Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, a number of 56103-961

hon. members have made inquiries as to the government's intention with respect to an Easter adjournment, and it might enable hon. gentlemen to make their arrangements for the Easter vacation if I were immediately to intimate to the house what the government has in mind. It is our intention to ask that when the house adjourns on Friday of next week it stand adjourned until the Tuesday following Easter Monday, which is April 10. This would mean that hon. members would have opportunity for a vacation of ten days, with a loss in that period of time of only two and a half days of the time that otherwise the house would be sitting. Seeing that parliament was called together in January, we feel that for this and other reasons it would be desirable to have such an intermission. Therefore, with the consent of the house, I move:

That when the house adjourns on Friday the 30th March instant it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the tenth of April next.

Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):

Mr. Speaker, most of the members from Ontario and Quebec can go home, but the government should remember that we from the west cannot take advantage of the proposed adjournment unless we spend all our time travelling. I think a vacation, say, from Wednesday preceding Good Friday until the following Tuesday is long enough for Easter holidays. I protest against the length of time suggested.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Carried.

No.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Carried on division.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

No.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it carried unanimously?

Carried.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the

observations he has just made, the right hon. Prime Minister may think it well to intimate to the house what legislation we may expect to complete the government's program, so that we may have that matter also in mind.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I shall be pleased to give

my hon. friend and the house the information desired in the course of a day or two.

Judges' Salaries

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:

That a special committee consisting of fifteen members to be selected at a later date be appointed to consider the question of the adequacy of the remuneration paid to the judges of the various courts in Canada, and all matters pertaining thereto, with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.

He said: Mr. Speaker, during recent years legal associations and other bodies have passed resolutions asking parliament to consider the remuneration; of judges. Those resolutions have been received from time to time and the matter has been referred to incidentally, especially during last session. Since then the Canadian Bar Association has taken formal action and adopted certain resolutions, which have been submitted to the government by a committee of the association. As Minister of Justice I have been receiving resolutions from the law associations of every province with regard to this matter. Moreover, a committee of various county court judges is to meet the government in support of the claim that they have submitted for higher remuneration. We promised at the time that the matter would be called to the attention of parliament for consideration and study. I believe that inasmuch as the judges are servants of the people and therefore more properly servants of parliament rather than of the government the question should be considered by parliament, and I do not see any better way of dealing with it than by the appointment of a special committee for the purpose.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :

I greatly regret that I am entirely opposed to the appointment of a committee to deal with this matter. As I explained to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on a previous occasion, I am wholly in accord with the idea of increasing the salaries of judges in this country. I have so stated publicly, and I was one of those who constituted a committee to wait upon the government as representing the Canadian Bar Association. I have long taken the view that if we are to command for the public service as judges the best men in the legal profession we must pay them salaries commensurate with the dignity and the responsibility of the position they hold. But I cannot agree with the appointment of a committee to examine witnesses under oath and to send for papers and' persons; I do not believe that this would serve the

purpose intended. The appointment of a committee would be, in my opinion, fraught with the gravest possibilities of disaster to the whole project. Moreover, it is not the method that should be followed in dealing with a matter of this kind. All that is necessary is to amend the Judges Act. All that is essential to accomplish the object which the government has in view is for the minister to bring in the necessary measure-because obviously the opposition cannot introduce a bill involving the payment of moneys from the public exchequer-and I venture to say that most of those who sit on this side will be glad to give it their support. But to appoint a committee at this time is in my opinion not only wrong; it Shifts responsibility and' makes it impossible to deal with the question as it should be dealt with. I cannot think that the calling of witnesses, the bringing of papers, and a general discussion in a select committee of this house would be anything but injurious to the very purpose we hope to accomplish; and I can only say on behalf of myself and of those associated with me-

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Will my hon. friend indicate in what way the consideration of the question by a committee of parliament might be injurious to the object in view?