June 7, 1923

LIB

Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Sir LOMER GOUIN:

No they were not, but he was under the impression when amending the statute to provide for an increase of indemnity for the Superior Court judges that the circuit court judges were included.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

How do their salaries now compare with the Superior Court judges in Montreal?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Sir LOMER GOUIN:

The Superior Court judges receive $10,000 and the circuit court judges under this legislation -will receive

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

S7.000.

CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

What about the next section, what does it mean?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
LIB

Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Sir LOMER GOUIN:

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-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Sir LOMER GOUIN:

-and we propose that they should get their $1,000 if they are judges of the Supreme Court.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

This means there is an increase of $1,000 in judicial salaries whenever the judge happens to hold an appointment in Admiralty as well?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

How many cases will that apply to?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
LIB

Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Sir LOMER GOUIN:

Two cases, I understand.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Sir LOMER GOUIN:

One in Halifax and one in Montreal. One is Judge Maclennan. I do not remember the name of the other, but I think it is Judge Mellish.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Are we to understand that either of these two judges, and I know they are gentlemen of legal attainments and eminence, has been in the habit of getting fees from litigants?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Are these chief justices or puisne judges?

.Sir LOMER GOUIN: Puisne judges.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

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?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
LIB

Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Sir LOMER GOUIN:

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.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

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.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   S7.000.
Permalink

June 7, 1923