-discuss the various sections of this bill. As is fairly well known to the committee, the members of the C.C.F. are opposed to the increase of one-third in the judges' salaries at the present time, in view of the fact that we have these very same
learned gentlemen acting in a capacity giving them the authority to refuse comparable remuneration to people in lesser walks of life. Of course we are given to understand that in the case of those lesser persons, when salaries go up we have inflation, but when judges' salaries go up we have a necessary adjustment to get the best possible brains of the country to act in our behalf.
We now have before the committee a section headed "extra remuneration". The purpose of this section as I see it-I refer in particular to subsection 3-is to make it possible by order in council for a judge, when acting in other than his usual capacity, as for example when he is sitting on a commission or acting as an arbitrator, to get certain extra remuneration, allowances and expenses which are not normally contained in this bill. We find, for instance, in this bill that under certain conditions judges get S10 a day living allowance and in certain others they get $6 a day, and I am quite sure that is ample. But our judiciary, and I believe the government, have been a little bit careless of their high reputations, in accepting expense allowances in excess of those which are normal and legitimate. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the auditor general's report for 1945. It seems to me that the situation which is outlined on page 41 of that report in connection with the public accounts for 1945 is one that is not conducive to holding either the judiciary or the government in a very favourable light in the eyes of considered public opinion. I wish to refer to this famous, or infamous, situation that is mentioned by the auditor general. I quote from page 41:
Mr. Justice G. B O'Connor of Edmonton is chairman of the wartime labour relations board, and Mr. Justice M. B. Archibald of Halifax is chairman of the national war labour board. Ottawa is headquarters of the boards. Order m council P.C. 80/5000 of June 29, 1944, accepts the following submission by the Minister of Labour:
"The undersigned has the honour to refer to orders in council P.C. 1895 and 1896 of March 16, 1944, appointing Mr. Justice G. B. O'Connor, chairman of the wartime labour relations board and to P.C. 1986 and 1987 appointing Mr. Justice M. B. Archibald, chairman of the national war labour board; and to report that while authority has been granted to pay the travelling and living expenses of the chairmen above referred to while absent from their places of residence, the undersigned-
That is the Minister of Labour, who is involved in some of these industrial disputes.
arranged with Messrs. Justice O'Connor and Archibald that Mrs. O'Connor and Mrs. Archibalds necessary living and travelling expenses while absent from their places of residence, while accompanying their husbands in the discharge of their duties, would be paid by the
department. The undersigned, therefore, begs to recommend that authority be granted to pay the necessary living and travelling expenses of Mrs. O'Connor and Mrs. Archibald while away from their homes accompanying their husbands while they are discharging their duties as chairmen of the boards to which they have been appointed."
That is the end of the submission by the Minister of Labour. The auditor general goes on:
The order in council is silent as to the authority relied on for the ipaking. Attention is drawn to the provision for payment of expenses of Mesdames O'Connor and Archibald, as it is an exception from practice. In the fiscal year- Listen to the amounts.
[DOT]-$8,658.33 was paid to Judge O'Connor $6,150.51 to Judge Archibaldand
-by way of travelling and living expenses, these sums include claims paid with respect to travelling and living expenses of Mrs. O'Connor and Mrs. Archibald when travelling from home to Ottawa, at Ottawa, and when travelling with their husbands to various points in Canada.
That is the end of the auditor general's report. If there has ever been an instance in which the integrity of the judiciary of this land as well as the integrity of the government has been in question, I submit it is to be found right there in the auditor general's report, because in the first place it appears that the governor in council, by four separate orders in council, made provision for the living and travelling expenses of these two justices in connection with their duties, but that, following that arrangement, the Minister of Labour made private arrangements, for which he had to secure the sanction of the governor in council, in other words the cabinet, to guarantee the travelling and living expenses of the wives of the two judges named.
I am no lawyer, and sometimes I thank heaven that I do not know anything about legal phraseology; but I know what justice is, and I do not hesitate to say here that these justices compromised themselves by accepting pay on behalf of their wives while they were working during war time for the people of Canada. I have nothing further to say. I am utterly and totally opposed to this Judges Act coming into operation at the end of this year, or being passed by this House of Commons, and I have here given one sufficient reason why I am opposed to the measure.
There is one question I should like to ask the minister. Last year I asked him whether or not there was any provision for a retired member of the forces to receive treatment in the hospitals of the Department of Veterans Affairs. His answer was that no such arrangement had been made, but that he would look into the possibility of some provision of that sort being arranged.
Another question had to do with some form of recognition for the men who served in the security guards under the mounted police. Apparently they had no badge or other recognition of that kind. The minister also promised that he would see what could be done along that line. Will he tell the committee to-night just what the position is with regard to these matters?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): There has been nothing done about that. The retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have their pensions but no other provisions are made for them than the payment of the pensions under the Pension Act.
The matter of providing badges for those who served as special constables was put before the commissioner. I did not get any recommendation for action in that regard.
Would the minister take the matter up again with the commissioner? He will find the questions on pages 3477 and 3478 of last year's Hansard. On December 13 he said:
They get a certificate of service, and consideration will be given to the suggestion that they be given some form of decoration which they can wear on their tunics or coats.
Subsequent to that, on February 20, 1946, the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Veterans' association passed a resolution in Calgary asking for the provision of a suitable badge or decoration for those men who
served as security guards during the war under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think the request is a reasonable one, and I hope that the minister can arrange to have steps taken to meet it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall bring it again to the attention of the commissioner.
I wish to say a few words on a subject about which it may be too late to do anything this year. During the hot weather it seems to me that the dress of the policemen on duty around the parliament buildings is about the hottest thing that a person could wear. Not only is it about the hottest thing that a person could wear, but these men have to wear it in about the hottest place that I know of, namely, the pavements around the parliament buildings. Has the department ever given any consideration to providing summer uniforms of some lighter and cooler material than those which the men now wear? In the winter time we provide them with heavy coats to protect them from the rigours of winter weather, but we do not provide light uniforms for summer when it is uncomfortable in any dress. If any one of us had to stand around these buildings on June 29, 30 and July 1 we would surely ask that something be done about it. I suggest to the minister that he draw this to the attention of the commissioner of the mounted police and perhaps something can be done about it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I may say to the hon. member that I have discussed it with the commissioner of the mounted police. There are eight men who wear this traditional uniform of the mounties. The information I received was that they were on duty for only two hours at a time. I got the impression that it would be with keen regret that a decision to do away with this picturesque uniform of the mounted police would be arrived at. The answer that was given to me was that there were three shifts with eight men in each shift and that they were required to be on duty for only two hours at a time. I felt that there would be reluctance at doing away with that uniform which I believe is probably one of the most famous in the world. If it is not one of the most famous in the world it is certainly the most famous on this continent.
When this item was up for discussion some few weeks ago there was a certain amount of attention given to the rate of remuneration of the mounted police.
I am sorry to say I was not here at the time, but there are a few questions which I should like to ask. I became interested in this matter as a result of representations which I received during the past year from a considerable number of people who are interested in the welfare of the mounted police and the reputation which it has gained in the past and in maintaining that reputation. Whether rightly or wrongly they were of the opinion that the rate of remuneration received by these men was not such as was likely to maintain the high standards which the force has set in the past. I looked into the matter and I found the rates provided are as follows. I am not going to bother with the rates paid to officers and non-commissioned officers. I am going to talk chiefly about constables. So far as the rate of pay the officers receive is concerned, the deputy commissioner receives 84,500; the assistant commissioners, 83,600 each, the superintendent, 82,720 on appointment, rising to $3,120, and inspectors, $2,140, rising to $2,540.
These are officers. The sub-inspectors come below that at $2,000 a piece. It seems to me that the responsibilities of the officers of the mounted police are considerably greater and contribute a great deal more to the welfare of this country than the officers of a considerable number of crown companies which have been formed in recent years, who receive a great deal more money. The officers of the mounted police are underpaid in comparison with people who are working for the crown in crown companies. However, the people about whom I wish to speak are the constables. A constable receives from $2.50 to $2.75 a day; a second-class constable, $2.25 a day; a third-class constable, $2 a day.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member said that he was not here when the matter came up before. He is referring to the basic pay which is about only half of what they actually get.
I have the whole thing here, and I shall presently put it on the record. Sub-constables and trumpeters receive $1.25 on probation and $1.75 thereafter. AH these constables of various grades receive seventy-five cents a day as war duties pay, which brings them up to $2 for sub-constables and trumpeters to $3.50 for constables. They receive an allowance in lieu of quarters and rations, fuel, light, et cetera of $1.50 a day, which brings them up to rate of pay ranging from $3.50 a day to $4.75 for the highest.
These are single men, yes. The return which I received on this matter did not say what married men receive, except a ration allowance when occupying government quarters, but not in receipt of rations in kind. However, the questions I had to ask in that connection were these. First, how many sub-constables and trumpeters are there who receive this pay, and approximately how many are still on probation and therefore receiving $1.25 a day?