and we followed the procedure which my right hon. friend has followed and which of necessity all governments must follow. The answer to the objection he raised will be found in the circumstances as to whether or not parliament in its wisdom sees fit to pass legislation which has been initiated by the government. If it does so then his question will be answered, and in that case I can see no force in the suggestion he makes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
that in speaking of the civil service being given an opportunity voluntarily to make a contribution to meet the emergent situation, similar to the way in which members of parliament are doing at the moment, I had in mind what I observed during last year and this year, that members of the public service had made a very considerable voluntary contribution to unemployment relief. I understand that a collection was taken up in the different departments and that members of the service contributed very generously towards unemployment relief. In doing so I think the public service showed that if given the same opportunity it was just as ready to make its contribution to meet an emergent situation as are members of parliament.
In that same connection I should like to ask another question. Did the ministry, before it brought in this measure, confer with the Civil Service Commission as to whether or not, in their opinion, a horizontal cut would be a wise way of bringing about this deduction, or whether in the interests of the public service of Canada it would be better to have a graded deduction?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend has
referred to the civil servants having made contributions towards the unemployment relief fund. They did so, and they are to be commended for their action in that respect. I have always found that civil servants, wherever they may be, are splendid citizens, and as citizens and not as civil servants they made a contribution to that philanthropic object, together with other citizens. But my right hon. friend must bear in mind that the contribution was made from the salary which they had received in full. If this bill passes, the contribution for which we are asking will

Public Service-Salary Deduction
be made out of the amount of the salary which they will receive for the next year, and therefore it has no bearing upon the suggestion he has just made with respect to their already having made a contribution, unless he takes the ground that having made a contribution this year they are to be absolved for all time from making any further contribution.
Then with respect to the other question, so far as I am aware the Civil Service Commission was not consulted as to whether it would be wiser to make a straight reduction of ten per cent or whether it would be better to have that reduction graduated. The commission may have been consulted, but so far as I am aware it was not. However, my right hon. friend knows that whether the proposed method is the right one or the wrong one, after all it is a question of governmental policy, for which the government must assume the responsibility. It may be that my right hon. leader consulted the Civil Service Commission upon that point; I cannot say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have said very frequently, if there is a wrong way of going about anything the Prime Minister is apt to take it in preference to the right way. I repeat that the Prime Minister's method is very arbitrary. It is not the method, before taking a particular step, of bringing into consultation and conference those who may be affected. What the Minister of Finance now says bears out the truth of that statement. Apparently the minister personally has not been consulted, nor does he know whether or not that step has 'been taken with the Civil Service Commission; I venture to say there is not a member of the .cabinet at this moment who can say whether or not the Civil Service Commission was consulted. The steps that lead up to the formation of government policy is something with which every member of the cabinet ought to be familiar; what has been done ought to be a matter of common knowledge on the part- of the ministry,-the ministrj'' should have full knowledge,-before a step of this kind is taken which affects the entire public service of Canada. Every member of the government should know whether the body appointed by this parliament particularly for the purpose of having supervision over the public service in matters of salary deductions, salary increases and so on, had been consulted.
That is one of the very serious objections to the measure as framed, that apparently there has been no consultation with the service itself. The minister has just said that the government received a statement from the

civil service federation. I think it was admitted, on a day when my bon. friend unfortunately was prevented from being in the house, that when the delegation came to present their views this resolution was already on the order paper, and the bill itself, I understand, drafted. I do not think they were given any real opportunity to present any views in a way which 'would .permit of their careful consideration, and I do say that if that opportunity had been given I believe the ministry would not have brought in a horizontal cut. It is the horizontal cut to which we take exception. We do not take exception to the .public service being asked to make a contribution at this time, but we are opposed to a horizontal, arbitrary cut of ten per cent instead of a graded deduction. That is the whole point of our opposition to this measure; the vote just taken was registered on that account, as I made very plain when I spoke at the outset.
I do think that if the ministry had approached this matter by conference, by conciliation and by negotiation, the main object namely, that of getting a very substantial contribution from the public service of Canada, might have been attained, but it would have been obtained with good will, and with an appreciation of the fact that all those contributing were joining in the performance of a patriotic act. The civil service of Canada is just as patriotic as any other body, as my hon. friend has just said, and civil servants are just as much entitled to an opportunity to disclose their patriotism to the country as is the Prime Minister. They were quite as much entitled to be given an opportunity voluntarily to show what they were willing to do as the Prime Minister was entitled to say what should be done, whether they wished it or did not wish it done. That is the point I desire to impress on my hon. friend.
Now I should like to ask another question. There has been a civil service council established by order in council. I do not know whether or not hon. gentlemen opposite have seen the order in council, or whether they are aware of it. I think I may take it for granted that this body was not called into conference either. If I am mistaken in that, perhaps my hon. friend will correct me. That body was formed for the very purpose of helping to meet situations of this kind. It was brought into being by the previous administration, as being in character similar to the joint councils which for some time past have been in existence in England, and which have had to do with these very questions that arise between a ministry and those who are members of the public ser-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
vice. I submit that this body should have been brought into conference with the government and given an opportunity to make representations. I believe that, if such a body had been consulted and the whole situation carefully .placed before it, the .ministry would have been able to come to parliament and advise us that the public service of Canada and the government had arrived at a graded basis of deduction from the salaries of civil servants, which the civil servants themselves were prepared voluntarily to make, and which the country would be pleased to know they were ready to make. But the government have not taken that course; they have assumed the arbitrary attitude of-"Take it or leave it; we are in authority; we are in power and we are going to cut your salaries no matter what you say about it. And we are going to cut them all alike regardless of how long you have been in the service, whether you are married, no matter what the extent of your family responsibilities, or whether or not you are contributing to certain funds, or what your other obligations are, or whether you have served your country overseas in the great war?" The arbitrary method is what I wish to stress, the way in which the government has gone about' this business, however laudable the object may be. That is one point.
The second point is this. My hon. friend mentioned a list of those who are exempt, and at the head of the list he placed His Excellency the Governor General. As we all know, and as the country appreciates, His Excellency has himself voluntarily made a ten per cent contribution to the treasury at this time. Can my hon. friend tell us whether any of the lieutenant-governors or any of the judges of Canada have voluntarily made a contribution?


An hon. MEMBER:: They would not do
it anyway; they are Liberals.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must respectfully take
*exception to my right hon. friend's position. He assumes that the action with respect to this measure was the arbitrary and highhanded action of the Prime Minister. Now the proposals may be good or not; they may be sound or not; but I wish to assure my right hon. friend that they -are the proposals of the ministry as a whole and we are all equally responsible. We must share equally in the responsibilty. My right hon. friend would have it appear-and perhaps from his point of view I cannot take exception to his having done so-that the action of the government is arbitrary and high-handed, a take it or leave it attitude. Well, I submit that such a view could be taken of every government proposal that is brought down following constitutional practice. As I have already said this afternoon, money bills must of necessity be initiated by the government and upon message; there is no other way whereby they can be initiated. Therefore the same argument would obtain with respect to every similar measure which has been introduced not only this session but in previous sessions, and that will be the case until some other method of procedure is devised which in the judgment of British parliaments is more satisfactory than the one that obtains at the moment. My right hon. friend has put a query to me as to whether others have followed the example of His Excellency the Governor General. So far as I am aware none have.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is just
one further point I wish to refer to and that is the conception of contractual obligation which my hon. friend has put forward-that there are certain statutes governing the salaries of some officials in the public service, and that these statutes being in existence places those to whom they refer in a different position from the others. May I ask my hon. friend:	Is it not true that every man or
woman who enters the public service does so because of certain advantages which the service offers to them, of permanency, the possibility of promotion, statutory increases, retirement and the like, in consequence of which they are prepared to accept a much lower rate of remuneration than very many of them would receive if they were in the competitive world, and taking their part in the general business of the country? That being so, is there not an implied contract, if there is not also an actual contract, the terms of which as understood at the time of entering the service they have a right to expect will be carried out, and have they not also a right to expect that they will not be subjected to anything unforeseen without at least having some opportunity of making their own representations in advance?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not take exception
to what my right hon. friend has said with respect to civil servants, although he did not enumerate all the advantages. But I do take exception to this, and it is an attitude which hon. gentlemen opposite have almost invariably taken. They assume that by this measure we are introducing a salary reduction. Now, I submit that we have not interfered with the salaries of civil servants as such. We propose by this resolution the deduction of a stated sum which ought to be regarded as in the nature of either a contribution or
Public Service-Salary Deduction

a tax as ihe case might be, depending upon whether the method is agreeable to the civil servant or whether it is not. My right hon. friend has spoken of an implied contract with the civil servants. Admitting that this may be so with respect to the question of salary, surely he does not take the position that we should regard the civil service as a class sacrosanct and apart from the citizenship at large. If that were so my right hon. friend could not have been a party to the application of the income tax to the salaries of civil servants, because to the extent that the income tax is applied to the salary of a civil servant, to that extent does he make a contribution, and to that extent is his salary reduced.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That applies to all
Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am dealing with the
point made by my right hon. friend that inasmuch as there is a contractual relationship between the state and the civil servant therefore the civil servant's salary should not be reduced. That is not a sound ground, because we do the same thing when we ask him to pay income tax to the federal treasury.


Mr. RALSTON:: But you do that to
everyone else.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: According to my right
hon. friend, there is an implied contract that the salary shall remain as it was when the individual entered the service. I am not admitting that there is a contract; I am taking his argument that one is implied.


Peter John Veniot: There is a contract.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let me come back to the argument I was making a moment ago. If my right hon. friend were to establish the proposition that by this act we were reducing the salaries of civil servants, there would be virtue in his argument. But what we are doing is this. We are asking that, while the country is in dire need-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: You are not asking.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -of a contribution from
ill its citizens, the civil service shall make a fair contribution for one year only. The bill will provide that it shall apply for one year only, and at the end of that year the salaries of civil servants will be precisely what they were but for the intervention of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must take exception to my hon. friend's contention that the government is not interfering with salaries. Civil servants in this city and elsewhere have

obligations to meet-premiums coming due on insurance, rent to be paid and so forth; can they be excused from payment simply by saying to those who present them with the accounts that their salaries are not what they have always been? Will they not be obliged to say that their salaries are not what they were before and that they axe, therefore, unable to pay? Once accounts have to be met we shall soon find out whether salaries have been interfered with by the government. How can the civil servant say his salary has not been interfered with, when it has been out ten per cent for this year? It is only playing with words to say that salaries are not interfered with. It is a cut of ten per cent this year. If every citizen of Canada who has not already suffered a reduction in wages or salary or income were being asked to forego ten per cent of his income, then we would have a ten per cent cut which was general and which did not single out a particular class. But the way in which this measure is presented amounts to the conscription of ten per cent of the wages of the civil service throughout Canada, to the exclusion of the salaries of these belonging to other classes. If that be a just basis of procedure, I should like to hear the minister defend it, but it is the position.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend has referred to the fact that in requiring the civil servants to make this contribution the contracts upon which they entered the service will be interfered with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By the reduction in the amount.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. But I think the same argument applies to everyone in this country. I do not know anyone else who has not been subjected to a reduction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is in addition to that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unless my hon. friend is prepared to take the position that civil servants are to be placed in a glorified class by themselves-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am taking the other position. '


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If we admit, as I think it must be admitted, that the treasury requires a greater revenue, to the extent that the civil service fails to make this contribution,
the other citizens of the country must have an-additional burden of taxation imposed upon them. That is the argument. When my right hon. friend says:	You are asking a contri-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
bution from the civil service and you are not asking it from the other citizens of the country, I say to him: The other citizens are sustaining a cut of ten per cent and perhaps a little more.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say this, that any application of an income tax will apply to the civil service in precisely the same manner as to any other class. I do not think my hon. friend intends to exempt the civil service from the income tax.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They will have to meet the same obligations in respect of taxation as anyone else. If the government would say: We shall have a one per cent 'levy on the salary of every citizen of Canada, they would not have to make a ten per cent levy on this particular branch of the public service. That is where the discrimination comes in. As I see it, it is a most unfair and unjust discrimination, and I think the minister, when he considers the great body of citizens at large, will see the matter in the same light. There is a discrimination between members of the civil service, who have limited salaries, and lieutenant-governors, judges, members of the army and the navy, the air force and the mounted police. How can my hon. friend defend a discrimination of that kind? He began by defending it upon statutory grounds. But that is not what he is arguing now. His last argument is that, if the civil servants do not pay this, all the other citizens will have to pay it. Why should the civil service have to make a contribution on behalf of the other citizens? It is singling out one particular class in the dominion and making it carry a burden which ought to be distributed generally over the citizens at large.


Mr. BROWN:: I do not like to enter into the discussion of what seems to be a legal problem, but some hon. members have been considering the question of the judges. It has been indicated from the other side of the house that they are to be exempted on statutory grounds. The question of statutory grounds was raised on this side only because it was first raised on that side. Some of us who are not lawyers feel that if the argument in regard to statutory grounds holds good as to judges, it holds equally good as to civil servants.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think this makes very much difference, but in my first answer to an inquiry that was submitted as to why there was a distinction, I said it was because of contractual rights; I did not mention statute. I said it was a matter of contract.


Mr. YENIOT:: I hold in my hand a copy of the Civil Service Act, from which I wish to correct a statement made by the Minister of Justice that judges could not resign, could not get out of the service at will.


Hugh Guthrie: I made no such statement.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, the hon. member did. He said that their resignation need not be accepted.


James Houston Spence: Then why did the hon.
member not say that?


Peter John Veniot: I was not given time to say it.


James Houston Spence: My hon. friend tells part of the truth all the time.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend thinks he is at present in the good roads convention. He has wheels in his head.


James Houston Spence: I have as many as the hon. gentleman himself.


Peter John Veniot: While the judges have the privilege of resigning, the civil service does not have it. No member of the civil service may resign except under regulations of the Civil Service Commission. That is statutory. Section 53 of the act reads:
The commission shall by regulation prescribe what shall constitute a resignation of a position by an employee.
Therefore they are in a worse position than the judges. Let me point out further that section 13 of the Civil Service Act states, in part:
But no appointment shall in any case be made at less than the minimum nor at more than the maximum rate prescribed for a class.
Is that not a statute and binding? Is that not a contract? Let me go further. Subsection 4 of section 11 states:
No permanent employee who was appointed before the tenth day of November, 1919, shall have the salary of his position on that date reduced by reason of the classification of his position, and if any such employee is placed in any class where the maximum salary is smaller than the maximum salary of the subdivision or grade in which he was before classified he shall be entitled in the same manner and to the same extent as heretofore to increases until he has reached the maximum fixed for the subdivision or grade in which he was previously classified.
That is even more binding than any contract for the judges of the supreme court or the lieutenant-governors of the provinces. The statute distinctly states that there shall be a minimum and a maximum. That minimum and that maximum are rated when the employee is engaged; he is under contract; the



S14 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Public Service-Salary Deduction
government is under contract with him that he shall go from that minimum to the maximum as the regulations prescribe, and those regulations have the effect of a statute. Therefore. when our hon. friends opposite try to make a distinction as between judges and other branches of the civil service-because after all the judges are only a branch of the civil service, and so are the lieutenant-governors- they are merely drawing a red herring across the trail of the injustice they are doing to one class of the civil service of this country.
William Duff: There is one class of citizens in Canada who will be affected by this legislation and for whom nobody has so far said a good word. The Minister of Finance has told us that the judges and some others have contractual rights so far as this legislation is concerned, and unless the statute is amended the cut cannot apply to them. He referred particularly to the judges. There are several other classes of people who have contractual rights, but I am going to refer to only one. Under the statutes of Canada the members of this house have contractual rights with the Canadian people. I was elected in my constituency in 1930, and I accepted the nomination thinking I was to receive $4,000 a year for the term of this parliament.


Mr. GOBEIL:: The hon. member voted
against the resolution.


William Duff: Yes, my hon. friend did not have spunk enough to vote against it. I voted against the resolution for several reasons. One is that I consider that as a member of parliament I shall, before the end of the session, have earned the $4,000 which I am supposed to get from the people of this country. If we had the proper spirit in this parliament we would get up and say that we are entitled to the $4,000, and that we should not have had this cut made without the government at least consulting the members of parliament as to whether they wanted the cut made or not.


Harry Bernard Short: We consulted them this
afternoon when the vote was taken.


William Duff: You consulted them? Not
you. The member for Digby-Annapolis is opposed to this cut, I know.


Harry Bernard Short: I take it willingly, and I
want to say to my hon. friend that it is the second cut of ten per cent that I have taken
since the first of January.


William Duff: You deserved them both. I
have taken seven since the first of January.


Harry Bernard Short: I am employed by only one other concern.


William Duff: I say, Mr. Chairman, that we were not consulted about this. I say that this parliament was assembled and that the government had no right even to bring in this legislation without consulting parliament. But what they did was to bring down the estimates, and in those estimates, with regard to both members of parliament and to the civil service, they deliberately, without consulting parliament at all, made a reduction of ten per cent. The reason they did that was to endeavour to show the people of this country that they were making a reduction in their expenditure this year of $23,000,000. What they should have done, I contend, was not only to consult the members of parliament with regard to the reduction in indemnity, but to introduce a resolution before they brought down the estimates or made the cut which the estimates show. There is no question that that was the proper thing to do. I agree with those who say that the action of the government in putting this ten per cent cut in the estimates was an arbitrary action; and every member of parliament would agree with me if he spoke his mind.


Harry Bernard Short: No. We wanted to make a contribution to the country. We did it willingly, every member of us.


William Duff: I say to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis that he was not consulted about it at all. Will he tell me that he was not consulted about that other reduction which he spoke of as having received since the first of January?


Harry Bernard Short: No.


William Duff: I say, Mr. Chairman, that if
this reduction is to be made, if the members of parliament are to lose $400 from their indemnity, the judges of this country have a right to be cut ten per cent as well as anybody else.


Harry Bernard Short: I agree with you there, my
friend.


William Duff: My hon. friend and I usually
agree. Let us see what are the conditions affecting the judges and those associated with the judges. I have no particular reason to discuss the judges' salaries. In fact, to be quite candid, and I want to say this before I go on; that as far as I am concerned I believe this whole thing is a mistake and that the government by reducing any salaries is creating a feeling of unrest all over the country.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Harry Bernard Short: No. It is the most popular
thing that ever happened.


William Duff: Very good'; we will see in the next election. Why should the judges in the supreme court here in Ottawa, for instance, be allowed to retain their full salaries while the registrar of the supreme court, who has to do just as important work as the judges, takes a reduction of ten per cent? And remember, his salary is mentioned iby statute too. Why should the law reporters, the clerk of process, the librarians, the assistant librarians and the secretary to the chief justice, all receive cuts while the judges retain their full salary? The chief justice is getting a salary of $15,000, while the secretary to the chief justice, with a salary of $2,220, has $222 cut from his salary. Is that fair? Take my friend who is the president of the exchequer court, and Who gets $10,000 a year. Is it fair that he should get his full salary and make no contribution to this country's exchequer, while the employees in connection with his court are all cut ten per cent? For instance, the deputy registrar, drawing $3,720, is now to receive $372 less than before. The total salaries for the exchequer court officials amount to $18,840, which are reduced by $1,884, while the chief justice -receives his full salary. These men are doing just as important work as -the judges, -and yet -they have to take the ten per cent reduction.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a good argument.


William Duff: Of course it is a good argument. Is it fair, Mr. Gh-a-irm-an, -that the charwomen working in this building and the boys in the elevators should have to take a reduction of ten per cent while the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia does not -take it? Is that fair? Is that -right? Can any government go -before the -people of this country and justify -that position? I say that they -cannot.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Duff: Is it fair for the gentleman in charge of -the mounted police in this country not to -be affected by this ten per cent cut while all the clerks and officials of the Department of Justice have to subscribe ten per cent of their salaries to -the revenues of this country? Is that fair or is it not?
Take the militia. Somebody talked the other day about the -brass hats in the militia. Is it fair that the stenographers and clerks in the Department of National Defence should
have to pay ten per cent of -their salaries into the coffers of -this country -to help us out of this mess while -the brass hats and the admirals-
Some h-on. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Duff: I a-m an admiral without salary. The brass hats and the admirals and the commodores -and all the rest of -them get away with their full salary. That is not fair, Mr. Chairman. It is not right. I am willing if it is necessary, in the interests of -this country, but I say I am absolutely opposed to -the cut, whether it is on my indemnity or on yours, Mr. Chairman, or that of any other member of parliament. I am apposed to the whole ten per cent reduction because I do not -believe it is good -business. I believe it will be reflected all over this country and that when we next meet here a-fter voting to -reduce the salaries of the service by ten per cent, the country will not be one iota the better off; on the -other hand, in my opinion as a business man, -the cut will make conditions worse than they are -to-day. But I do say that if we are going to reduce anybody's salary by ten per cent, -then every man w-h-o gets a salary from this federal government, whether he be a lieutenant-governor, a judge, a commodore, a general or anybody else, should take the same reduction, and the legislation should be amended -to make the cut general throughout the whole service.


Mr. POULIOT:: A distinction should be
made between those who are able to pay and those who are not, and then perhaps we might easily come to an agreement with the government. I entirely agree with the Minister of Finance that in this democratic country, according to law and custom, money measures are always brought into the house by the government, but this resolution has been presented to the committee to-day to give members on both sides of the house the opportunity to submit their suggestions to the government, and as has been said before, the government can either accept or reject those suggestions.
I have a suggestion to make to the government. Why not begin the cut, if it is necessary, at the figure of $4,000, and leave aside those civil servants earning less than that amount so that they will not be subjected to the cut? I would recommend that all other salaries, including those of judges, lieutenant-governors and ministers of the crown, be cut to the extent of the amount they are in excess of $6,000. I do not know if hon. members understand the position I take, but it is this:

Public Service-Salary Deduction
I feel that it is well to practise the cut on ourselves, to-show that we are setting a good example. At a later time I may have the opportunity to discuss whether or not any cut is necessary.
Admitting however for the moment that it is necessary, we must adopt the cut ourselves. I do not share the view of the hon. member from Nova Scotia who said that hon. members should not suffer a cut. If such action is to be taken, it should become operative right here in the House of Commons and in the Senate. My idea would be that a cut of ten per cent would be made in salaries ranging between $4,000 and $6,000, and that salaries in excess of $6,000 to all others, including judges, lieutenant-governors, ministers and so on, would be depreciated by the amount they are in excess of $6,000, to compensate for the special consideration given to the poorly paid servants. Would not such an arrangement be fair?
First of all, however, the special allowance given to ministers should be taken away. I was very much surprised a few days ago to learn that the estimates show no cut in that special allowance, and I cannot understand the attitude of the government in that regard. I have to apologize to the house for having made the mistake of saying that the ten per cent cut applied in that particular connection. I wonder if the ministers of the crown have taken the trouble to consult the estimates and see if the allowance is still operative. I should like to remove not only that allowance, but to correct the whole discrimination against members of parliament and others in the civil service of Canada who are suffering from the cut.
At this point I am led to say a few words about the judges. My regard for the bench is high, and I know that at all times that body of men has set an example of self sacrifice. Many outstanding lawyers who were earning high fees in their practice as legal counsel have made sacrifices to go on the bench at lower salaries. Hon. members must have noticed that the judges who came to Ottawa asking the committee then sitting for increases in salary were not all the most prominent figures on the bench. There is one point, however, which has been overlooked by those who have spoken, and it is this: The statement has been made that judges' salaries are statutory. True, but they were also statutory when some years ago they were increased.
I can think of judges who accepted their offices at salaries of $5,000; in the meantime, however, their salaries have risen to $9,000.

May I compliment the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) upon the stand he took concerning a particular case I have in mind. He granted leave to an old judge 83 years of age. That judge was appointed when he was quite old at a salary of $5,000. His superannuation, if taken now would be $6,000, being two-thirds of his regular salary of $9,000. His personal wealth brings him a very substantial annual income. He has not yet resigned. Why? Is the reason that after having completed twenty years on the bench he might receive $1,000 more superannuation? At the same time other judges who are sane in mind and body are overworked. I compliment the Minister of Justice upon forcing the judge to take his leave, but I am sorry a resignation has not been recommended so that he might be succeeded by some other judge, who could do the work.
Judges when appointed to the bench receive certain salaries, which they accept. On account of representations made to the then government judges' salaries were increased; so much the better for them. To-day however we are in different circumstances, and I do not see why the judges would refuse to accept the cut. I am sure no member of the cabinet has received representations from judges to the effect that they would refuse a cut; I am sure neither the Minister of Justice, who holds as high regard for the bench as I do, nor the Prime Minister has received such communication. Then, why not give the people the right impression, and if a cut has to be made adjust it so that those receiving the higher salaries will be affected as much as the low wage earners, Ies gagne-petit, as we call them in French, who have so much trouble in their attempts to make both ends meet.
I wish now to address my remarks to that part of the subject (concerning lieutenant-governors. I have a high respect for those special representatives of the crown in each of the provinces, but I wonder if they are very necessary. In the province of Ontario we have an example where the office of lieutenant-governor, which was vacated a few months ago, is held by the chief justice of the province. A few years ago I addressed a question to the leader of the Labour party (Mr. Woods-worth), who was speaking about curtailments which were to be made, asking him if it would not be feasible to replace lieutenant-governors by the chief justice of each province. Some weeks ago Mr. Georges Pelletier, a former president of the press gallery and a prominent newspaper man wrote in Le Devoir that such

Public Service-Salary Deduction
action should be considered, that a great saving would result to the federal exchequer, the provinces .and the lieutenant-governors themselves. The practice being now followed in Ontario has been tried in other provinces between the death or the dates of resignations of lieutenant-governors and a.ppointments of successors. The duties of a lieutenant-governor are by no means onerous; he has only to sign bills, letters patent and orders in council. For the time being at least I can see no necessity for the appointment of new lieutenant-governors, and believe the chief justice of each province could perform the offices more economically to all concerned. This is a suggestion which I respectfully submit should be considered by the government in due course.
Many generals and officers of the army and navy are chiefly has-beens, and serve no practical purpose at this time. They carry swords and wear what we call full regalia; of course they look very splendid and picturesque but the people derive no benefit from them. Those who should receive as great consideration are the privates, the noncommissioned officers, and the lieutenants who fought under shell-fire in no man's land. Many of them are to-day in the civil service and receiving small salaries. They risked their lives when some generals and other higher officers who receive higher salaries were in the rear. But these fighting men instead of being given that consideration which the nation owes them for their sacrifices at the front in defence of their country, are now penalized to the extent of a ten per cent reduction of their comparatively low salaries, while the generals and other high officers who were safe in their dugouts are still quite safe, they are still away from all danger-their salaries are not cut. It is the man who risked his life in the front line trenches who has to pay for the general who remained safe in his dugout. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this treatment is most unfair and most unjust.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to conclude the remarks I rose to deliver before the dinner recess. There have been two kinds of exaggerations. The first, in my humble belief, is that according to the resolution the poorly paid civil servants are to suffer a cut, while the other is that a drastic cut is not made in the salaries of those receiving the larger 41761-52
amounts. I would suggest that the government consider the middle course, so that the lower paid and the better paid grades will contribute in a graded proportion. As I said before, many civil servants are returned soldiers who fought in the great war, and they are to suffer a cut. This point has not been mentioned before, although no doubt many hon. members have thought of it. Here a distinction should be made also between parade generals and officers of high rank who had no war service, and others who have performed useful services for this country; there should be a distinction between those who deserve the thanks of the country for the help they gave during trying times and those who have done nothing, who have only a title which they obtained in some way or other.
I should like to make one further observation. It would be wrong for the public to get the impression that members of both houses of parliament are contributing only ten per cent of their indemnity. I suppose the experience of hon. members opposite is the same as my own; when we go to our constituencies we meet people who are needy and who come to us for assistance. We give them a quarter, a half dollar or a dollar; we give them what we can, and we are sorry we cannot give them more. I am sure this has been the experience of hon. members on both sides of the house. Even here in Ottawa, while we are attending our parliamentary duties, when we walk home from the parliament buildings very often we meet people who may be fairly well dressed but who ask us for something to eat, and no one refuses them. This is one kind of assistance that is not mentioned; I refer to it only so that people may have a better understanding of what the members are doing, and may know that we are not neglecting our duties as citizens when we come in contact with unfortunate cases of distress and misery.
Before I resume my speech, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that a cut affecting so many people is economically unsound. Economists have told us that in the last few years wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few; a certain number of men get richer by many thousands of dollars, but that money comes from a great many people, so when we come to a time of depression the purchasing power of these people is naturally lessened. Consider a man who is very rich; even if he spends his money lavishly he cannot eat as many potatoes or as much beef or mutton or bread as ten families can eat; even if he dresses very well and spends a great deal of money on his wardrobe he cannot spend as much as would be required to clothe ten

S18	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
families. This must be taken into consideration; the fact that the cut affects so many people brings up a very grave problem. Those people who have less money will buy less, and instead of the burden being placed entirely on the state, which would mean that it would be borne by rich and poor alike, it is borne in the greater part by the people of small means.
I bring these matters before the committee in all sincerity, in order to show the government that there are two sides of the question to be considered; it is not at all a matter of party politics. In conclusion I hope the government will be impressed by the different remarks which have been made by all the members on the subject.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Prior to the dinner adjournment the senior member for Ottawa asked me a question which at the moment I was not in a position to answer. The total number of civil servants in receipt of salaries of $1,200 per year or less is 16,408.


Mr. NEILL:: I want to ask the minister
two questions, but before doing so I must deprecate very much the acceptance by the chairman this afternoon of a point of order raised by the Minister of Justice. I believe, sir, you accepted his point of order without looking into the authorities, perhaps because no one on the opposition side pointed out where that would lead us. As I understood the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice, it would confine the discussion of this resolution in committee entirely to the terms of the resolution itself. This affords very narrow scope indeed for discussion, and if that is the view held I would ask, what is the use of putting these resolutions into committee of the whole? We have already discussed its principle on the motion to go into committee, and if we are to be confined now strictly to the same subject matter then the committee stage is merely a farce. I understood, and certainly it has always been the practice in the past, that the discussion in committee would be allowed to range, if perhaps not into the details of the bill itself, at any rate into the details of the principle, so to speak, allowing the committee to explore and canvass every angle of the situation as revealed by the resolution in its broad sense. The theory has been, and I can recall occasions when it has been acted upon by the government, that some valuable information might be gleaned from the views expressed by members in the committee and that the government might, in the light of those views, moderate or change the bill which 
would afterwards be brought down. If my memory serves me rightly the government last year did somewhat modify a bill which they were going to introduce, after representations had been made by the opposition while it was in committee of the whole. I notice that in spite of the point of order the debate has been allowed to extend in the usual way all over the subject, but I wish to protest now, not only as regards the matter at present before us but in view of what may happen in the future, against the position that has been taken. It would be very inimical to the best interests of the subject under discussion if it became the practice.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I would point out that May, at page 507, lays down that debate on such a resolution must be confined to the terms of the resolution and must not extend to the bill itself.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes; but May is only our
last resort when we do not know what to do ourselves. I think that in these days when precedent is so largely followed I might point to the precedent of a good many years' standing, under which we have been allowed to discuss the subject in its broadest aspect. However, I will confine myself for the moment to the terms of the resolution. It was suggested this afternoon-and this illustrates the need for allowing the fullest range of discussion-that we must not discuss exemptions because they are not mentioned in the resolution. I would point out, however, that in his very first remarks the Minister of Finance mentioned half a dozen exemptions. But in any case an exemption is mentioned in this resolution, because the second paragraph declares that the purpose is to provide for the payment by the government of contributions due under the Civil Service Superannuation Act in respect of those members of the civil service who receive $1,200 or less. That is certainly an exemption and it is upon that point that I wish to base the question I am about to ask. I do not know how many, but there are a large number of civil servants both in Ottawa and outside who are not eligible to pay into the superannuation fund. If I mistake not there are many of them in the Finance department and also in the soldier settlement branch, and I know that in the outside service there are quite a number. I will illustrate by one class that comes into my mind just now. I refer to employees on government fishing patrol boats and boats used in connection with the lighthouse service, and also the men on lifeboats. They get a miserable salary, $65 a month, I believe, sup-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
plemented by a small living allowance; and of course many of them are married and are therefore obliged to maintain homes. They live on the boats but they have to keep their homes, and while the allowance is sufficient to feed them there is nothing left to provide a separate home, to pay rent and so forth. These men are not eligible to pay into the superannuation fund; it has been so decided. Assuming the allowance to be equal to $25 a month, that means that they receive $90 a month, or $1,080 a year, and because they are not eligible to pay into the superannuation fund they do not come under the second clause of this resolution. Therefore they will be docked .ten per cent, or $108 per annum, which is equal to $9 per month, whereas the man getting $1,200 per annum will get off with five per cent, if he pays into the superannuation fund. In other words, the man with $100 a month gets off with a reduction of $60 while the man receiving only $90 a month has to pay $108. There is absolutely no justice there, and I would ask the minister whether he will not make some provision for those members of the service who are getting less than $1,200 and who, because they are not eligible to pay into the superannuation fund, will be reduced ten per cent. I should like to know whether he has made or will make provision to take care of this class.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member in his opening remarks would lead the committee to believe that the Minister of Finance had been responsible for having enlarged the discussion by discussing exemptions. The fact is, it was only as a matter of courtesy that I did so, a question having been asked by the other side; that was the only reason that the exemptions were specifically stated. I might properly have sheltered myself behind the resolution and requested that we wait until the bill was introduced. I mention this merely for the purpose of having the record put straight. With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), I would rather reserve until the bill is in committee the answer with respect to lower salaried officials. Whatever the answer might be, it would have no bearing on the resolution itself.


Alan Webster Neill: I submit that it is certainly pertinent to this resolution. I must accept the minister's decision although I regret it, because I think this is the place and time to discuss that phase of the matter. I want to ^ask another question .and I hope I shall be more successful this time. What about the so-called revenue postmasters, not those who 41761-521
are paid a fixed salary in large cities, but those who get a commission of so much per cent on what they sell. Will they be docked? They are not getting any fixed annual salary, the amount they receive varying according to the sales of the previous year. They certainly do not pay into the superannuation fund and I should like to know what attitude will be taken with regard to 'them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They would be affected by the terms of this resolution as it stands.


Alan Webster Neill: On the percentage of what they have sold? That is tough on those getting only $200 or $300 a year.


James Layton Ralston: I want to refer particularly to some remarks made with regard to the military phase of the subject. I refer to what was said by the Minister of Justice with regard to the suggested contract or obligation whereby it was impossible, he rather intimated to the house, to alter the terms of service under which military officers and men are serving. I want to be clear in the first place as to what the Minister of Justice intended to convey. I understood him to say that owing to some rule, which I have not before me at the moment, the country was under some legal obligation to those who are employed in the military service, which obligation it could not alter as to either the term of service or the rate of pay. I understand the Minister of Justice was the one who referred to the matter this afternoon. Does he think either officers or men cannot either have their pay reduced or be discharged ait the will of the crown?


Hugh Guthrie: No; I know the crown
can do so as it sees fit. Whether it should do so is another matter. When a man is definitely enlisted for a certain period, no one knows better than my hon. friend that he is bound to serve for that period if the crown so desires, and if he does not do so and leaves the service, he may be treated as a deserter. I grant, however, that the crown can change any regulation or contract or ordinance as it sees fit. Whether it should do so is another question.


James Layton Ralston: That is just the point I
want to bring out. My hon. friend will remember that there are certain airmen whose services have been discontinued, and they are enlisted men just in the class of which my hon. friend speaks.


Hugh Guthrie: That is in the power of
the crown.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


James Layton Ralston: The crown has taken the position that it should not even reduce the salaries of some, whereas others who are in exactly the same position from a legal standpoint may be dismissed or retired.


Hugh Guthrie: On reasonable terms, yes.


James Layton Ralston: The matter of terms
remains, I hope, to be discussed. So far it has not been. With that in mind I want to make this statement with regard to those in the military service: I have heard a good deal in the committee and in the house with regard to the officers and men who are serving in the military forces of Canada, and I am glad I cannot concur in a good deal that has been said which questioned their necessity in this country. Those men are performing just as useful and necessary a service as anyone in the public service. They are required just as much and are giving just as loyal and faithful attention to their work as any who serve this country. I would be the last to concur in any deprecation of their service or to agree that they are not rendering full value for everything that is being paid to them. At the same time I regret that we have not so far heard from the government side of this house-and it is the government which is bringing down this resolution-the reason why these men are to be exempt from the general cut which is being made in the service. Unless there is some good reason of which I am not aware-and if there is one, the government should give it to us- I find it difficult to justify to men like lighthouse keepers, who have been mentioned to-night, men on government boats, and men on the fishery patrol boats, who are not even getting the benefit of the five per cent superannuation payment, why they should have their salaries cut, while those in the military and other branches of the service to which reference has been made are not asked to contribute in the same way. If, as has been suggested, there is to be a sort of income levy upon those in the service of Canada, simply because the government feels it has this money in its treasury and can therefore easily collect it by deducting it from the cheques; if this is to be the method of collecting taxes in this country and a special class is to be picked out, namely, the government servants, I say it is all wrong; but if the government is determined to do it then is it fair to apply it just to one class of government servants and to leave others out. Let me say further that in any case the idea of keeping some public servants on full pay and dropping others entirely is something which should not be done under existing rMr. Guthrie.]
conditions in Canada. All I want to ask the Minister of Finance is this:	In view
of what the Minister of Justice has said, that it is within the right of the crown without legal obligation to alter the term of service or the rate of pay of those in the military service, why is it that these men are not being included in the cut?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I answered the question
this afternoon, and I do not know that I can change the answnr which I gave then. I said that the reason for those exemptions was that we regard this as a matter of contract. I admitted at that time, as the Minister of Justice has done to-night and, I think quite rightly, it would be proper for the crown to ignore that contract if it wished and to include all of those.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not do so?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Because we have regarded it as a matter of contractual right and have not thought fit to do so.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know of anyone in the house or the country who is less inclined than I to even suggest that anything should be done to the detriment of those who are engaged in the military forces of Canada; but we are discussing a bigger question, one which affects the whole public service; all over Canada, and the only thing which could possibly commend any such cut to the country will be if it is fairly applied. With that principle in mind, and in view of the answer made by the Minister of Justice, I do not see how the Minister of Finance can rely any longer on the matter of contract. I have under my hand the civil service classification with every salary in it; it is provided in the Civil Service Act that civil servants are to be paid those salaries and they are appointed on those terms. In the military service, the men are enlisted for three years; officers are taken on under their commissions, but they are not taken on for life any more than are civil servants, and to say there is a contract does not quite answer the point which has been raised not only from this side but from other quarters of the house with regard to these exemptions.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend not realize any distinction in this: when a man is enlisted in the military or naval or air service or the mounted police, he is there for a definite period; he cannot leave if he wants to do so, whereas a civil servant, if he is dissatisfied in any way, can always leave the service?

Public Service-Salary Deduction


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend was not in the chamber when that point was discussed.


Hugh Guthrie: I was and I heard what was said. I know from experience and a pretty long one, that any man in the service who desires to resign, can do so. That is not the case in the military or naval service and if the government chooses to change the contract with a man who is enlisted, he has to put up with it. It is the right of the crown to do that. But if in the civil service terms are imposed which, in the judgment of a civil servant, are not satisfactory to him, he can retire and do something else.


Mr. EULER:: Cannot a judge do the same thing?


Hugh Guthrie: A judge would be practically out of business.


James Layton Ralston: If what the minister says is so, how is it that the government takes another stand in regard to men who are enlisted in exactly the same way, namely, the men of the non-permanent air force? My hon. friend says the government takes one position with regard to men who are considered permanent and another with regard to those who are non-permanent, although they are in exactly the same situation. The Minister of Finance is rather ingenious, as he can be-and I take him at his word-in suggesting that, after all, this is not a reduction of salary, but simply a deduction for one year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: If' that be so, there can be no question about the right to make a deduction from any salary in just the same way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has
been done in England.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend suggests that it has already been done in England so far as the army and navy are concerned. The minister assures us that no one will sustain any reduction in salary; far from it; that a man will get S60 less a year and will have that much less to spend, but that that is not a reduction; it is simply a deduction, and there has been no change in his contract. If there has been no change in his contract I submit that the deduction, not the reduction, can be made from all salaries just as well as from certain classes. I once more say that I am only suggesting this because of the fact that the government seems determined to make
some deduction and some special levy upon those who happen to be, in this case, so unfortunate as to be in their service, but I say that if there must be a general levy of this kind and I say it is all wrong, the only way you could do it so it could1 possibly be justified to the country as fair, would be to apply it all around, not simply taking some classes in and leaving others out.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: If I understood the Minister of Finance correctly in his statement this afternoon, it is possible that when the bill is introduced in the house the horizontal reduction referred to in the resolution may not be adhered to but may be departed from.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, my hon. friend did not understand me correctly if that is his understanding of what I said. The principle of the horizontal reduction will be adhered to, but what I said was that where there were inequalities and where there was a double deduction, there were special provisions in the bill to provide for such a case.


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend
meant, then, was that there would be special provisions only in the case of a double deduction such as that to which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River referred, where the salary had already been reduced. Is that correct?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was to take up inequalities, not necessarily that one.


John Campbell Elliott: I take it that I am correct, then, in assuming that the principle of the resolution providing for a horizontal reduction of ten per cent will be adhered to in the bill?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: If that is so, may I point out to my hon. friend that we have here a provision for a five per cent reduction in the salaries of those who are receiving $1,200 or less. Now where does that get you? Take the *man who is now receiving $1,200. He is deducted five per cent and he will get $1,200 less $60, or $1,140.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. He will still be deducted ten per cent, but he will not be called upon in addition to pay his superannuation.


John Campbell Elliott: He will be reduced ten per cent, but he will be allowed five per cent of that ten per cent. That will give the $1,200 man a salary of $1,140.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


John Campbell Elliott: In the long run that is
what it will mean. Let us have no misunderstanding about it, because I want to get the matter clearly into my head as far as I can from the resolution. Either we are going to adhere to that cut, or we are going to depart from it. If we adhere to it, then the man who gets 81,200 and is allowed five per cent gets in the future $1,140. Take the man who comes next, the $1,240 man. He gets a deduction of ten per cent, or S124. That leaves him with a salary of 81,116. So the $1,240 man, after this horizontal cut is made, gets $24 less than the $1,200 man.
M.r. RHODES: My hon. friend is referring to an incidence that is bound to happen in border line cases. If you have a graduated cut, when you come to the border line you are going to find cases just beyond the border where the man on the one side will have an injustice as compared with the man on the other. That is inescapable. There is no system whereby those apparent injustices can be remedied.


John Campbell Elliott: Then I take it that my
hon. friend has no remedy for what he says will be the case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There will be inequalities
on the border line. They are bound to occur.


John Campbell Elliott: When my hon. friend has done the very best he can do in what he says he has decided upon, we will have this inequality, that after this cut goes into effect a civil servant now drawing $1,240, will be drawing $1,116 while the man now drawing $1,200 will receive $1,140. That is, the $1,240 man will receive $24 less than the $1,200 man. That, I submit, is one of the things that comes as an inevitable result of the government not having considered the matter with a view to a graduated scale of reduction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend had a
graduated scale, he would simply multiply . those instances by the number of steps up in the graduation.


John Campbell Elliott: That might be so if my
hon. friend was trying to see how ridiculous he could make it. I want to discuss this matter with the resolution before us clearly in mind, and I want to point out to my hon. friend before the bill is introduced just where this is going to lead. This is the inevitable result of taking a ten per cent slash at all salaries without any consideration of where you are going to land. I submit that with the greatest courtesy possible in dealing with a 
resolution as ill-considered as this resolution appears to me to be.
Take the principle of a graduated scale. Is there anybody in this house on either side or in any corner who will deny the equity of that principle? My hon. friend has practically admitted the equity of it by allowing a deduction of five per cent from the man drawing a salary of $1,200 and less. Is not that correct? Why was the deduction of five per cent made in that case instead of ten per cent?-^because that is what it amounts to. The reason was that it was not considered equitable that a man receiving $1,200 or less Should get as high a percentage cut as the man receiving above that figure. There can be no question about that. The $1,200 man is being given consideration because he receives a low salary, and the principle of a graduated scale is admitted when the government pays five per cent towards the superannuation fund in respect of that man's salary. Having started out that way, how on earth can my hon. friend justify leaving the man between $1,200 and $2,000 with' exactly the same percentage of reduction as the man between $6,000 and $8,000? Why not continue to follow the same line of reasoning that my hon. friend apparently has commenced? Why not give to that low salaried man between $1,200 and $2,000 the same consideration you give to the man who is rceiving $1,200 or less? That is what appeals to me very strongly.
I want to say this further to my hon. friend, that so far as I am concerned I opposed this resolution just because I was afraid that the very result would ensue which the Minister of Finance now tells me will follow from its adoption. I opposed it because I believe in a graduated scale of reduction, similar to that in effect with regard to income tax, succession duties, and so on. I submit the proposal now before us is contrary to the practice which has been followed in the various provinces and by the dominion in regard to matters of this kind. My hon. friend may answer, "oh, no''. My reply is however, in the words of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), that the proposed cut is not a reduction but really constitutes an impost or tax. If the proposed cut is in the nature of an income tax levy, then are we to understand that to that extent the people affected will not be subjected to income tax? I think we may dismiss any such considerations from our minds, because undoubtedly they will be subjected to the operations of the income tax, just as other people who are receiving salaries.
I want to say also that I am not opposed to the cut, but I think it should be graded.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
I am opposed to the exemptions, I do not think they can be justified before the people of Canada. I say frankly to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that there are a great many people in Canada to-day who are in a much worse position than those civil servants receiving salaries of $1,200. But the greatest indignation will be felt throughout Canada if the high salaried persons are cut to no greater extent than those receiving the smaller salaries. There will be further resentment against certain civil servants who may suffer no cut at all. I think any such arrangement is ill considered, and the minister would do well, when the bill is introduced to try to make up the required revenue by taking a higher percentage from the higher salaries.
I agree that money must be had for the public treasury, and it is the duty of my hon. friend and his colleagues to raise it, a task which is by no means easy. Surely, however, it will be much easier for him and for those associated with him who are charged with the responsibility, to raise the money in a more equitable fashion so that the burden may be placed upon the shoulders of those able to bear it rather than upon the shoulders of the lower paid civil servants.
There are many low salaried people who are finding it difficult to get along without reductions ; and then there are certain classes, I must admit, who are even worse off. Unfortunately the farmers, who receive no salaries at all and who at the present time are getting no returns on their investments, are suffering more than any other people in Canada. Everything they have to buy is priced altogether out of proportion to the amounts they receive for the goods they have to sell. Nevertheless they are not being helped by an injustice perpetrated upon some other class.
I am bound to submit to my hon. friend that a bill such as he has described, which will follow rigidly the terms of the resolution now before us, will be most unjust. When the bill is introduced, if it be found that an amount equal to that anticipated can be raised by instituting cuts on a graduated scale, I submit such changes could be made constitutionally and with the approval of Canadians generally.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I must call
the attention of hon. members to the fact that the resolution now before us contains no reference to exemptions.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about "certain
salaries"?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
James Layton Ralston: Put it the other way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I-t is not pleasant for me -to foe the sponsor o-f a proposal w-hi-ch means the reducing of salaries, for the period of one

Public Service-Salary Deduction

year, of civil servants. Only 'the stern necessities of the case force us to ask them to make a contribution. My bon. friend has mentioned other people in the country who have suffered reductions. May I say that I know of many God-fearing, honest, hard-working people who to-day, through no fault of their own, are in receipt of no salaries at all. We must admit that civil servants are in a very much better position than that, small though some of their salaries may be. Furthermore, to the extent that we exempt the civil servants from making their contribution in this time of stress, just to that extent do we place the full burden upon other classes in the community who must raise the sum of money the treasury needs.
My hon. friend may not agree with me, but may .1 say to him that the resolution now before the committee has received the utmost consideration, and in my judgment, for the reasons I have given, amongst others, I believe the horizontal cut is in the circumstances fair and equitable. If any of those in the higher grades receive remunerations higher than they should receive, that is an act of injustice which can be remedied only by creating an equality in the amounts of pay they should receive for services rendered.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
knows that I did not for a moment intend to suggest that he or anybody else gets any pleasure out of imposing salary cuts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was not suggesting that.


John Campbell Elliott: I know that quite well.
But it appears to be necessary to make this salary cut in order to obtain the requisite revenue to carry on the business of the country. That being the case, I submit it should be done in a way that I think would be much more equitable than the way now proposed. When my hon. friend says that it is quite impossible to reconcile these inequalities, I do not think he could have given the matter the consideration that I think it will get before the bill passes this house. There is no question that the inequality to which I referred is something which probably always will arise when you come to a certain point where you change the rate. But does not my hon. friend propose to remedy a case of that kind by an appropriate provision in the bill?
Mr. RHODES. It cannot be remedied.


John Campbell Elliott: It cannot be remedied if my hon. friend is determined that there shall be no departure from the resolution.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not suggesting for
one moment that it is not competent for the committee or for the house to amend this resolution and the bill in any manner they see fit. What I meant was, there is no actuarial method whereby you can assign a series of border lines at which there should be a variation in rates without at the same time creating these very inequalities of which my hon. friend speaks. It cannot be done.
_ Mr. DUFF: It is done every day; take the income tax, for instance.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I thank the Minister of Finance for the information. The 16,408 received a salary of what?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Twelve hundred dollars
and less.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Amongst those how
many contribute to the superannuation fund?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the retirement fund 510; under the old Superannuation Act 3; under the retirement fund 550.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The resolution says that those who have paid into the superannuation fund will receive the benefit of five per cent from the consolidated fund. But the resolution does not say anything with reference to those 550 who paid into the old retirement fund. Will the same benefit be extended to those?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I answered a similar
question from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), or rather I gave a partial answer. It was not satisfactory to him.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I said I would prefer to
give a final answer when the bill is before the house. As the resolution now stands they would be affected.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I go back to the
statement of the hon. minister that what is being done now is not a reduction in salary.
I am prepared to admit that it is a deduction, which in the long run amounts to ten per cent less salary. We are all agreed on that. But the Prime Minister has changed the wording since his declaration in the house. Then he said the salaries would be reduced. That meant that the range of the salaries would be disturbed. But, as I understand, this resolution does not reduce the range; it simply takes ten per cent away from salaries within that range, for this year. Nevertheless it is an arbitrary deduction; you cannot get

Public Service-Salary Deduction
away from it. This afternoon the Minister of Finance said there had been some consultation with some representatives of the civil service. But the civil servants apparently were not consulted, because the delegates came to represent thirty-five of the affiliated associations, covering something like 62,000 members of the service. When some time in 1923 or so a reduction was made in the bonus of the civil servants, a consultation took place. We on this side of the house consulted with the civil service. Of course, they objected to having a reduction in the bonus, but they were heard. They presented memoranda, they had interview after interview with the Minister of Finance, to whom I had the pleasure of introducing those deputations. Of course, the cut was made, but only after full consultation with representatives of the civil service. Nothing would have been easier than to have followed the same practice this j'ear. No doubt a ten per cent cut would have been made, but the same result could probably have been arrived at by means of some other arrangement. That is why I say this is a purely arbitrary deduction.
The minister asserts that a straight or horizontal cut is the only way in which to produce equality of treatment. Well, here Is a contrast: a minister of the crown in receipt of 814,000 a year has to pay $1,400; a civil servant who earns $1,200 a year, and does not contribute to the superannuation fund or the retirement fund, will have to pay $120. Surely the minister will not argue for a moment that the $14,000 man is not better able to suffer and bear his reduction in salary than the man who suffers a reduction of $120. The minister sees at once the difficulty. So long as you keep within the high range of salaries the cut is not so felt. He who is in receipt of $21,000 can easily suffer a reduction of $2,100. The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) smiles.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was wondering how often
the hon. member had been -cut in that way.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have never received
$21,000 a year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then why mention it?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Now that the Secretary of State has raised the point, I submit that in the very nature of things I must feel a cut of $400 in my indemnity to a far greater extent than the Prime Minister will feel a cut -of $2,100 on his salary of $21,000, supplemented as it is by his private income. The moment you get to the lower range the pressure is harder. That is why it is so difficult for the lower salaried civil servants to view
this shrinkage in their income with any degree of satisfaction. The Prime Minister said that they ought to be enthusiastic; well, I do not know how they can be expected to become enthusiastic over a loss of $120 on a total salary of $1,200. If this is to be treated purely and simply as a deduction, then why should not the same deduction apply all through? Surely it would not be a breach of contract to apply it as well to the high salaries of the judges and military and naval officers. There is a contract of employment between the civil servant and the crown, or there is not; there is a contract between the judge and the crown, or there is not. There is a contract between the civil servant and the crown in so far as contractual obligations can exist between the crown and its servants. Proof of that is undoubtedly to be found in the statute and in the form of contract used by the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission advertises these positions; there is the offer and then the acceptance, and that is a binding contract, or I know nothing about it. Just taking an ordinary form circulated by the Civil Service Commission, the offer made by the government through its agent the Civil Service Commission is in these words:
In the event of a permanent appointment the initial salary of $2,280 will be increased-
There is the promise.
*-upon recommendation for efficient service at the rate of $120 per annum until a maximum of $2,700 has been reached.
That is the offer, and the civil servant accepts, so the contract is binding. He is given the position, and under the statute it is ratified. If the Minister of Finance can find a better form of contract, including the offer, the acceptance, the ratification by statute and the binding obligation on the crown to continue to employ that man as long as he fulfils his part of the contract by good conduct, I do not understand anything about the law on contracts. The crown also promises by statute, through the advertisement which is accepted by the applicant, that upon good conduct the civil servant will be entitled to and will be paid a statutory increase.
The contract from which I read was dated November 23, 1931, and so much did the government recognize that it contained a binding contract that in the new form of notice sent out by the Civil Service Commission and dated March 4, 1932, we find these words, offering another contract:
The salary is, however, subject to such temporary reduction or subsequent increase-



S26 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Public Service-Salary Deduction
Let us hope there will be a subsequent increase, since we are sure there is to be a temporary reduction.
-as may be authorized by parliament.
These are no idle words; there must have been a reason for saying that from and after a certain date there shall be a new form of contract; there must have been a contract previously. I cannot see how the Minister *of Finance, even with his high attainments, can get away from it. But there was a statement made by the Minister of Justice that should not be allowed to go by. The Minister of Justice endeavoured to differentiate between the contract applying to a judge and the contract applying to a civil servant. So far as judges are concerned, the Minister of Justice says they cannot be retired, while if a naval or'military officer wants to retire before his term is up he may be arrested. But the Minister of Justice added, "If terms are imposed upon the civil servants that are unfair, he can resign."
That is a statement which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. If I understand the Minister of Justice correctly, he means that, obligations being imposed and contractual relation having existed, if unfair terms are imposed what is the remedy? The employee may resign. That is a most extraordinary statement, that the crown may force one of its employees to resign by imposing upon him unfair terms. With all deference to the Minister of Finance I cannot see how he can escape the binding obligation, the contractual relation between the crown and the civil servant.
As I have said, this new contract is dated March 4. 1932. Whoever advised the Civil Service Commission, or whoever cast a legal eye over this contract, knew very much more about it, apparently, than the person who drafted this resolution, because at once they saw the objection that there is this responsibility upon the government to respect the legal relation, the contractual obligation that has been made with the civil servant, in view of the fact that he is entitled to a permanent position at a stated annual or monthly salary, and that such is to continue as long as he conducts himself properly.
In view of that, these people have contracted obligations. The man in the commercial world works from day to day, from week to week, from month to month or has a contract for one year. A man who has a contract for one year may lease an apartment and buy a certain amount of furniture, but he knows that he does so at his own peril, that at the end of that year the contract may be

terminated. When the civil servant accepts a position at a certain salary that is to be paid if he conducts himself properly, with a statutory increase of S60 a year in certain grades and S120 a year in others until he reaches a certain maximum, he cuts his coat according to his cloth. He enters into contractual obligations; he buys a house and puts a mortgage on it; he knows the amount of interest he has to pay; he buys some furniture and makes out his budget so as to enable himself to carry on. Recently the civil servants, of their own good will, contributed to the unemployment relief fund, and the minister paid them a tribute they well deserved. Had they known that, right out of the blue, with no notice whatever, and to take effect immediately, their salaries were to be reduced it might have been a different story. Now they have contracted an obligation which they may find it hard to keep. I cite that just as an example. I have had people come to me and say "This means starvation; I just renewed my lease on the first of February." The house opened on February 4, and they had no premonition that this was to happen. They have renewed old obligations and contracted new ones on this promise to pay; the promise now is shattered, and the contractual relation broken.
If this matter had been approached in a different way it would have been a great deal easier. If the minister had said, "Very well, you as the debtor will be unable to meet your commitments to the extent of ten per cent, so something must be done whereby the creditor will not collect to the extent of ten per cent," matters might have been adjusted, but under present conditions I say this arbitrary action will impose a heavy burden upon those least able to bear it.
I might as well be frank about it; I am absolutely opposed to any cut under these circumstances. I think it is the most unfair thing that could be done. It was done in a most arbitrary way, and will not produce the results anticipated. We may talk of patriotism; it is a very good thing to talk about, but the government and the outside world have no monopoly on patriotism. The civil sendee is patriotic also. But if the farmers and those in other spheres of life feel the effect of this economic situation to-day, there is no reason why someone who is now enjoying a steady income should have that income reduced, when no direct benefit will result to anyone else. If the civil service is cut to this extent it will not bring one cent of relief to the farmers or to mechanics or to the professional classes. It will be just the other way

Public Service-Salary Deduction
around; it will reduce by that much the purchasing power of the civil servant. Why should one take the attitude that because a man in business has been mulcted to a certain extent, his business suffering, his income reduced, and himself in financial difficulties, he should on that account begrudge somebody else who is in a more fortunate position? If the government decided to cut these salaries by ten per cent but at the same time to force all employers of labour who reduced by ten per cent the wages and salaries of their employees to contribute that money to the treasury, putting it alongside the $8,000,000 which it is expected to raise from the reduction in civil service salaries, then I am quite satisfied that the civil service would never have been heard from. But I do think that it is a most unfair and inequitable thing to force the civil servants of Canada to contribute $8,000,000 to the national exchequer when the people outside will not contribute one cent. If the employer of labour turned into the coffers of the state whatever reductions in salaries he might make so far as his own employees are concerned, then there would be an excuse for it; but instead of going into the national exchequer side by side with the moneys which will be taken from the civil servants it will simply be used for the purposes of those who cut salaries outside. Those reductions will be used for the benefit of their own businesses and they will not help one bit the reduction of the national debt. Tor these reasons I cannot support this resolution at all. I make this distinction so far as indemnities are concerned:	When I vote against
the reduction I am not voting against the reduction in the indemnities of members of parliament.
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I wish to make clear
the position which I have taken in this matter. Generally speaking, I may say that, as I voted, I am in favour of the general principle of a reasonable cut. I have felt for some time, and so I believe have many other people in the country, that there is one class of people who have been exempt and entirely protected from the effects of the depression, and the depression can always be borne more easily the wider the foundation on which it rests. For that reason I supported the resolution. But there are certain objections which I have to the details of the cut, first in respect to the lower salaries. I shall not dwell on that because it has been discussed at great length, but I do think that the system of gradation should have been carried to a greater extent than it has been. My objection to some of the details applies,
however, more particularly to the anticipated exemptions.
It has been suggested that we are somewhat premature, if not out of order, in discussing exemptions at the present time, in that they are not specifically mentioned in the terms of the resolution. I cannot agree with that, because in voting on the general principle we must, if we are to vote intelligently, have some conception of the character of the cut-how wide-embracing it may be, how complete, what the exemptions will be, to what extent they will go, and so on. All that must be embodied in the principle itself, and I think those questions might fairly be discussed in discussing the principle. Coming to the exemptions-and there are several exemptions-I shall take first the Department of National Defence and kindred branches. It has been pointed out by the Minister of Justice, I believe, that the enlisted men occupy, by reason of their obligations and the obligations of the government to them, a position different from that of the ordinary civil servant; the terms of their enlistment are more strict and they have not the same freedom of action. That, I think, is a fair argument. But does it apply to the administrative officials of the department, that is, to the deputy minister and his staff and other officials not enlisted men?


James Layton Ralston: Those are all cut.


Alfred Speakman: No, they are not cut.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, the deputy minister and the others.


Alfred Speakman: Then I withdraw the
objection so far as that goes. I come then to my chief objection and that is the exemption of judges. It is largely a matter of principle, but may I ask this:	In what
different position does the judge find himself from, say, the railway commissioners, the pension commissioners or members of other commissions of that sort, all of whom suffer the cut? They also are definitely appointed under statute; their salaries are just as definitely fixed by statute as those of the judiciary. It has been said year after year, and I think correctly, that these commissioners to whom I refer occupy judicial positions, that their work is of a judicial character, that their responsibilities are judicial, and that in every respect they are comparable to judges on the bench or the ordinary judges in different parts of the country. Now I ask, why should one class of judges be exempt while the other class receive these cuts? It is something that does not appeal to my sense of justice.



S28 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Public Service-Salary Deduction
I supported the resolution because I believe in the general principle that all citizens should bear their fair share of the weight of depression. Nor do I take seriously for a moment the argument that we are reducing purchasing power by the cut in these salaries. That would be true if it applied to reduction of wages in ordinary life, but not where these wages are derived from taxation. It is a question of distribution rather than a reduction of purchasing power. It will reduce purchasing power in Ottawa, but it does not reduce purchasing power in the country generally. Every dollar that comes into the city of Ottawa by way of salary must be taken from the purchasing power of those in other parts of the country, so that I do not take that objection seriously. But I do take most seriously the suggested exemption of judges. How can that be justified in view of the fact that the members of these commissions I have mentioned, paid under statute, performing judicial services under statute, are subject to the reduction?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unless I repeat myself many times over, there is nothing I can add to what I have already said. The question of exemptions is one that ought not properly to be discussed at this stage of the resolution, and I am not resting solely on technical grounds when I say that. I said it might be a fair subject for discussion whether there ought to be as many exemptions in the proposed bill as suggested, but we cannot get anywhere by discussing that phase of the subject on this resolution; the remedy can be applied only in the bill itself. Therefore I hope my hon. friend will not think me discourteous if I take the same attitude with him as I have with others who have raised the same question.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will hon.
members please confine themselves to the subject matter of the resolution?


Mr. SANDERSON:: Following the hon. member for Red Deer, the few observations I propose to make will have more to do with the exemptions than with anything else connected with the resolution.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Inasmuch as the exemptions are not mentioned in the resolution


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let me read the first part of the resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize reductions of ten per cent from the amounts of certain salaries.
[Mr. SpeakmanJ
That does not affect all salaries paid by the crown in the right of the Dominion of Canada. Therefore this committee is entitled to discuss exemptions.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Exemptions are not named.


Alfred Speakman: What my hon. friend says being the case, I think I have a right, in discussing the principle of the resolution, to ask what salaries are to be affected and what are not.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want first to deal with the exemption of the judges. I am glad the Minister of Justice is in his seat, because the other night, while I was making a few remarks on the resolution, he was not present and there were one or two question I wanted to ask him that I thought he would be better able to answer than any other member of the government.
I want to draw the attention of the committee to the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31. First of all I note that the estimates for the Department of Justice, are increased rather than decreased. It is true the increase is not very large, but still it is an increase. I wish to refer to some of the salaries paid to the judges. I shall not have time to go over every province, but I shall take first of all the Supreme Court of Canada:
Salary of Chief Justice of Canada. $15,000
Salary of six judges at $12,000.. . .	72,000
Then I come to Ontario. The salaries paid to judges in that province are fair examples of those paid in the other provinces, although in Ontario and Quebec they may be a little
higher.
Supreme Court of Ontario-
Salary of Chief Justice of Ontario. $10,000 Salary of Chief Justice of Second
Divisional Court	 10,000
Salary of Chief Justice of High
Court Division	 10,000
Salary of eight justices of appeal
at $9,000	 72,000
Salary of eight judges of high court
division at $9,000	 72,000
County courts-
Salary of sixty-six judges and junior judges of county and district courts at $5,000	 330,000
In addition to that-I do not know that this can fairly come into the discussion, but I shall mention it anyway:
Travelling allowances	$34,000
That is for the province of Ontario. According to the estimates laid on the table of the house some days ago, the total amount paid to the judges of this country is $2,197,550.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Mr. YOUNG:: Does that exclude what is paid by the provinces? They receive something from the provinces.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have no figures for the provinces: Let me say in passing, lest I forget,, that in regard to county court judges- while their salary as received from the federal exchequer is 85,000 a year, they are entitled, I believe, to some fees from the surrogate court, so that the average salary of a county court judge in Ontario would be about $6,000
Another aspect of the question is that judges receive pension or superannuation. I do not think I am wrong in stating-if I am, the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Finance will correct me-they do not pay a single dollar into the superannuation fund. Am I correct? Therefore they are receiving, I will not say an extravagant but at any rate a comfortable salary during the years they are on the bench, and always with the prospect that when they retire or are superannuated they will be well taken care of for the rest of their lives.
It has been stated during the debate that many judges, when they are elevated to the bench, make great financial sacrifices. That may be so in some cases, but I am inclined to think the large percentage of the lawyers who are elevated to the bench do not make much of a financial sacrifice.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: If they do, they can
always resign.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is quite true,
but my observation in regard to vacancies in either the supreme court or the county court is that where there is one vacancy there are perhaps fifty applicants, all anxious to be elevated to the bench and quite willing to make the sacrifice.
Let me make this further comment, which is only in connection with county court judges -and I say this not in any critical way, for I have every respect for the judiciary; I think the judiciary of the Dominion of Canada stands as high as that of any other country in the world. But my observation has been that the county court judges who receive $5,000 plus $1,000, or a total of 86,000, with a pension of $5,000 or 86,000 awaiting them when they retire, are in ninety cases out of a hundred making perhaps 35 or 40 per cent more than they were in the practice of law.
Why judges should be exempt from this ten per cent cut, I do not understand. Would the minister be good enough to tell the committee
on what grounds they are exempt? There may be some reason; there may be a good reason; but I am of the opinion if there is any class of public servants-because after all judges are public servants-who should lead the way and set an example of sacrifice during such a condition as we have in the country at present, it should be the judges who before they were elevated to the bench were leaders of the bar. Will the Minister of Justice be good enough to give me some reason for exempting judges from this ten per cent cut? If he can, perhaps he will convert me.


Hugh Guthrie: Notwithstanding the discussion of this resolution in the house when we thought we had succeeded in converting my hon. friend, when the vote came we found we were wrong and we missed his vote. He was not in the chamber when the vote was taken.
I do not know how serious he is in the questions he has asked; at all events I can regard them as having been seriously put and will state my views in a serious manner in regard to the matters he has mentioned. Of all branches of the administration of government in this or any other country I believe the most important is that of the administration of justice. You may pass in this parliament what laws you see fit, but unless those laws are fairly and honestly administered by a competent judiciary the results will not be satisfactory. The men, regarding whom the greatest caution should be exercised and the greatest consideration had, are those who from time to time are appointed to the bench in the various courts throughout the dominion. We approach a man who we think is qualified from his standing in the community, his general reputation, and especially his legal knowledge and ability, and invite him to accept a seat upon the bench. If he does so he is to a very large extent removed from the ordinary affairs, conditions and circumstances of life, to such an extent indeed that in many cases he has to forego former friendships and former associations. He has to give up the practice of his profession and he must not engage in any kind of business whatsoever. He may be a man who has enjoyed a highly lucrative legal practice. He goes upon the bench with a distinct understanding as to what he is to receive by way of salary and as to the tenure of his term of office. He knows that he cannot be removed through the device or whim of any person or through any political consideration. He is absolutely independent in his judicial position

Public Service-Salary Deduction
and we desire to keep him so. A judge's salary is fixed by statute and provision is made for his ultimate retirement. In the ease of county judges to whom reference has been made by my hon. friend, after thirty years' service on the bench, which is a long term of service, a county court judge may retire on full pay. It has been said that they may retire at any time. That is true, and the pension payable to them upon retirement is fixed according to the number of years they have served, provided they have served a minimum of five or ten years. But if they should retire, what can they do? They are out of practice, their clients and their business have disappeared. They have added five or ten years to their lives, and their chances of making a livelihood under those circumstances are very slim indeed. I submit that if we are going to maintain the high character of the judiciary of this country, as it has been maintained in the past, we must pay our judges substantial salaries and assure them in regard to the permanency of their positions; and we must also make provision for their ultimate retirement. Otherwise we will not secure the eminent class of men that we desire to see upon the bench in this country. Speaking generally, we have enjoyed in Canada since confederation, a very able, upright and distinguished body of men in the various courts in Canada, but there have been, I am sorry to say some exceptions. We strive to get the ablest and best qualified men we can for the modest salaries which we are able to pay as authorized by this parliament.
With regard to county judges, I may say that $5,000 is the salary of a county or a district judge. We have county or district judges in all provinces of 'Canada save in the province of Quebec, where they maintain a different judicial system from the other provinces of the dominion. This government does not establish the various courts of the provinces or the number of judges in the provinces. When my hon. friend says that there is a slight increase in the estimates of the Department of Justice this year, it is true there is an increase of between $4,000 and $5,000, but this increase has arisen because the provinces, by legislation, have requested us to appoint four additional county court judges. Otherwise there would have been from $16,000 to $17,000 of a reduction. But in compliance with the request of the provinces four additional county judges were appointed at $5,000 apiece. That is the reason for the apparent increase. Otherwise there would have been a reasonable decrease in the estimates of the Department of Justice.
I know that in Great Britain the salaries of judges were decreased last autumn, and

that was done I understand with the consent of the judges themselves, or of a number of them. Judges' salaries in Great Britain and in Australia and South Africa are much higher than in the Dominion of Canada. Whether they are able in this way to secure better or abler judges in Australia and South-Africa than we do in Canada I cannot say, but this I can say, that the salaries we now pay as authorized by this parliament do not attract many of the men whom we would like to elevate to the bench of this country. Man after man has replied to our invitation to consider a seat upon the bench that he cannot afford to do so having regard to the salary he would receive as a judge and the amount of the emolument which he annually receives from his practice. With only $15,000 as the salary of the chief justice of the Dominion of Canada, which is the highest judicial post in this country, we cannot hope to attract the greatest and most distinguished lawyers in this dominion. We have to do the best we can under the circumstances. If you have only nine or ten thousand dollars to offer for a position on the bench, all you can expect to secure is a nine or ten thousand dollar man. You cannot get an oustanding man in the profession for that salary. I am one of those who believe that the time has already passed when this house should consider the revision upwards of judicial salaries in Canada. I do not say that in respect of all our courts, but I do say it in respect of our higher courts. This I realize would not be an opportune time to suggest such an increase, but in years past I have had a very strong opinion that the salaries of judges in our higher courts should be materially increased. We recall that a committee of this house was appointed to consider this matter two or three years ago. That committee did not report favourably in regard to increases in judicial salaries. Some other consideration, sessional indemnities or something of the kind, became involved in the deliberations of that committee, and no favourable recommendation was made at that time. But I believe the day is not far distant when we shall have to revise upwards the salaries paid to some of the judges of our higher courts if we are going to continue to insist upon securing the ablest and best qualified men to administer the laws * of this country. I believe that the administration of the law is a more important branch of the government of a country than the executive authority which is vested in the government. If our laws are properly administered, fairly and honestly administered,, we have gone a long way in the government

Public Service-Salary Deduction
of our country. But if our law is not fairly and fully administered, then our decline is not very far distant. For myself may I say that I do not think it would be proper to reduce the salary of a judge without his consent under the circumstances under which he has been appointed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is not a
reduction in salary.


Hugh Guthrie: Well then this deduction, or whatever my right hon. friend chooses to call it-this ten per cent cut which is proposed in the present resolution. Have I made myself clear now? I do not think that judicial salaries should be subjected to the proposed ten per cent reduction. It has been suggested to me that it might not be constitutional to attempt it. That is a debatable point. The judges of some of our courts are appointed directly under the authority of the British North America Act. The judges in other courts are appointed under authority of the statutes of this parliament. It may be that something may be urged against the constitutionality of such a proposal in respect to those judges who are appointed under the British North America Act, while other considerations might be involved in the case of judges who are appointed under the authority of acts of this parliament. Our county court judges, our supreme court judges, our exchequer court judges have all been appointed under the authority of our own acts. Not so however in the case of the superior courts of the provinces of Canada which existed at the time of confederation and have since been continued. The judges of those courts were appointed pursuant to a section of the British North America Act, and a serious question might arise as to the constitutionality of any act we might pass with regard to them.


Mr. GARDINER:: Under the section of the British North America Act by which these judges were appointed, is the salary set?


Hugh Guthrie: The salary is not set by the British North America Act, but was set by this parliament. The British North America Act provides that we shall appoint the judges, pay their salaries and allowances. In that connection a point occurs to me which may be discussed when we proceed, a few days hence, with a bill to amend the Judges' Act. I question whether the Dominion of Canada should be called upon to pay the ordinary travelling expenses of the judges in Canada, although we have done so since confederation. The provinces administer the law in the provinces, and the judges are responsible for that administration, but we have been in
the habit of paying the expenses of judges travelling throughout their own counties in the administration of provincial laws. That is a question however for future discussion. We have always paid these travelling expenses because the word "allowance" occurs in the British North America Act. There is a strong opinion however that the word "allowance" refers to a retiring allowance or a leave allowance. If it were intended that we should pay travelling expenses undoubtedly the words "travelling expenses" would have been inserted in the act. However, that is not the question now before us.
For the reasons I have already stated, personally I am opposed to the ten per cent cut in judges salaries, but I agree we have a right to tax those salaries should we see fit to do so. We did so when we imposed the income tax.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Without amending the
constitution?


Hugh Guthrie: A question as to the constitutionality of our action was raised, and a decision was given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in favour of the right of this parliament to tax judges' salaries. While I do not think we could properly subject judges' salaries to this ten per cent reduction, I will say that, it is entirely within our power to subject them to a ten per cent tax. That is the distinction I draw between the two. I do not want to interfere with the solemn contracts we made with those men when they were appointed to the bench. I desire to keep judicial appointments entirely free from influence or threats. I want judges to feel absolutely secure in the positions they hold; I want them to administer the laws of this country without fear or favour from any quarter or section, and I desire that they receive sufficient salaries and emoluments to make them absolutely independent of any influence whatsoever. If we continue to maintain proper conditions we will secure proper and just administration 'of our laws. Such is the way in which a high standard of administration of the law has been secured in Great Britain. In that country exceedingly high salaries are paid to judges, and I believe judges there have themselves agreed to a very substantial reduction in their salaries. That of course is a matter of agreement. Salaries of judges in Great Britain are sufficiently high to attract many of the ablest men at the bar in England. We must also consider the security of the position, as well as the substantial salaries and the care taken upon retirement. I consider judicial posi-



S32 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Public Service-Salary Deduction
tions in Canada as something distinct entirely from ordinary positions under the government. We have always endeavored to treat them as distinct; the country in general respects its judiciary very highly and I would not be one to interfere lightly with salaries which we are pledged to pay.
Alfred Speakman: I believe the minister
was regretting the inadequacy of the remuneration which rendered it almost impossible to bring to the bench the services of the most outstanding lawyers at the bar. The suggestion, which seems to have some merit, has been made to me-and I am speaking only as a layman-that the qualities in a lawyer which tend to make him most successful in private practice, from a financial point of view, are not necessarily the qualities which would make him the best judge. That is, the impartial, judicial qualities which are so essential in a judge, and without which a judge cannot be most effective, are not always found in the most successful lawyers. Naturally however some qualities of the successful judge are found in the most successful lawyers pleading at the bar. Would the minister tell me if there is anything in that point, and if we are still able to secure men who, though admirably adapted to judicial duties, have not been the most successful in, private practice.


Hugh Guthrie: There may be something in the suggestion my hon. friend has made. I have known lawyers who were not very highly regarded at the bar, but who were enormously successful in certain lines of legal practice which, one might say, was not of the highest type. Such however are not the men we seek to put upon the bench. We have to look for men of undoubted integrity, men who hold the respect of the communities in which they live, men whose knowledge of the law is undoubted, and men who bear unblemished character. While my hon. friend has suggested that there have been long lists of applicants, for judicial positions, may I say to him that during the year and a half that I have been in the Department of Justice that has not been the case. I have found it very, very difficult to secure the most suitable men for the higher courts in Canada at the salaries which we now pay. I have received many refusals from men I have asked to consider judicial appointments. I think perhaps that does not apply in as great a degree to the county courts as it does to the higher courts. There is not the same difficulty in securing excellent men to accept county court judgeships. But to secure the services of out-

standing men in the legal profession to fill the higher court vacancies has, in my experience of the last eighteen months, not been the easiest matter.


Alfred Speakman: I think the minister
did not grasp fully the import of my question. When I referred to lawyers who were eminently successful in higher practice but did not possess the judicial qualities necessary in judges I was not reflecting upon the character or integrity of those men, but was rather referring to the fact that their abilities may have been confined to those which enabled them to succeed in certain branches of law. Yet that fine judicial or impartial quality which sometimes is detrimental to lawyers is an essential in judicial practice.


Hugh Guthrie: We try of course to secure broadminded men not only with a knowledge of the customs of the country, and a wide knowledge of law, but who have engaged in general legal practice. I agree that men who have specialized in one line of legal work may not prove to be the best judges. We seek to secure our judges however from men who are accustomed to appear before the courts, who have enjoyed varied practice in our provinces, and men whose character and integrity is undoubted. Forty years ago in Canada, at the salaries then offered, which were much lower than they are now, it was not so difficult to attract leading lawyers to the bench. I can assure the committee however that it is much more difficult to-day owing to the very modest salaries which we pay to judges in this country.


Frederick George Sanderson: Replying to the Minister of Justice, I should like to say that he has not been fair to me so far as the vote this afternoon was concerned. I was not in the chamber when the vote was taken; had I been here I would have voted for the resolution, and I so placed myself on record a week ago to-night. I said I was not opposed to the ten per cent cut, and the minister was not fair to-day when he insinuated that I ducked the vote. I want to tell him that while I have not been in this parliament as long as he has, and with all due respect for his experience and years in the house, he cannot charge me with ducking a vote since I have been here.
The minister said he thought there was no use replying to me as he could not convert me. I admit at once, Mr. Chairman, that he can never convert me. Let me refer him to his own chief. Speaking in his own city of Guelph some time ago, and on the same

Public Service-Salary Deduction
platform with his chief lieutenant, the right hon. Prime Minister stated that he "never had any use for converts, because you could never trust them." I do not presume to say the right hon. gentleman was referring to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) when he made that statement.
In dealing with the exemption of judges' salaries from the ten per cent cut, although the Minister of Justice did refer to the matter of contract before he sat down, he based his whole argument on the presumption that the judges do not have enough to live on, that they made great sacrifices when they were elevated to the bench. In fact he went so far as to say that the integrity of these men depend on the salaries they get. I have always understood that when a lawyer accepts a judgeship he does so because his professional standing enables him to serve his country. A few nights ago I referred to the exemption of the army officers from the operation of this ten per cent reduction in salary, and my good friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) referred to them this afternoon. I think he put the case very clearly before the committee. If we have any class of civil servants that are overpaid and underworked-my friend says "useless," but I will not go so far as that-they are the army officers attached to the permanent force, not only at headquarters in the city of Ottawa but in every military district in the dominion. It is true they are not very large in numbers, perhaps between 150 and 200, but the average pay drawn by each of those men ranges between $6,000 and $7,000 a year, with free house and found, as we used to say in the old days. My hon. friend says "beer."


William Duff: In the officers' mess.


Frederick George Sanderson: I prefer to leave that out of the discussion. But they are well paid. As a matter of fact in comparison with ninety-five per cent of the civil servants living in the city of Ottawa or those outside Ottawa they are much better paid. But there is another feature to be taken into account: these men draw large pensions when they retire, pensions running anywhere from $5,000 up to $7,000 a year, but they do not contribute a single solitary cent to the retirement fund. I am told my information is not correct; if so, I will withdraw that statement. May I ask the Minister of Finance if the army officers of the permanent force pay anything into the superannuation fund?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, they do.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have stated to the contrary. My information is wrong. But that does not hurt my case a particle. I say they are overpaid for the work they do. Perhaps those men do more loafing and more swanking and more parading and less work than any other body of men in the service of the crown. But, oh no! you must not cut their salaries. Why should they be exempt? No reason has ever been given why they should not participate in this salary reduction. I do not think any reason can be given for their exemption. I would urge on the Minister of Finance that he go into the pay and allowances of these army officers, that he check up on the amount of work they do-or rather on the amount of work they do not do-and include their salaries in the ten per cent cut.
Then the Royal Canadian Mounted Police apparently are not to be subject to this ten per cent cut. I see no reason why they should be exempt. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have done credit to Canada all down through the years, the reputation of the force extends all over the world, their record of personal sacrifice and fidelity to duty is perhaps unequalled by any similar force in the world. But I am inclined to think that the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are ready to bear their share of the ten per cent cut. Why should they be exempt? Then there are the lieutenant-governors. I did a little figuring to-night, and I can tell the Minister of Finance that he can save $8,000 or $9,000 a year by making a ten per cent cut in the salaries of these gentlemen. Nobody would object to such a reduction; I doubt even if the lieutenant-governors themselves would demur. Men of the type who become lieutenant-governors accept the position because they have the financial resources to enable them to maintain the social traditions of their office.
About an hour ago the Minister of Finance went so far as to say that perhaps the question of exemptions would be further considered. I would ask him to reconsider them carefully. One of my hon. friends says "prayerfully," and as I look on the minister I think he is a man of prayer. So I hope he will reconsider these exemptions carefully and prayerfully. I plead with him to make no exemptions, to treat all civil servants alike in regard to this ten per cent cut. I need not refer to the condition of the farming industry and to the plight of the unemployed, but I tell the government that this is a time

834	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
to proceed very carefully and not divide the masses against the classes. Therefore, once more I urge them to reconsider these exemptions very carefully.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Hugh Guthrie: I am very glad my hon. friend has brought that to my attention, because while in London last autumn I heard that many of the judges did not object to the reduction. But what he has stated is no doubt correct.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter which my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) referred to that I think may have left a wrong impression on the house, although of course, this was unintentional on his part. A reference to section 12 of the Civil Service Act will show how the matter of compensation is dealt with. Section 12 says:
The commission shall, from time to time, as may be necessary, recommend rates of compensation for any new classes that may be established hereunder, and may propose changes in the rates of compensation for existing classes.
2.	In each class there shall be a minimum and a maximum salary rate and such intermediate rates as may be considered necessary and proper to provide increases between the minimum and maximum.
3.	Such proposed rates of compensation shall become operative only upon their approval by the governor in council, and, where any increased expenditure will result therefrom, when parliament has provided the money required for such increased expenditure.


Peter John Veniot: But recommendations have not been submitted by the Civil Service Commission in connection with this cut.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not dealing with that. I am saying that any rate fixed or any increase proposed or recommended by the commission is operative only when approved by the governor in council.


Peter John Veniot: They have to propose it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with conditions year by year, and over periods of years. According to the express terms of the contract those payments are dependent upon the annual vote of parliament for that purpose.


William Duff: That refers to an increase, not a reduction.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That refers to the entire payment on account of the civil service of this country. I have before me a copy of the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1932, which shows the amount to be voted, and entirely conditional upon the vote of parliament, to be $12,673,104 while the amount in the estimates authorized by statute was only $358,666. Under the statute there can be no contract outstanding with a civil servant where the salary is not fixed by statute, which in law-I am not discussing morals-is binding until the actual vote is made for that purpose year by year. The salaries are fixed by the Civil Service Commission, but such compensation has no legal effect whatever unless year by year there is placed in the estimates a sum to cover the total amount to be voted for the civil service, and until that amount has been voted.


William Duff: Then could the salaries of civil servants be changed year by year, up or down?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If parliament in any year does not choose to vote salaries for any class of civil servants, they receive nothing and in law they can claim nothing, because their salaries depend entirely upon the discretion of parliament as exercised year by year.


Peter John Veniot: They can leave the service, and in that way you would cut down the staff.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so; they may go out of the service, but I am dealing with this other question. My hon. friend from Ottawa suggested that there was a fixed contract. He did not use that term, but that was the impression I thought might be left upon the minds of hon. members, whereas in fact there is no fixed contract, as there is in the case of judges. There is no such fixed contract with the civil servant.


William Duff: What would happen if the salaries of judges were not voted?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The salaries of judges are not. voted annually by this house.


William Duff: Yes they are.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, they are not; they are statutory and not voted year by year. In the estimates for last year, under administration of justice, there appeared the sum of $2,124,300 representing the salaries of the judges of this country, which are not voted year by year by this house but which are fixed by

Public Service-Salary Deduction
statute. The payment of those sums out of the consolidated revenue fund does not depend year by year upon the vote of this house. Judges are in an entirely different position from members of the civil service whose salaries are always dependent and contingent upon the vote of this house from year to year.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Are not the civil service salaries contingent upon the vote of this house year by year because of the fact that there is a minimum and a maximum?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, that is not it; the entire amount, minimum or maximum, is so dependent. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and I make that reference in order to distinguish between the conditions under which the salaries of civil servants are paid, and the conditions under which the salaries of judges are paid. I am dealing with the whole body of civil servants. There may be some of them who have salaries fixed by statute, but they must be very few indeed because in the whole civil government estimates there is only $358,660 appropriated by statute for such salaries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out that it made no difference in England, under the economy act?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not an expert on the economy act; I have not read it and I do not know what are the powers of His Majesty in council under it. Therefore I do not propose to discuss it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. gentleman knows that the salaries of judges were fixed under the Act of Settlement, and that this was abrogated by order in council.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It could be abrogated by order in council only if the parliament of Great Britain, which is supreme in the exercise of its discretion, definitely and specifically authorized His Majesty in council to do so by order in council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The question of statute or contract did not stop them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, but if you wish to deal with the matter under our constitution you cannot do it as we have dealt with the civil service salaries, which depend from year to year upon an annual vote. In order to make this deduction from the salaries of judges it would require a specific amendment to the Judges Act, specifically deducting from 41761-53i
their salaries a certain amount, or reducing their salaries by a certain sum. In the estimates for this year we cannot deal with judges' salaries in that way. We can reduce the amount voted for the civil service of this country, but in doing so we are not violating any contract with any civil servant. I am quite clear as to that.


Charles Gavan Power: May I just take up that
point with my hon. friend? As I understand his argument, it is based on page 10 of the estimates on which the salaries authorized by statute are set forth, and my hon. friend states that these salaries cannot be reduced except by a special act of parliament. Have I understood his argument correctly so far, that salaries authorized by statute, namely those of the Governor General, the High Commissioner for Canada in London, the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, and so on, can be dealt with only in that way? That is to say, to back up his argument that this obligation to the judges is a statutory, contractual obligation my hon. friend points to the estimates? Allow me to point out to him that one of the bodies not exempt under the terms of this resolution, so far as I know-I am sure it is not exempt-is the Civil Service Commission. Anyone who knows what I have had to say in this house with respect to the Civil Service Commission knows that I am the last one to defend it. But I will say that if an injustice would be committed to the judges in asking them for this forced voluntary contribution, just as great an injustice would be committed to the Civil Service Commishsion, because they are listed as amongst those whose salaries are statutory. They are so listed in the estimates. Moreover, reading the Civil Service Act I find that:
There shall be a commission called the Civil Service Commission, consisting of not more than three members appointed by the governor in council.
And what is their tenure of office?
The commissioners in office on the 24th day of May, 1918, shall hold office during good behaviour. Each subsequently appointed commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour for a period of ten years from the date of his appointment, save that his tenure of office shall cease upon his attaining the age of sixty-five years. . . . There shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, to the chairman, a salary of seven thousand dollars, and to each of the other commissioners a salary of six thousand dollars per annum.
There, if anywhere, is a straight contract between the members of the Civil Service

Public Service-Salary Deduction
Commission and the government of Canada, ratified and confirmed by statute of this parliament, providing that the chairman shall receive the sum of seventy thousand dollars during the course of ten years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Who denies it?


Charles Gavan Power: Then why do hon. gentlemen opposite, why does the Minister of Justice, why does the Secretary of State, why does the Minister of Finance come to us and say, "We cannot reduce the salaries of judges because forsooth their salaries are guaranteed by statute," when there is a far greater guarantee by statute to the members of the Civil Service Commission whose salaries we are reducing. We want hon. gentlemen opposite to be fair.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is nothing in this
resolution reducing them.


Charles Gavan Power: But there is in the estimate. The position is worse than ever. We were informed by the Minister of Finance this afternoon that certain persons were exempt, namely, judges, officers in the army and navy, representatives of the crown and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The estimates show the salaries of the civil service commissioners: one at $6,300 and two at $5,400, making a total of $17,100. By statute of the parliament of Canada, by the law of this dominion, there is a contract between those commissioners, for whom I have no love, and this country, a contract which provides that their salaries shall be, in one instance, $7,000 and not $6,300, and in the other instance $6,000 and not $5,400. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he had better follow the example of the Minister of Justice who, during the whole course of his remarks a few minutes ago, departed altogether from the contractual obligation theory and based his plea in favour of the judges upon the ground of propriety.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was not making any
argument with regard to the judges.. I was simply pointing out to my learned friend the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chewier) that there was a distinction as regards civil servants whose salaries are contingent upon a vote of this house. If my hon. friend wishes to take up the case of the members of the Civil Service Commission on the ground that their salaries are statutory, which they certainly are according to the section he has read, that is a matter which will fairly come up when the proposals contained in the bill are under discussion.	*


Charles Gavan Power: The whole argument we
have heard all day is now discarded, that the judges were in a different position from everyone else because there was a contractual obligation confirmed by statute. If my hon. friend will read the Judges Act he will see that our obligation towards the judges is not as great as our obligation to the Civil Service Commissioners. What do we provide in the Judges Act? There is the following provision:
The Supreme Court of Canada
The salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be as follows:
Per annum
(a) The Chief Justice of Canada. $15,000
(ib) Six puisne judges, each ....	12,000
Their salaries are provided for only for one year, whereas the civil service commissioners are provided for for ten years, and we are obligated to pay those salaries. Each one of those commissioners, were it not for certain prerogatives of the crown, could go into any court in the land, he could go into any court if he had such a contract with a private concern and sue under it and collect. I may tell my hon. friend something while I am on this subject. In my own city of Quebec we have a body known as the Quebec Harbour Commission, and since the hon. gentleman's friends came into office they have taken it upon themselves to dismiss a certain number of people for what they called political reasons, but merely because we had hearkened to the cry of the hungry and helpless and appointed them under the harbour commission. The firm of which I am a member took forty cases of that kind before the courts of the province of Quebec for wrongful dismissal, dismissal without notice, and were enabled to collect on behalf of these poor people something like $15,000 which the treasury of this country paid. Now if this government were amenable to the ordinary laws of the land they also would be obliged to pay the salaries of the civil service commissioners.
I return now to the argument advanced by the Minister of Justice with regard to propriety. Every phrase he used in urging upon us not to reduce the salaries of the judges was in direct contradiction of the contractual theory of his honourable friend the Minister of Finance. He urged upon us not to reduce the salaries of the judges because it was very difficult to obtain good men to fill these positions. I agree with him. I am not one of those who think the judges' salaries should be reduced, particularly. But they of all people, if they are patriotic, if they have a

Public Service-Salary Deduction
love of country, if they are -men of standing as the Minister of Justice says and as I believe, should be the first to make a -temporary contribution. We are speaking now on the basis of a temporary contribution; we are not speaking on the basis of finding men to fill the position. We are asking these honourable and estimable men who hold these positions to join with their fellow citizens, those who receive lower salaries, in making a contribution to pay for the cost of government. And they should not be denied that privilege. Every argument which my hon. friend used in support of his case for the judges, the argument, for example, that they had to withdraw from other business, that they are set apart, so to speak, can with equal justice be urged on behalf of the railway commissioners of -Canada who, even though their names are not amongst those entitled to exemption, are entitled to salary under an act of -the parliament of this country. Every one of those arguments -can be urged on behalf of the Board of Pension Commissioners, on behalf of the members appointed to -the .pension tribunal, and on behalf of the pension appeal board. Not a word is said by the Minister of Justice which does not apply equally to these, and perhaps a little more so in the case of those appointed to the pension appeal court and the other courts dealing with soldier problems; because during the time they occupy these positions they cannot possibly practise any other profession. In the course of time, at the end of ten years, if they are obliged to vacate these positions, -they will find themselves without anything whatever with which to face the world. If there is one position more than another that should be exempt it is that of the pension tribunal and the pension appeal court. The members of these bodies are obliged to devote themselves to a very special category of -cases dealing with a very special kind of legislation. They are unable to form any connection which will be of use to them when they retire, and they should be protected at least to the extent that their salaries be not reduced any more than those of the judges.
I again urge upon the ministers that their contention as to statutory obligation is not sound either as to theory or practice, and that the argument of propriety applies equally to other public officers and representatives of the crown as -to judges. I urge upon the Minister of Finance, before he introduces his bill, to consider carefully whether, if there is to be a sacrifice, it should not be general and apply to all -classes of the community.


William Duff: Just along the lines of the argument of the hon. member for Quebec South, I think the Minister of Justice and my good friend the Secretary of State told us that the judges were in a different position from members of the civil service because the former had contractual rights and their salaries were authorized by statute and did not have to be voted, whereas those of the civil service as a whole had to be voted by parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was dealing with -civil service employees.


William Duff: Yes. I understood the Secretary of State to say that the salaries of civil service employees had to be voted by parliament, and if parliament so desired it did not need to vote them at all, but the judges' salaries were authorized by statute and consequently -had to be paid whether we voted them or not. In this country there is another dlass whose salaries do not have to be voted by parliament This is the class of which I spoke this afternoon. The salary of the Speaker of the house does not have to be voted by parliament; it is authorized by statute. Will the Secretary of State, who is a great constitutional lawyer, please look at page 15 of the estimates for 1933? On that page the amount to be voted is given as $897,934.40; there is authorized by statute $1,270,000, making a total of $2,167,934.40. The items which I intend to read are authorized by statute and do not have to be voted by the house; yet the government-and I presume the Secretary of State is just as guilty as any other members of the cabinet- in spite of the fact that these votes are authorized by statute, deliberately by order in council or by vote of the -council or by some other means decided to cut the salary of the Speaker of the house from $6,000 to $5,400.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. -member allow an interruption? May I call his attention to the fact that on page 15 certain salaries are marked with an -asterisk and a note at the foot reads:
These reductions will be authorized by legislation.


William Duff: That does not make any difference. It is true there is a footnote saying that these reductions will be authorized by legislation. Why is there not a similar footnote in regard to the salaries of the judges?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Where there is a salary fixed definitely by statute, a reduction in that salary must be by legislation. In the case of civil service employees, where no statutory salary
.	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
is fixed, a reduction may legally be made at any session by a reduction in the vote of this parliament. The Minister of Justice has given his reasons why a reduction has not been made in the salaries of judges.
_ Mr- DUFF: My hon. friend must think he is in the police court, -not in parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will say to my hon. friend that if I were in the police court, I would have a more intelligent audience than now in addressing my hon. friend.


Alfred Speakman: Does that apply all round?


William Duff: Does that apply to my hon. friends on his side of the house? My argument is this: if the government in their wisdom can make this footnote on page 15 and deduct $600 from the salary of the Speaker of the Senate; if they can deduct $38,400 from the indemnity to senators, which is statutory and is not voted by parliament; if they can deduct $600 from the salary of the Speaker of the house; if they can deduct $400 from the salary of the deputy speaker of the house; if they can deduct $90,000, Mr. Chairman, from the poor and small amount, that we get for our sessional indemnity, then with respect to the judges they should pass the same legislation, about which the Secretary of State speaks, as they do with regard to members of parliament. My hon. friend's argument falls to the ground, I say without fear of contradiction that everybody in the country shall be treated alike. I hate to see my hon. friend lose his $1,400; it is not fair that he should lose it any more than that I should lose my $400. I am opposed to this reduction. My hon. friend was ejected in his constituency on the understanding that he was to receive a sessional indemnity of $4,000. He was taken into the cabinet with a contract, either verbal or otherwise, that for his services he was to receive $10,000 as a minister of the crown.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: It is fixed by statute.


William Duff: Yes, and I say it is a shame that my hon. friend has to accept $1,400 less than he is entitled to from the people of this country.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The Secretary of State has not submitted anything new. He and I have solved many a riddle before and this is no worse than others. I never said that the salary of the civil servant was statutory;
I said that it was a contract. When my hon. friend reads the act, he does not say anything new. The act says: "for existing classes", and the Secretary of State well knows that when those classes are changed, the civil ser-
'Mr. Cahan.]
vant does not suffer a reduction of his salary but continues in that class until the end of his term. Then the new incumbent takes the position subject to a reduction. There is a contract that the new incumbent shall accept the position at the reduced remuneration. There is no power either in the Civil Service Commission or in this parliament to decrease the remuneration while that incumbent is there, and the fact that these amounts are voted yearly does not detract at all from the contract. This parliament could not anticipate and say in one year we will vote hundreds of millions of dollars to pay what has been contracted for when these civil servants entered into the service of the state. The hon. Secretary of State has not in any way met the situation by citing the Civil Service Act. There is no change there at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Except that the contract is
conditional upon parliament voting the money from year to year.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Parliament votes the
money as a result of contractual obligation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No. The obligation is conditional.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I would like to say a
few words in connection with this phase of the resolution. It is amazing to me that a government that makes any pretensions at all to follow democratic principles should take such a course as this government is following in regard to the proposed exemptions. I listened to the leader of the opposition today making a case for a graduated reduction in civil service salaries, and I listened to the reply of the Minister of Finance, who asked with a large gesture; Do you want to make the civil service a preferred class? Here in these exemptions we have a preferred class. The judges are the highest paid servants of the state, and they are not necessarily the most useful part of the service. We are being asked for equal sacrifices. Is it equal sacrifice to make a deduction of ten per cent from the salary of a man receiving only eight or twelve hundred dollars a year-and there are large numbers in the civil service in that class-while those who are getting salaries ranging up to $15,000 are exempt? Is that equality of sacrifice?
However, the point I wish to make is this: There is always a reason why people do things. The reason brought forward by the government for making the reductions is that the country is in difficulties and they desire each one to contribute his share in order to help balance the budget. But does it not seem

Public Service-Salary Deduction
strange that all these exemptions are of people who have to do with the enforcement of law? That is the point I would like cleared up. The Secretary of State says that the reason they have been exempted is that the judges' salaries .could not ibe reduced, without an amendment to the Judges Act. But why could not an amendment to the Judges Act be brought down simultaneously with this resolution? I do not see any difficulty in that regard. The sinister fact of the situation is that all those we are dealing with-judges, mounted police, military-have to do with the enforcement of law, and I .can come to no other conclusion than that they were exempted from the reduction in order that there might not be any dissatisfaction among those who had the enforcement of law in their hands. I protest against that with all the strength at my command.
There is another point I wish to make. Before these judges come those who are charged with contravening the law. You reduce the salary of a civil servant who is receiving less than $1,000. He has to keep himself and his family on that salary, and then because of economic pressure he is perhaps driven to do something in contravention of the law, and is brought before the judge, a judge drawing a comfortable salary. I would like to know how a judge in that position could pass sentence upon a person who is living in such different circumstances. There is no possible reason that I can find for these exemptions except that the government are fearful of what may happen in this country because ^ of the depressed condition of the people owing to the hardships which they have to put up with. The government do not want to be put in the position that Great Britain was in when she .made a reduction in the pay of the navy. The government is afraid of what may happen. I think they should at least have the courage to treat the whole civil service alike. If any further legislation is necessary it should be brought down at once. The government should show that it intends to legislate for the whole country on the basis of the democratic principles to which we have been accustomed in the past.


Peter Heenan: Before the Minister of Finance rises-I know he has had a very hard afternoon-I would plead with him to reconsider the position in which the prevailing rates men will be .put if a further reduction of ten per cent is made. It is quite evident from what was said in the house this afternoon by another minister of the crown that private employers having already reduced the wages of labourers, the government has reduced the
wages of its employees to the same level. What I want to point out to the minister, and I know he will get the point, is that in the event of the government reducing the prevailing rate men another ten per cent, private employers will insist on their men coming down to the same level as the government men, because they will say that the government rate is the prevailing rate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend is referring to this salary reduction as a cut in wages,
I do not follow him.


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Railways and Canals admitted to-day that he had already cut the wages of the men on a certain job because he found that the government had been paying more than the prevailing rate paid by the private employers in that district.
I shall not argue that point. But as a consequence the rates for the government prevailing rate men in that district are now on a level with the rate paid to labourers of private employers, and my point is that if the minister gives these prevailing rate men another ten per cent cut, private employers will bring down their wages to the same level by reducing them ten per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can only repeat to my hon. friend that I do not regard this resolution as effecting a salary reduction. Call it anything you like, but the salary remains the same. That is what I say.


Peter John Veniot: They do not get the money, that is all.


Peter Heenan: I know that when I go
home after this session I shall figure that my indemnity has been reduced by ten per cent. I want to be helpful to the minister. I want him to get this point and I know that he will be fair enough to see that in those cases where men have already been cut-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I understand my hon. friend aright, he is suggesting a sort of hide-and-go-seek game as 'between the government employees and private employees. I do not think he would seriously argue anything of the kind.


Peter Heenan: I hope Hansard gets me
correctly. I am afraid I am something like the Minister of Railways and Canals; I am thinking one thing and saying another. I want to impress upon the minister, however, that where the prevailing rate of wages has already been reduced, no further cuts should be made. Such action on the part of the government would be an inducement to private employers to cut still further the

Public Service-Salary Deduction
wages of their men. If that were the case, the 'different governmental departments would have to make further wage cuts down to the prevailing rate among private employers, and there would be no end to it. I hope the minister will keep that in mind when he presents his bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the fears of the
hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River are quite unnecessary; he need have no misgiving whatsoever on that score.


Alfred Speakman: It is quite clear that
at least on one point we have come to agreement, namely, with regard to the statutory obligations we owe to judges. That argument would seem to have fallen on the ground and must be abandoned. Speaking of the exemptions on February 26, the Prime Minister said that owing to the peculiar statutory position of judges, an exemption would be made in their case, and that among others to receive similar consideration would be railway commissioners. Turning to page 28 of the estimates I find that among the payments authorized by statute are the salaries of the Board of Railway Commissioners. It would seem to me therefore that there can be no legal argument upon the question of statutory obligation so far as judges are concerned, so that the discussion resolves itself into a consideration of the propriety of the action.
Following the argument of the Minister of Finance, and accepting his statement that no reduction in the salaries of judges is contemplated, I suggest that we should permit the judges among others, to accept this temporary sacrifice and equalize the burden on all sides.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I have great difficulty in understanding how he reconciles, in regard to both grading and exemptions, the position he takes as Minister of Finance dealing with income tax legislation, and the position he takes as Minister of Finance dealing with this reduction in salary. How does my hon. friend, on the one hand dealing with the income tax, defend a graduated tax which bears less heavily upon those receiving small incomes and more heavily upon those whose incomes are large, while, as Minister of Finance dealing with civil service salaries he urges there should be a horizontal cut which leaves out altogether any graded arrangement?
_ Further, how does he, in dealing with the income tax, justify an exemption of small salaries on the score that the people receiving 
such salaries are least able to pay, but when dealing with a reduction of salaries of public servants exempt the largest salaries to the exclusion of all others? I remember that when the budget was introduced last year such exemptions as there were to a further upward gradation under the income tax were upon the large salaries. The present Minister of Finance was not in that office at that time; it would almost seem that the hand which had to do with the budget of last year had something to do with the drafting of these salary exemptions. I should like to know how my friend the present Minister of Finance justifies the exemption of high salaries, so far as these reductions in salaries of the public service are concerned, and goes to the opposite extreme when it comes to exemptions under income tax legislation, namely, exempting not the highest but the lowest salaries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I assure my right hon. friend there is no deduction to be made to the effect that the person who drafted the income tax of last year is the one who drafted this resolution. I can assure my right hon. friend upon that point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Or inspired it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As a matter of fact he had no knowledge of it. If there were no income tax I could see the force of my right hon. friend's argument when he says there should be a graduation with respect to the contribution being asked from civil servants this year. Inasmuch however as there are income taxes, if my right hon. friend would carry his argument reductio ad absurdum, he would finally leave the high salaried men with no salary whatever. In the circumstances I regard the cut of ten per cent as the one more equitable in the circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about exemptions? My hon. friend has not told us how he justifies in the case of income tax exemptions of those who have small salaries and no exemptions of those who have high salaries, whereas, in the present instance he justifies the exemption of high salaries and does not permit an exemption in low salaries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was not referring to
exemptions; probably there has been too much discussion on that score.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will let us have an answer to my question, we may be able to get to the next stage on the resolution.

Unemployment and Farm Relief


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may have misapprehended my right hon. friend's meaning; I hope he is not objecting to the fact that we have made exemptions in the lower salaries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am trying to get at the principle which governs. My hon. friend will agree that in regard to income tax, exemptions are made on the salaries of those who have small incomes, but not on large incomes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Or dependents.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the principle of the tax bearing on those best able to carry it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
principle there laid down and acted upon. If that principle is carried through in matters of taxation generally, how does he justify the exemption of the largest incomes, so far as these deductions in salaries are concerned?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I answer my right hon. friend in this way: In the first place he must remember that the higher salaries are subject to the dominion income tax, a graded tax bearing more heavily upon the higher salaries. The same principle applies to those who pay municipal income taxes. In some cases civil servants have to pay three income taxes- dominion, provincial and municipal. As I had pointed out to me, in one province the income tax has been doubled. That means that there is a very substantial portion of the salary of the highly paid officials taken away. If the reductions now before us were to be continued and were based upon an expectation of permanency, my right hon. friend's question might be an appropriate one for discussion at this point, and we might consider whether the system of grading should apply. In this instance however there is only one contribution for one year, and I submit that the method suggested by the government is the fair one.


Mr. CHEYRIER:: I wish to make it clear that I am not objecting to the cut in indemnities, but I am objecting to the cut as it applies to civil servants.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to provide for the deduction of compensation in the public service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not the minister feel that in view of the discussion to-day he may wish to modify this particular measure before he presents it to the house?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it is decided, Mr. Speaker, that any amendments are desired they can be made in committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, March 7, 1932