Mr. Garson:

Yes, they always make the divisions, either in the statute or by order in council afterwards.

Mr. Higgins:

When do you expect the appointments to be made?

Mr. Garson:

Contrary to the impression that some seem to have, I must say that no detailed consideration has been given to that at all. We will not embark upon that matter until we have the authority which we seek to obtain by the passage of the bill.

Mr. Higgins:

I assume you will take recommendations from the bar society of Newfoundland.

Mr. Garson:

We welcome good advice from any source, on the understanding that we are not necessarily bound to accept it.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

I should like to refer to the location of the judges. There are to be two in St. John's, one in St. John's East and one in St. John's West. I presume they will be residents of the city and will be confined primarily to those districts, but the lieutenant governor in council has power to allow them to sit in other districts. As there are to be five judges, and there are seven districts corresponding to the federal electoral districts, I presume that the two additional districts may be divided amongst the five judges. The most important places must be known to the minister-St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Bell Island and Bonavista.

Mr. Bradley:

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot agree with what the hon. member for St. John's West has just said. I do not regard these places as more important, by any means. As a matter of fact the question of judiciary in Newfoundland has been under consideration by some members of the legal profession, including myself, for a good many years. The criticism of our present inadequate system of administration of justice goes back to the old days of the late Judge Prowse. I have no doubt my hon. friend is sufficiently well acquainted with the contents of the book on the subject which was written half a century or more ago by that learned judge to realize that the great difficulty we have in Newfoundland is not altogether the administration of justice near the city of St. John's. County court judges will be required rather far away from the city of St. John's in areas where in many matters affecting questions of land and the administration of estates there is no administration of justice. There is nobody there to administer justice, and nobody within reach except the supreme court at St. John's. It is true that that court goes on circuit every year now, but it was suspended for a number of years. I have had some experience in what took place, possibly more than my

learned friend across the way. I know there is a serious lack of any agency in the nature of a court to bring justice to the people in the far distant sections of Newfoundland. I have seen cases where next of kin have been deprived of the property of their parents, and there was no remedy, for the simple reason that they did not have the necessary money to go to St. John's, engage the services of a lawyer and appear before the supreme court with the consequent reasonably high expenses, if I may put it in that way. What is required in Newfoundland is capable county court or district court judges, whichever you like to call them, who will be located at these far distant points where they can bring justice cheaply to people who cannot afford the excessive expense of trials in the supreme court.

Mr. Higgins:

With all due respect to the Secretary of State, I think it is somewhat out of order to refer to the excessive charges for trials in the supreme court. I think the lawyers practising in that court are as fair as lawyers anywhere else. It is seldom that a poor man in Newfoundland does not have his work attended to for a reasonable fee.

Mr. Bradley:

I had no intention whatever of casting any aspersions upon the professional integrity of the hon. member. I have no doubt his charges are reasonable, having regard to the amount of work he has to do and the time he has to spend on that work.

Mr. Higgins:

And the money.

Mr. Bradley:

My point is that if my learned friend had to depend for his income upon the fishermen and labourers in the far distant parts of Newfoundland, he would have a very meagre income.

Mr. White (Hasiings-Pelerborough):

I

should like to ask the minister to explain on what basis the salaries of judges are fixed. Judges of the supreme court receive $12,000, and the salary of a district or county court judge is $6,666.

Mr. Garson:

I must confess that perhaps the best explanation that can be given for these two figures is the fact in each case that amount has been paid for a good number of years. I know we have had representations from the association of county and district judges in Ontario, in which at very considerable length a quite impressive case is made out to show that relatively they are underpaid in comparison with the supreme court and other judges generally. Speaking from memory, but I think my recollection is accurate, the practice heretofore has been that when an increase was put through, the relative position of the two groups of judges

was adhered to pretty closely. The contention of the association of county and district judges of Ontario is that the time has now arrived when in any adjustment of judicial salaries they should get a relatively greater increase because of the fact that they are now paid relatively less than other judges in relation to their work and responsibilities. .

Mr. Sinnott:

Under this section, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will give me a little leeway, since I was in committee when the motion for second reading was being discussed. In order that we may keep the record straight I want to read paragraph (b), which refers to the travelling allowances of judges:

(b) for each necessary day of travel going and returning and each day during which he so attends-

(i) the sum of twelve dollars if that place is a city:

(ii) the sum of eight dollars if that place is not a city:

(iii) the sum of twelve dollars if during the time he so attends he is accommodated at a city and the Minister of Justice is satisfied that suitable accommodation is not available at the place at which he attends.

I have a few notes in respect to this bill, concerning travelling expenses, and I shall try to keep as closely as possible to the section.

When the resolution was brought into the house I strenuously objected to it. We have come to the time when people should use a little common sense. I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West, who said this was a fine thing and that these men were not able to get along on what they were receiving previously. He may hope some day to be appointed to one of these positions.

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sinnott:

At this very moment we are trying to convince the world that the democratic form of government is far superior to communism. I believe I am as near to the hearts of the people of Canada, and can see as well into their minds as anyone, and I know what will be their attitude toward a bill of this kind to favour a favoured few who already have been favoured far beyond the imagination of any Canadian- these men who have the authority to finalize and put into effect the laws of our country. I have seen men serve as much as two years for stealing from a store a small item worth less than $2; yet here we, as members of

Judges Act

parliament, are being asked to increase the travelling allowances of judges from $10 to $12 a day, in addition to the salaries they already receive. It hurts me deeply to see the very people who are supposed to be setting an example to all Canadians adopt this method of extracting from the pockets of the Canadian people all that the traffic will bear. Thousands of people in this country who are having a hard time to make ends meet will have to add to the already heavy taxes they have to bear. Many families are existing today on far less than these men are asking for travelling expenses alone, and I do not like to see the Minister of Justice made a victim of these circumstances.

I should like to know just how many of these men have asked for this consideration. It boils down to this. As members of parliament we are being asked to increase these travelling allowances by $2 per day; and putting it mildly, this is the cleverest piece of legalized robbery ever perpetrated. We are not permitted to discuss salaries, but every member of this house knows that we never hear of a judge passing on to the land of glory penniless. In most cases they leave estates worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. We should respect those who have the responsibility of carrying out the laws of the country. No member of parliament wants to be niggardly. It may be said that in view of the position these men hold the remuneration they receive from the public treasury may be somewhat less than they could earn in private life. It is not dollars and cents that count, however; it is a matter of honour and responsibility. In any case, I am sure no one could say the remuneration of these men is niggardly, especially when we remember that it is guaranteed until they reach the age of seventy.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, we are fighting communism, and we have to show that life in this country is much better than in the lands where communism is in power. If you want to encourage communism in the rank and file of those who have to work hard for a living, a few more bills like this will do that very thing. I was elected to represent all the people of my riding of Springfield, and I am sure everything I have said here today will be backed up by them. I believe Canada is the greatest land in the world. Let us keep it that way and not cater to any class distinctions.

Mr. Gillis:

I want to compliment the hon. member who has just spoken. Sitting as he does on that side of the house, he showed courage and a considerable knowledge of the

Judges Act

subject with which he dealt. It was a practical demonstration of democracy, and it is too bad that more hon. members on that side do not exercise the same privilege.

I am going to make what I have to say short, sharp and to the point. The purpose of this bill is to appoint another judge and to step up the travelling allowances of some sixty-three judges already appointed. I am not objecting to that; the Minister of Justice will have to answer for it. What I do object to, however, is that ever since I have been in this house, every time there has been any reorganization of the legal structure throughout the country or of the judiciary it has been done by a bill like this, with reforms from the top-more money spent on administration, more judges, and so on. There has been a complete failure to recognize the fact that the great majority of those who have to seek redress in the courts are without the means to purchase the legal advice necessary to get into those courts and take advantage of the system of justice we dispense.

A few moments ago the Secretary of State practically admitted that, in so far as his own province is concerned, the problem so far had been a lack of finances to enable litigants to get to the centres where justice could be dispensed. I believe that he is wrong when he assumes that the appointment of more county court judges is going to remedy that situation. It will to some extent, in that it will cut down travelling expenses; but when one has to seek litigation in the supreme or county courts it is necessary to hire solicitors. Then if the person is employed, there is the loss of time to be considered. Considerable expense is attached to litigation. There are many persons in this country who, because of a lack of the necessary funds, refrain from going to court and suffer considerably because of it.

I believe I am safe in saying that there are thousands of lawyers in this country who carry accounts on their books for years concerning cases they have fought without any chance of being paid. They do that work on a humanitarian basis. I know some of them myself. .1 hope some time in the future I shall see the Minister of Justice introduce a bill for the purpose of establishing legal aid for the people of this country below a certain income level. That has been done in other countries, and I think it is necessary here. I believe it is necessary as an aid to the legal profession, particularly those who practise in the magistrates' court and county court. In the final analysis there are not many people who go to the supreme court.

I believe if we are going to continue to do this sort of thing, to build a top-heavy, highly paid judiciary across the country, the

[Mr. Gillis.l

least we can do is to consider some means of enabling the people who are unfortunate enough to have to go to court to have proper counsel to present their case. I hope that some time in the future the minister will look into that situation to see if a bill cannot be introduced to provide for those people, because I think it is badly needed.

Mr. Speaker:

When shall this bill be read a third time?