That relates to the judges of the Admiralty Court. It was provided in the statutes of 1919 that when the salaries of the judges were increased they should not be paid any salary if they acted as-judges in Admiralty, but there was a proviso-to the effect that those who are acting as judges in Admiralty should continue to receive it. It was represented last session that some of the judges were paid fees by litigants invirtue of a ruling of the Exchequer Court. We thought it was not proper that judges should be paid by fees-
As a matter of fact the judges that hold these extra offices, as a general rule, have their other court duties looked after by their brethren when they are doing that particular work. Does my hon. friend think there should be any pay at all? Why should one puisne judge have a perquisite and another puisne judge none-particularly when, as I say, the almost universal rule is that the work of the regular court is not allowed to be interfered with by the business of the Admiralty Division; some other judge does it?
As I said, there was an amendment passed in 1919 with respect to the judges in Admiralty which reads as follows:
"No salary shall be paid to any local judge in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court under the provisions of this section who is a judge of any provincial superior court, provided, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any local judge in Admiralty who was or is appointed before the coming into force of this act.
In the province of Quebec we had Judge Lyman, I think-I do not remember the exact name- who was receiving an additional salar3' of $1,000. He died and was replaced by Judge Maclennan in 1920. Judge Maclennan, being deprived of that additional salary of $1,000, received fees under that ruling of the Exchequer Court and has been receiving them ever since. When we submitted certain amendments to the consideration of the House at the beginning of the present session seeking to amend the Admiralty Act we declared that in the future no judge should be allowed to receive fees. That bill is now before the Senate. It was represented, however, that we were not acting fairly to Judge Maclennan and the other judge I have mentioned, because they had been authorized by the previous administration to receive such fees and that if they were prohibited in the future from receiving fees they should be compensated in some other way. We cannot find any other
fSir Henry Drayton.]
means than the method we propose now of paying the judges of any supreme or superior court of the province this additional salary. I may say that all the judges who are acting as judges in admiralty were doing their ordinary work in a perfectly satisfactory manner. No reproach of any kind was made against them on any such ground, and I think we should allow them this additional remuneration.
My hon. friend did not catch the point I was making. 1 understand this will apply only to two gentlemen in the case of both of whom, certainly in the case of one, the appointment took place after the passage of the act to which the minister refers so that there is no right to this extra salary under that act. There was a clear intimation from parliament that there should not be any extra fee paid for that service, therefore, if special fees are accepted, I do not care how it was done, it is acting directly against the intent of that statute. In view of the bill which is before the Senate it seems to me the matter should stand just as it is, without that increase of $1,000, unless the minister thinks the statute of 1920 was entirely wrong. If the minister thinks the policy laid down by parliament was wrong well and good, but if he believes parliament was right when it said there should not be this extra salary I do not think the mere fact that these gentlemen were enabled to get fees in some other way should influence him.