Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I do not remember having received any.

Resolution reported and concurred in. Sir George Foster thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 59 respecting the Canada West Indies Trade Agreement, 1920.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I would like to make the same remarks with reference to this resolution that I made with regard to the other: we will take the discussion of the matter on the second reading of the Bill. The agreement has been laid on the Table and has been printed-at least the order has been given for the printing-and if the resolution passes I will introduce the Bill founded upon it which also is printed.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

May I ask my right hon. friend, who has returned but lately from France, if, during his interview with the French Government and especially with the Minister of Trade in France, mention was made of the exhibition train which will

be sent throughout Canada, from ocean to ocean, this spring? My right hon. friend knows that the Chamber of Commerce in France have made certain arrangements with the railway companies in Canada, and the harbour authorities in Montreal especially, with a view to sending some of the French commercial exhibits throughout the Dominion, provided that Canada makes a similar exhibition in France at a later period. My right hon. friend will know what I am referrng to; I think he has had some conversation on this matter with Senator Beaubien. When I was reading about my right hon. friend's discussion with the French Government, my attention was called to some speeches delivered in Paris and some articles published in the press over there, to the effect that as a result of this treaty this arrangement would be put into effect and would be conducive to more extended trade relations between the two countries.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

The proposition to which my hon. friend refers was one placed before the merchants of France and some officers of some of the departments of government there, long before the negotiation of this agreement and did not necessarily-and did not as a matter of fact-come up when we were talking with reference to this treaty. That -was a matter along the line of commercial development which is not based upon the treaty, so to speak. But, so far as my knowledge goes now, the arrangements are pretty well completed for an exhibition train, furnished with samples of French merchandise, to make a tour of our country -going from city to city and stopping for a little time in each, the exhibits being upon cars of the train and remaining there, and advantage being taken at the same time for film representations, more or less extended, of not only the exhibits which are being shown but of French productions and French scenery. The films are said to be of a most excellent quality, and some samples that I have seen fully bear out that statement. In return for that we give certain facilities, in fact all the facilities that we possibly can. The railroads do the hauling and provide the cars and, practically, the Dominion of Canada, as a government, has no expense in the matter. The French Government and authorities, in their turn, undertake to facilitate a similar train being carried through France fitted out with exhibits from Canadian producers, industrial and otherwise, and to give to that train and those exhibi-

tors the same facilities and courtesies that are extended to the French train in Canada.

Mr. FIELDING:

I concur in the view expressed by my right hon. friend that the details of this matter may be better considered when we have the Bill before us in Committee of the Whole, and therefore I do not rise to offer any objection to that course. But I want to call my right hon. friend's attention to a somewhat queer "scrap of paper" which he has circulated, and which purports to be an agreement. The only information which we have at the present time on this subject is that "scrap of paper." It is headed "An Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic." Yet it is not in the form of an Act, and there is nothing in it to show that it is intended to be an Act, but it goes on to state that it is a trade agreement between France and Canada. It not only does not seem to be in the form of a treaty but is entirely lacking in all the characteristics of one. I cannot imagine that this is a complete copy of the document. If this is the actual and complete agreement as it has been arranged between the Government of Canada and the Government of France its presentation in such a form is a very unusual proceeding. I only call my right hon. friend's attention to the fact now in order that before he brings in the Bill we shall be supplied with information in proper form, and shall have an exact copy of the treaty, or agreement, and not merely a "scrap of paper" which is evidently not complete.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

The agreement itself has already been laid on the Table, as I informed the committee a moment ago, and is being, or has been printed; it is either now distributed, or will be immediately distributed, to hon. gentlemen. We are now dealing with the resolution and my hon. friend assents to its being passed. A Bill, founded on the resolution, will be introduced which, on being passed by the House, becomes the Act governing this matter.

Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :

Has the whispering now going on any reference to the trade question?

Hear, hear.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

My hon. friend must have seen the agreement itself because it has been placed on the Table. I have not drafted the Bill-which is to be

founded upon this resolution; that duty has been performed by the officers of Parliament.

Mr. FIELDING:

I have seen the only information on the subject, as far as I know, that my right hon. friend has caused to be laid on the Table. What I hold in my hand is apparently a copy of what was laid on the Table and that, I repeat, is headed "An Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic." It is not in the form of an Act, there is no reference to His Majesty in it from beginning to end, and it is clearly lacking in all the characteristics of an agreement. In substance the information may be there, but in documents of this character we do not want merely the substance-we want complete copies, and no complete copy of this agreement I am satisfied has been laid on the Table.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

There is a

great difference of opinion then between my hon. friend and myself because I certainly gave the agreement to the Prime Minister, and I think he laid on the Table the whole of the official documents.

Mr. FIELDING:

Well, here is a document which was laid on the Table. If my hon. friend has any other I would be happy to see it; I do not know of any other. This appears to be an agreement, I suppose it is fair to say that in substance it is an agreement; but in documents of this character, which are necessarily of a formal nature, we should have a copy of the actual agreement itself.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I see the point raised by the Jion. gentleman. It has not the form of an Act, and it would appear to me as if something had been omitted by the parliamentary counsel; nor when he purports to describe an agreement, does the opening recital look to me as if it was really the beginning of the agreement. I will have both matters looked into by the parliamentary counsel, but doubtless the substance of the agreement is there.

Resolutions reported.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Explain,

please.

Mr. DOHERTY:

Mr. Chairman, I will

try to explain this resolution so far as it calls for explanation. The reason why it is essential that the Bill proposed to be introduced be preceded by a resolution is that it provides for the salary of an additional judge in the province of Saskatchewan. The legislature of that province has increased the number of its judges in the court of King's Bench by one. The purpose of one of the clauses of the Bill is to make provision for the salary of that additional judge. There are two other clauses. One of them is to correct an error. In the legislation for the increases made last year in the judges' salaries, provision was made that all judges whose salaries were increased by that measure should, both as to their salaries and as to any retiring allowances they might later be entitled to, become subject to the payment of income tax. The fact was overlooked that the salary of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, though in words it appeared perhaps to be increased, was not in reality increased. Prior to that legislation the salary of the chief justice of the Supreme Court was fixed at $10,000, and he was voted annually an allowance of $5,000 as remuneration for the performance of his duties as Deputy Governor General. By the legislation of last year the salary was made $15,000, but it was provided that it should cover not only the performance of his duties as chief justice but of his duties as Deputy Governor General. So as a matter of fact no increase whatever was made in the actual remuneration. It was therefore considered unfair, and I think I am safe in saying that it was not intended, that, receiving no increase, he should be made liable to the payment of income tax. It is proposed to rectify that error. The third clause has to do with the payment of travelling allowances to judges in the

provinces mentioned. It is to correct an abuse that has grown up, resulting from the fact that in those provinces the place of residence of the judges are not fixed by provincial law, so that in the past they apparently have considered themselves- and I think they could not be criticised for that-entitled to reside wherever they chose. That, of course, does not concern this Government or this Parliament, save in so far as it affects the amount allowed for travelling allowances. Thie purpose of this clause is to provide that judges who under provincial legislation are free to fix their places of residence where they please, shall not be entitled to travelling allowances for attending court at the centres where the proper seat of their court is.

Mr. EDWARDS:

If I understand the

minister correctly, we are informed by him that the second part of the resolution is to provide that a judge who does not travel is not in future to receive anything for travelling expenses. That is a wonderful piece of legislation; it is really remarkable; if it means that in the past we have been paying judges certain amounts of money for travelling expenses when they did not travel, then it is certainly time the abuse was rectified. We had an oustanding case some time ago where a chief justice did pull down some $5,000 for travelling expenses when he did not travel. That amount of money we received back after considerable trouble and after considerable wriggling on the part of that particular chief justice. It was nevertheless a reflection upon the common sense of this House that the payment ever was permitted. I want to enter my protest, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this House against the first part of that clause exempting the chief justice of Canada, who is in receipt of a salary of $15,000 from payment of income tax.