Mr. GUTHRIE:

On Thursday resolutions were passed through the committee in respect to sections 19 and 76 of the Franchise Act. Section 19 is the section which provides for the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer and fixes the salary of that official. Seventy-six is the section which provides for the payment of fees to election officials for the conduct of an election. It is Only proposed now to amend the first part of that resolution, that applying to section 19 and the office of Chief Electoral Officer. The amendment which I now propose, and which I may say has been assented to by the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, is as follows:

Resolved, that it is expedient to provide in the proposed Act respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise (Bill No. 12) now before the House that the Chief Electoral Officer shall be from time to time paid the same salary and superannuation allowance as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.

That he shall also be paid his reasonable travelling 'and living expenses while absent from Ottawa on the business of his office.

That is the only change in the resolution. The formal motion to bring that change about I now beg to move and it is as follows:

That the resolution respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise adopted on Thursday, the 24th day of June, 1920, be amended by striking out all the words between the words "paid for his service's" in the third line of the resolution as printed and the words "Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada" in the eighth line inclusive and by substituting therefor the following words, "shall toe from time to time paid the same salary and superannuation allowance as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada: that he shall also be paid his reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from Ottawa on the business of his offioe; that any sums payable to him hereunder shall be paid out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada."

I should perhaps explain the object of the proposed amendment. The Bill provided for the appointment of the Parliamentary Counsel of the 'House of Commons to the office of Chief Electoral Officer. II do not know that the matter received as full consideration as it perhaps should have received when that section was drafted. However, upon further consideration of the matter, and after consulting my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, it is now proposed to appoint to the office of 'Chief Electoral Officer Mr. O. M. Biggar, K.C., of the City of Ottawa-a gentleman who is at the present time retained by the Government, in the capacity of counsel, at a salary of $10,000 a year. Under the proposed resolution Colonel Biggar, as Chief Electoral Officer, would receive the same salary as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court. That salary now is $9,000 a year, hut in view of the resolution on the Votes and Proceedings as it appears to-day-'and which, I assume, will be passed-the salary will be increased to $12,000. So that Colonel Biggar as Chief Electoral Officer will be in receipt of a salary of $12,000,-that would be $2,000 more than his present salary. It was proposed in the resolution which passed the committee on Thursday ito grant an allowance of $2,000 additional to the Parliamentary Counsel for his work under the Electoral Franchise Act. So in reality there is no actual increase proposed by this amendment. 'Colonel Biggar, as Chief 'Government Counsel, now receives a salary of $10,000, and when he 'becomes 'Chief Electoral Officer he will receive $12,000.

When clause 19 as redrafted is placed before the committee it will be found that the first charge on Colonel iBiggar's time will he his duties under the Electoral Franchise

Act, and that all his other time will be at the disposal of the Government free. He will not be entitled to take any private practice; his full time must be given to Government work, but the first claim on his time will be in connection with hie duties as 'Chief Electoral Officer.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Will he still act as

counsel for the Government generally?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Yes, in any matters

outside his duties as Chief Electoral Officer. He will be bound to perform without further remuneration any other duties in the way of counsel work, inquiry or the like, which the Government may ask him to perform.

Mr. POWER:

Will he be an employee

of the Department of Justice?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

No, of the House of

Commons.

Mr. POWER:

But as Chief Government

*Counsel?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

He'will be at the direction of the Attorney General so far as counsel work is concerned

Mr. POWER:

Of the Solicitor General?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

But he shall do all such further work as the Government may instruct him to do. I am satisfied that in Colonel Biggar's appointment we have made an excellent choice. : 1 am perhaps las familiar as anybody with the present Franchise Bill, and I am satisfied that we want a man in charge as 'Chief Electoral Officer who is thoroughly un-partisan, who has youth on his side, who is thoroughly qualified as a lawyer, and who is of a judicial temperament and capable of coming to rapid decisions upon difficult legal problems which will arise under the Act, and I .am satisfied that Colonel Biggar possesses all these qualifications in an eminent degree. The Government has very great confidence in recommending him for the appointment, and it is gratifying to know that the Government's action in this respect .concerning the Franchise Bill has, I think, the unqualified concurrence of my hon. driend the leader of the Opposition.

I have therefore much pleasure in moving that the resolution be 3 p.m. amended as I have read it to the House.

Mr. FIELDING:

What will be the tenure of office?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

As stated in the Bill. This is only the financial clause.

Mr. FRIPP:

Is the Mr. 0. M. Biggar referred to Mr. Oliver Mowat Biggar?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Yes.

Mr. FRIPP:

Then it would require some stretch of the imagination on the part of most of us to adhere to the idea that he is non-partisan. I understand that when Mr. Oliver Mowat Biggar resided in Edmonton he was a very active politician on the Liberal side.

Mr. WHITE:

Not at all.

Mr. FRIPP:

That is my information. Then I would like to ask the minister in charge why it is necessary to. change from the Parliamentary Counsel, who undoubtedly is non-partisan and who has had a long experience in the service of the Government. I would further like to have some information as to the duties performed by Mr. Biggar in the Department of Justice. If he is Chief Counsel in that department at $10,000 a year, why is it necessary to retain Mr. Tilley to conduct the arbitration proceedings in respect to the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I am not very familiar with tho proceedings in connection with the Grand Trunk arbitration, and therefore I do not know that I could give my hon. friend an answer to that question.

I do know from all inquiries that I have made-and I have inquired in a good many directions-that I am assured, and I think my colleagues in the Government have been assured, that Mr. Biggar is in no sense of the word a partisan, and never has been. He is not now and I do not think ever has been actively engaged in politics. So far as his legal attainments are concerned, I think his standing at the Bar is known throughout the length and breadth of the country. I am aware that since the beginning of the year, at all events, his time has been very fully engaged in Government Counsel work-not always before the courts, but in respect to various Government commissions. It has been found very much cheaper for the Department of Justice to employ Mr. Biggar at a straight salary of $10,000 than to employ counsel, as has been the practice for many years heretofore, as and when we require them. I may tell my hon. friend that counsel fees Pave gone up enormously, and it is no uncommon thing to have to pay a fee of $5,000, and perhaps more, in a single case. I think the Government has had that experience. I am satisfied that the salary paid to Mr. Biggar saves a large amount

of money annually to the Government in counsel fees.

Mr. FRIPP:

The minister has missed the point. The point of the amendment is that the Chief Electoral Officer shall be given the same superannuation as a puisne judge. When you retain counsel you do not superannuate him; you pay him for the work he does, and that is an end of the matter. Why should this gentleman be given superannuation the same as a puisne judge simply because he is a special officer of the Department of Justice at a salary of $10,000? It is absolutely unfair to the rest of the service to select one man for this favoured treatment. Why should he because he is holding these dual positions be given superannuation the same as a puisne judge of ,the Supreme Court of Canada? It is a new departure, and as far as I am personally concerned I desire to register my protest against it, because if this proposal is carried into effect you leave the door open to other men employed in the Government service the same right to come here and ask to be paid superannuation upon a much higher scale than they can get under the present Civil Service Act.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

This is not a case of superannuation, at all. The object of the Government and, I fancy, the object of the House is to appoint to the position of Chief Electoral Officer a man who is absolutely removed from political influence or control, who is at the beck or call of nobody. In order to have such a man, you mast make his tenure of office secure, absolutely removed from the power of the Government to displace the individual from office. I may say that Colonel Biggar is not an applicant for this position. He ha3 been consulted on several occasions and finally he has agreed to accept the position. He is a young man, an active practitioner, and the salary involved would be nothing to a man of his prospects. In order, however, to secure a man in permanent position absolutely removed from political influence, we have agreed to give him the same tenure of office as that of a Supreme Court judge, with the same salary and the same retiring allowance if he lives to entitle himself to such. That is the object we sought to attain. We are not adding this on to his present duties. We are creating this office by Act of Parliament for the first time in Canada. We realize that after the work is organized, as he will organize it, it will not take all his time. In years when there is

no general election, the work will take only a small portion of his time, and we want to utilize his ability during those off years. This is too large a salary to pay a man for work of this character, unless he has other duties to perform. We intend, therefore, to use his ability as much as possible during all the intervening years when there is no general election, and I think, in the end, we are going to save money by so doing. This will certainly relieve us of the necessity, in many important cases, of employing eminent counsel.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I am glad, indeed, to agree with the Minister of Militia on at least one feature of this law. If we accept the principle that there must be a Chief Electoral Officer, that man must be independent of the Government of the day, and he must be placed 311 such a position as to make him independent of any Government or party. The only way to do that is to place him in the same position as the judges of the land and, therefore, I am in perfect accord with this disposition. I have not the pleasure of knowing Colonel Biggar personally, but I have been told that he is a well qualified lawyer and a gentleman who would not lend himself to anything that would not be just and fair to everybody. I certainly support this resolution.