1924-06-17

HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave
to present the second report of the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections. I also lay on the Table the evidence taken and the exhibits filed before said committee. The report is as follows:
Your committee, having considered the resolution referred to the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections on May 22, 1924, as follows:-
" Thursday, May, 22, 1924. Ordered,-That the following:-
Mr. Porter, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, moved, Tha/t, E. Guss Porter, member representing the electoral riding of West Hastings, in this House, having declared from his seat in the House that he is credibly informed and that he believes he is able to establish by satisfactory evidence that:-
The Honourable James Murdock, Minister of Labour, did withdraw from the Home Bank at its Ottawa branch on the 15th day of August, 1923, two days before such bank's failure, thousands of dollars on deposit therein to his credit, using certain information he had received, as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his obligations as such minister in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament, be referred to the select standing committee on Privileges of this House to inquire fully into the said allegations with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath or affirmation, and that the said committee do report in full the evidence taken before (them and all other procedure on the reference, and the result of their inquiries to this House for such action thereon as this House may determine.
Attest.
W. B. Northrup,
Clerk of the House of Commons." and having heard the evidence given by all witnesses submitted in support of the charge contained in said 
resolution and all evidence and statements made in answer thereto, and examined all exhibits filed on such inquiry, beg leave to report as follows:-
The evidence taken by the committee shows that Honourable James Murdock on the 15th of August, 1923, drew out of the Home Bank of Canada, at its Ottawa branch, the sum of $4,050, but there is no evidence to show that before so drawing out said sum he had received information as a cabinet minister, of the probable failure of said bank. The evidence also shows that the only information Mr. Murdock had of the probable failure of said bank was received as a private citizen from Honourable G. N. Gordon, in a friendly interview on the 9th of August, 1923.
The committee finds that Honourable James Murdock did nothing in connection with the withdrawal of such money from the Home Bank contrary to his obligation as a minister of the Crown, or in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity, and traditions of parliament, and that the charge submitted to this committee for investigation, so far as it affects the honour of Mr. Murdock, is not only not proved but entirely disproved.
Your committee submit herewith the minutes of proceedings and exhibits laid before the committee, and evidence taken by them.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
J. Archambault,
Chairman.



TREATY WITH FINLAND

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: For the information of the House, I lay on the Table copy of treaty of commerce and navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and Finland.
PRIVILEGE-MR. HUDSON On the Orders of the Day.


Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg):: I desire to refer to a matter of personal privilege. Yesterday in the House a question was asked affecting me, which will be found on page 3223 of Hansard as follows:
Mr. Hudson, M.P.
Mr. Harris:
Is Mr. A. B. Hudson, K#C., M.P. member for South Winnipeg, the same A. B. Hudson, K.C., M.P., who is a member of the legal firm of Hudson, Ormond, Spice & Symington, the latter member of said firm being the Mr. Symington who is paid by the government as counsel on the Home Bank Inquiry?
Hon. Mr. Lapointe: Yes.
That question and answer 'as they appear in Hansard are calculated to create the impression that I am a partner of Mr. Symington in regard to this particular transaction. That is not true. I am not Mr. Symington's partner in this transaction. I have no interest in it, and when Mr. Symington was employed it was expressly stipulated both with him and with the govern'ment that the retainer should be ia purely personal one on his part. Morever I wish to say that Mr. Symington was not employed at my sug-

Postal Employees
gestion or on account of any association with me.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I desire to confirm in every way
what my hon. friend has just stated. When I, acting for the government, asked; Mr. Symington to represent the government before that commission, I never had any communication with my hon. friend at all in regard to the matter.



SALARIES OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
North Toronto (Mr. Church) has handed me the following:
I ask leave to move an adjournment of the House under Rule 39 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
The application or request of the postal employees received by the government since yesterday for an amendment to the present statute relating to the revised schedule of wages by the Civil Service Commission and the refusal of the employees to accept the said schedule, and their intimation that within forty-eight hours a strike will occur which will, if allowed, cause great damage to trade and commerce and inconvenience to the public and to the business of parliament as well. And for the object of asking this hon. House to consider some form of conciliation, either by granting the employees a board of conciliation or otherwise, or by appointing a Select Committee of the House to consider the case and suggest amending legislation, if any, they deem just and advisable in the matter or for the purpose of taking such other or further action as is deemed advisable, and if leave is granted, I beg leave to move, seconded by Mr. Maclean (South York):	"That this House
do now adjourn."
Rule 39 reads:
(1)	A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
(2)	Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (Rule 25) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
The rule is that the Speaker must decide if the matter of the motion is of urgent public ' importance. The hon. member who makes the motion hands the Speaker a written statement of the matter, which the Speaker reads to the House. This I have done. The Speaker then asks whether the member has the leave of the House to make the motion. In my humble opinion this matter, a threatened strike which may paralyze the whole of the postal service in Canada, is a matter of urgent public importance. But there is another obligation which must follow my decision that it is a matter of urgent public importance, it is that if objection is taken more than twenty members must rise to indicate the desire that the member may proceed with his motion. So, if it is the desire of the House that the hon. member shall proceed, more than twenty members must rise.
The Clerk Assistant having stated that more than twenty members had risen.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I I have no intention of taking up more than three minutes of the time of the House on this occasion. The matter is a very important one to the entire city I represent. The members of the House have had no opportunity of discussing this question as they have been waiting for the estimates of the Postmaster General before dealing with the matter, and they have not even yet been considered. Neither have the civil service estimates been considered nor have we had an opportunity of discussing this matter and bringing the facts before the House.
The city from which I come contributes six million dollars to the postal revenue, and the business men of that city are becoming alarmed as to what may happen if some action is not taken by the government. This question has been hanging fire for several months past and tossed about to and fro. Some time ago the matter was considered, and the government assigned to the Civil Service Commission and the deputy ministers the duty of making a survey and drawing up a new schedule of salaries. The Prime Minister laid on the table the correspondence between the various boards considering the case and said it was not within the province of the government to take any action.
This matter was referred to the Audit Board and the Civil Service Commission, who have now made their report. It was bandied about from pillar to post, and the employees have become very much annoyed over the delay and the way in which the case has been handled. Notwithstanding the high cost of living to-day, the scale as recommended by the Civil Service Commission, turning the bonus into salary, works out at a reduction of $179,000 a year. I am not going to enter into any discussion o* the report of the Audit Board and the Civil Service Commission to the government, but the government might have taken the House into their confidence a little more and told the Civil Service Commission candidly: We are prepared to go so far in the revision of salaries upward. That has not been done.
The Civil Service Commission have been blamed by the government, and while I am
Postal Employees

not prepared to go so far as to say that they should be 'blamed or are at all to blame, I think the government and this House should do something to protect the country from the great inconvenience that will be caused if a strike occurs. The ultimatum I believe has been issued' and will expire in a few hours and if a strike happens it will paralyze business. Coming from an industrial city, I know how strikes tie up business. The business men of the country surely deserve some consideration, and a showdown on this whole question is requested. I know that the postal employees in the district from which I come are not the kickers; they are patriotic citizens and the last thing they would want to do is to inconvenience the public one iota. In view of that they have been long suffering and patient, and I hope the government has some favourable statement to make to-day in the matter. For these reasons I did not like to move this resolution, but many business men, commercial firms and public bodies in the city from which I come, requested me to bring the matter before the House and get some action on it. I could not get it before the House on the Orders of the Day nor on the Post Office estimates, and the only course I had open to me was to move this resolution. I have received numerous letters and telegrams from public bodies-a strike vote will be counted to-day at six o'clock; I have been told that the men are to strike.
It has taken nearly six years since the war ended for this bonus to be turned into a straight salary recommendation. The city of Toronto and outside commissions have about 12,000 employees to whom they used to give a war bonus; but as soon as they could after the war they turned the bonus into a straight salary. I urge upon the government to do something to avert this coming strike. What I suggest is that the employees are entitled to either, first, a board of conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act or, second, a select committee of the House should be appointed to bring in a report within ten days recommending how far we should go in the matter of revision of the statute. If the House does something, a strike will be averted, but if a strike is not averted the trade and commerce of the country will be very seriously hampered. The facts are known to every one and I ask for immediate action before it is too late.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, in seconding the motion, I take advantage of this opportunity to call the

attention of the Prime Minister to a discussion that took place on this matter yesterday:
Mr. Maclean (York):	In view of the probability
of there being some trouble between the government and the men, is there not some action open to the government which might meet the situation?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	The government will be
pleased to receive from my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman any suggestion be wishes to make in that regard.
With that view of the matter, I hope the Prime Minister will take this as a suggestion -perhaps someone else may have a better one-and bring about some action that will avert this strike.


Eight Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The motion which has
been presented to the House opens with the following declaration:
The application or request of the postal employees received by the government since yesterday for an amendment to the present statute relating to the revised schedule of wages by the Civil Service Commission and the refusal of the employees to accept the said schedule, and their intimation that within forty-eight hours a strike will occur which will, if allowed, cause great damage to trade and commerce and inconvenience to the public and to business of parliament as well.
That declaration, so far as the government is a-ware, is quite inaccurate. No application or request of the postal employees has been received by the government since yesterday. I do not know where my hon. friend got his information; but neither the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart) nor myself- and I think it would be the one or the other to whom a communication of this kind would be addressed-has, up to the present time, received any such application as is referred to in the motion of my hon. friend. The motion uses the words,
their intimation that within forty-eight hours a strike will occur.
The government has received no intimation to that effect. Perhaps my hon. friend would tell the House the source of his information. I think it ought to be made perfectly clear to hon. members that since the schedule attached to the report of the Civil Service Commission has been sent to representatives of the postal employees, the government has received from them no official communication whatever. What has appeared in the press has appeared in the press without the knowledge of the government as to the sources from which the different declarations were emanating. Up to the present time no communication of the nature described in the motion has been received. On the other hand', I understand that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and the Acting Post-

Postal Employees
master General have both taken steps to intimate to representatives of the postal employees that they would be pleased to receive them in conference and hoped that any such action as that which was being referred to in the press would not be taken by them without the most careful consideration in every particular.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does such an invitation by the Minister of Labour mean anything in view of the fact that no alteration can be made in the revised schedule unless parliament makes that alteration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
hon. friend will let me proceed further with what I intend to say. When the government referred to the Civil Service Commission the revision of salaries of postal employees, that was part of a larger reference embracing the entire public service. The clause in the order in council in that connection reads:
The committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the President of the Privy Council, advise that, in accordance with the announcement made by him in the House of Commons on the 19th March, 1924, (copy of which is submitted), the Civil Service Commission be directed to undertake immediately a revision of the salaries of the Civil Service of Canada and to report thereon to His Excellency in Council at as early a date as may be possible.
It is the salaries of the entire Civil Service of Canada that the Civil Service Commission is being asked to report upon at the present time. To oblige the postal employees, the government asked that their department be the first to be taken up by the Civil Service Commission, but that as soon as it was concluded, the other departments of the government should then be proceeded with. In the report which the Civil Service Commission made to the government on the 8th May, the following paragraph is included:
The importance of this revision in the postal service will be apparent when it is considered that increases in basic rates of compensation and consequent increased cost of the service would not be confined to the postal service, but must necessarily be also applied to the whole public service as the work of salary revision is proceeded with.
I hope that hon. members and1 the country will appreciate the significance of that statement in the report of the Civil Service Commission to the government,- that in taking up the revision of the salaries of postal employees they have had in mind the principles which will obtain with respect to the entire public service of the Dominion. The government feel that to take any action at this moment beyond approving what the Civil Service Commission has recommended might be most prejudicial to the further inquiry which the Civil Service Commission is making, inasmuch as the country will not know until the commission has concluded its examination of the revision what the cost to the country, of the practical application of the recommendations is going to be. We therefore feel that until we have before us the report from the Civil Service Commission with respect to the entire Civil Service we shall not be in a position to consider, as we should be able to consider in all its aspects, what the consequence would be of recommending to parliament any concession or any addition to the salaries of any classes of employees beyond what may be recommended by the Civil Service Commission.
We are prepared, when the Civil Service Commission has submitted its report upon the salaries of the entire Civil Service, to consider that report carefully in the light of all the material which we have before us and to make to parliament, if we think it advisable so to do, recommendations supplementing those which are contained in the report of the Civil Service Commission. But we do not feel that we are in a position to make any recommendations to parliament at the present time with respect to the postal employees; and I hope that the employees of the Post Office Department will see that the position which the government is taking is one which is in the interests of the entire Civil Service and in the interest of the taxpayers of the country as well.


William Irvine: Is the government satisfied
with the revision in so far as it applies to the postal workers? In the government's opinion, is the rate of salaries in this particular sufficiently high?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has taken the report of the Civil Service Commission as received and has approved it so as to enable such increases as are set out therein to go into effect immediately. I have already indicated that until the government has received the report respecting the entire sendee of Canada and is able to state to parliament and to the country what an addition in any one direction is going to mean in the cost to the nation, the government is not prepared to express any further opinion than that which has been given by its action so far.


William Irvine: In that case, would it not
be better to continue the cost of living bonus to the postal employeees until such time as the commission's full report has been submitted to the government?
Postal Employees


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter of salary revision has already been referred to the Commission and parliament apparently approved of that action at the time it was taken. No exception was taken by hon. members, including my hon. friend, to the course which was being adopted by the government in referring the matter to the Civil Service Commission; and, that action having been taken, with the entire approval of the House, it seems to me that the House should support the government in standing by the recommendations which the Civil Service Commission has made, until at least we have received information covering the service as a whole.


Mr. EULER:: When the complete report
is received, if the government should decide that the salaries now paid to postal employees are not sufficient, will any addition that might be made be retroactive?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a
matter which will be considered at the proper time. However, I may draw my hon. friend's attention to what appears in the order in council referring the matter to the Civil Service Commission:	There is there an undertaking
that such recommendations as the commission may make will be made retroactive in just such a manner as he suggests.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: It does not seem fair that the
amounts to be paid to postal workers should be dependent upon the schedule as it may appertain to Civil Service workers generally. We are faced with a concrete situation at the present time; the postal workers claim very distinctly that the amount they receive is not sufficient to maintain a decent standard of living, and that fact will not be altered by any further considerations which the commission may bring forward. I would- submit that throughout the country generally there is a very considerable interest in this matter and there is a strong sentiment in favour of an increase in the salaries of postal workers. When this matter was being discussed some months ago I noticed an article in the Toronto Telegram

not one of the most radical of Canadian journals-under date April 19, which summarized somewhat as follows:
The jab-a postal porter's helper.
The hours-4.30 a.m, to 12 p.m., six days a week.
The work-handling filled mail bags 50 to 100 pounds.
The pay-$8.50 a week.
That probably represents the lowest grade of the service. On the other hand the great majority of the postal workers are engaged

in very responsible work and they receive in many instances less than is supposed, according to the statistics furnished by our own departments, to be the minimum cost of living. Permit me to read a paragraph or two from a recent issue of the Winnipeg Evening Tribune.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Where does the hon. member get the figure $8.50 from? There is no such salary paid.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was quoting from the Telegram of April 19.


Charles A. Stewart: The very
lowest salary now paid to postal employees is $780 per annum with bonus in addition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I desire now to
quote a paragraph or two from the Winnipeg Evening Tribune of Wednesday, the 11th instant:
The new scale, by abolishing the bonus and substituting a 15 per cent increase of the basic salaries, will, it is true, raise the pay of some of the higher officials over what was. proposed last March. But for married men in the medium grades the salaries will in many classes be even further reduced.
Letter carriers in the top grade, for instance, were paid during the last fiscal year at the rate of 11,557 per annum. This amount included $1,260 salary and $297 bonus. In March last it was proposed to cut the bonus by $99 so that the total maximum salary and bonus would equal $1,458. The letter carriers protested to the government against this reduction, and quoted official figures to show that the reduced salary was well below the level set by the Dominion Department of Labour for a decent standard of living for a family of five persons.
There was some unfortunate talk of a strike, but the government poured oil on the troubled waters by promising reconsideration of the salary schedule. It is now proposed as a brilliant solution of the problem that the bonus shall be dropped altogether and that the basic salaries shall be raised about 15 per cent. The letter carriers are thus offered a maximum of $1,440 a year, which is $117 less than t-hey received last year and $18 less than the protested schedule of last March .... It is not too late for the blunder to be rectified. It is understood the Prime Minister has yet to confer with the postal employees. The people of Canada do not begrudge a fair wage to their public servants in exchange for faithful and honest service, and few fair-minded people will consider $1,440 a year to be adequate remuneration for a letter carrier of experience and integrity who faithfully performs his arduous duties.
It is not my intention to go into any comparison of the new. with the old schedules. From a number of our western cities we have received telegrams urging that there should be a revision of the proposed rates. I think that the general opinion is that the range should be from $1,260 to $1,980. Now, Mr. Speaker, the question is, what can be done in the face of the present serious situation? It is several months since the protests were made, and the postal employees have done

Postal Employees
apparently all in their power by what are termed constitutional means; that is to say, they have preferred their requests to the government and made their representations to the Civil Service Commission. The postal employees have protested also through members of parliament. What more can be done, so far as they are concerned? They seem to be driven to take direct action. Unfortunately there are members of the business community who are willing to push the matter to the limit. I read one sentence from a bulletin published by the Employers' Association of Manitoba, in which the solicitor of the association submits the following:
In ray judgment action should be taken immediately by the business interests to anticipate and prevent any interruption of the postal service. A strike by postal employees is essentially of a revolutionary character and ought not to be tolerated. There should be a law forbidding strikes by government employees and others engaged in operating public utilities.
Now, if there is no means of redress by an appeal to parliament what other course can the postal workers take than to refuse to continue working under conditions which do not assure them a decent living? That seems to me to be the situation with which we are faced at the present time. But' the postal workers are told that since they are operating a public utility a strike by them would be regarded as revolutionary in character! I quite admit that the postal employees do occupy a peculiar position. I think they feel their responsibility and realize that they ought not to strike unless it is absolutely imperative. But what other course remains open to them? You cannot reduce them to a condition of slavery. If they are urged not to strike, surely we in this House ought to be able to offer them some alternative. We ask the Prime Minister what can be done, and he says, "We are in the hands of the Civil Service Commission; we cannot do anything without altering the Civil Service Act."


Mr. BUREAU:: That is not exactly right,
Mr. Speaker.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understood that
to be the Prime Minister's position.


Jacques Bureau: The Prime Minister said
that the government would take no action until the report of the commission was in for all branches of the Civil Service, so as not to prejudice any of them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If that is the case,
if we must take no action until that report is received, I would submit that in the meantime we should continue the present scale of wages with bonus, as my colleague (Mr. Irvine) has suggested.
I would urge upon the House the serious situation in which many of these postal workers find themselves. They are working on a very narrow margin; ten, twenty, fifty dollars may not mean a great deal to the majority of hon. members, but the smallest of these amounts means a very great deal to the rank and file of the postal employees; and if they were assured that, without prejudice, their case would receive full consideration, I am inclined to think that they might agree to the final settlement being deferred. But the matter has gone on month after month, in fact almost year after year-for the bonus has been regarded as a temporary provision- and consequently there has been a feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction in the service for several years while the final settlement was pending. Then when at last the settlement proves to be of this nature, it leaves them absolutely in despair of receiving? what they regard as justice. I would urge that these civil servants, who have been doing faithful work for many years, have a right to look to parliament for some redress, and that at this time the government ought to assume definite responsibilities and not plunge the country into the throes of a general strike.


Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised to hear from the Prime Minister that he had received no intimation whatever from the postal employees, for the newspapers generally have recorded meetings of the various branches of the Postal Workers' Association throughout the country, at which meetings the men decided in favour of a strike unless their position was altered. I think it would be humiliating for the government if the difficulty ended in a strike and the business of the country was thrown into confusion, as in that event appeals for a prompt settlement would come from all over the Dominion, and the government would have to act. I would respectfully urge that the suggestion made, I think first by the member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), and subsequently repeated by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Woodsworth), that the full bonus of last year be continued, be acted on by the government, pending a final settlement. I do not think the postal workers have ever been unreasonable in theiir demands, and they have always put them forward in a reasonable manner. I think if this concession were granted it would avert the threatened strike. But if the matter is allowed to drift until it culminates in a strike, at will be more

Postal Employees

difficult to settle the trouble then than by anticipating it now and making the concession which has been suggested.


Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Raymond). On several occasions already in this House I have discussed at some length the bonus as applied to the cost of living, and it seems to me that in this case the bonus granted last year, which even then was a reduction of the bonus for the preceding year, should remain until a settlement is effected not only of the remuneration of the postal workers but of that of all other branches of the Civil Service. Pending the full report on civil service salary revision, it would seem to me that we should not do anything to lower the already low rates which we pay our public sendee. This House would then have a chance to determine what is fair and right. Therefore I should be very pleased if the government could arrange to continue the cost of living bonus granted last year. I have yet to see any fall in the cost of living figures, and certainly until there has been a decided decline it is only fair and right that this concession should be made. By so doing we are not taking anything away from the postal workers or any other members of the Civil Service until the question is finally decided by an appeal to parliament, if necessary.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in full aocord with the proposal to continue the cost of living bonus until a final adjustment is made. If we wait until the final report on salary revision is brought down before taking action, this session of parliament will probably close, and the civil service employees will be in a state of uncertainty and the country will suffer. I can truthfully say that in the western cities at least the cost of living has not gone down to such a point as to enable a family to be maintained on less than $100 a month, which represents the income of some of these men. I think the trouble with this country is that the big salaries are too big and the small salaries are too small. Some adjustment should be made, and I think the government should take this into consideration and act at once so as to satisfy those who are getting these lower salaries.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, we had a postal strike in this country a few years ago, and the business of everybody in the country was so seriously hampered that it was found almost impossible to carry on. That manifestly must be the case in
TMr. Raymond.]
the event of any strike in the postal service. The only thing which, to my mind, would be worse than a postal strike would be a strike of railway emplojmes. But this government has the responsibility of preventing that strike; it is the duty of the government to see that the postal service is carried on. whatever adjustment is necessary to that end should be made, and it would have, I am sure, the support of the House as a whole. Nobody can claim that the men in the postal service are receiving excessive wages. In the case of a man living in a city like Montreal, Hamilton, Quebec or Brantford, the amount he has to pay in rent makes it impossible for him to get the necessaries of life with any less salary than he is getting now with the bonus; that must be apparent to any one who has the responsibility of keeping up a house. The government might well use its influence with the Civil Service Commission-because certainly it must have some influence with the Civil Service Commission-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: None at all.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The government has it
in its power to repeal the Civil Service Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is a club that could
be held over the head of the commission.


Mr. LOVETT:: Would the hon. member
support a measure to repeal the Civil Service Act?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why, certainly I would.


Mr. IIEALY:: Would you put that in
writing?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: My hon. friend may be
required to put his statements in writing, but I have never been asked to do that before. If he had been in this House in the former parliament he would know that I was perhaps the most outstanding opponent of the Civil Service Act; I did not believe in it then and I do not believe in it now. If this government says it has no control over the civil service, why does it not repeal the act, if it has any courage at all? That is the way to get at these people. If the commissioners will not do what is reasonable in the judgment of members of the government, the government can bring in a bill to repeal the act and get rid of the commission. So that when the government says it has no power and no responsibility and can do nothing but what it is told to do by the commission, I do not accept that. I do not think

Postal Employees
any government should lie down to the Civil Service Commissioners, even though they may ,be under the control of this parliament. I say that this whole question of postal employees' salaries is in the hands of the government, and it must either meet or evade its responsibility. That it should meet its responsibility is, I am sure, what the country will expect.


Albert Frederick Healy: Mr. Speaker, for once I find myself in complete accord with the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) so far as the Civil Service Commission is concerned. At the same time I do not think the government should, in the face of a threatened strike, be forced into the position of taking action without waiting for the final result of the judgment of the Civil Service Commission on all salaries for civil servants, unless that judgment is going to be delayed too long. Speaking for my own constituency I may point out that the minimum wage proposed is not such as to enable a man to live decently in the city of Windsor or in the adjoining municipalities. For that reason I say that the proposed salary rates are certainly too low. It is impossible for any man to keep up a home in any of the business centres, I believe, on less than $100 a month; that should surely be the least that this government should call upon any civil servant to work for; and at that he should be able to look forward to increases from year to year so that after he has been in the service for a number of years he will be able to save a little for his old age. I sincerely hope that the government will request the Civil Service Commission to come to a
4 p.m. decision as soon as possible on the salaries of all branches of the civil service, and that in the meantime the postal workers may be satisfied to await the decision of the Civil Service Commission and ultimately the decision of this House on the report brought in by the commission.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), if the government find it necessary to delay consideration of civil service salaries until the whole revision has been made by the Civil Service Commission, the bonus to the postal employees be continued until that revision has been made. It would be entirely unfair and illogical to reduce the salaries of the postal employees, under the report made by the Civil Servcie Commission, and at the same time to 208i
continue the bonuses to all other branches of the civil service. It seems to me that would be unfair discrimination.
I would like to support the statement of the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy) that the present salaries of letter carriers are not any too high, and for my part I would not like to see them reduced. I think it is known that I have always been a supporter of the Civil Service Act, and I still like the principle of making it impossible to exercise too much political patronage. I do, however, make this differentiation: while I believe we may have a good scheme under which appointments shall be made by the Civil Service Commission, it is going entirely too far when we leave in the hands of the commission the fixing of salaries and rates of pay for civil servants. That, it seems to me, should be entirely in the hands of responsible members of this House or of the government itself. I would like again to suggest to the government, if I may, that they allow the present rate of pay to continue-that is, the present salaries with bonus-until such time as the final revision can be made.


Mr. HUGHES:: Is the bonus paid to the other branches of the civil service?


William Daum Euler: I would understand so.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member (Mr. Euler), but there is one aspect of this matter which perhaps has not' come to the attention of hon. members, namely, that the proposed salaries are larger in the aggregate than the combined salaries and bonus amounted to before. The salaries of some of the lower-paid men in the postal service are being reduced, but under the proposed schedule those in the higher branches will get more than they were getting before with the bonus. So that there should not be any difficulty on the part of the government in letting the bonus stand for another year, because they will save a little money. I think I am right in that.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: Not last year's bonus.


Robert Forke: The aggregate will be larger under the proposed schedule than the regular salaries of 1924-25 and bonus.


Mr. BELAND:: Not the bonus of last1 year.


Robert Forke: Yes, last year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Robert Forke: Well, I may be wrong, but
there is very little difference; as I say, the lower salaries have been reduced and the higher ones are larger. I have received the schedule just this minute.

Postal Employees


Jacques Bureau: There is a uniform increase, and the higher-paid officials did not get the bonus. That' is what makes the difference.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, no one will
deny that to have a strike of postal workers throughout Canada would be a very serious matter, and no one will realize that more than whoever has to do with the administration of the Post Office Department. Although the situation is a serious one, to attempt to settle it' in parliament does not appear to me to be the logical way to reach a conclusion in the matter. No matter what hon. members may think about the Civil Service Commission, surely they will agree that an impartial body of that kind is better able to deal with such a question as this than the House of Commons or the government itself. There are some things about the adjustment that perhaps do not meet' with the view expressed by the officials of the department. But we have to bear in mind that the Civil Service Commission have facilities for getting information with respect to the cost' of living, and if hon. gentlemen will refer to the order in council they will find that due consideration was to be given by them to the cost of living and the payment' of salaries in occupations similar to those of the postal employees. The report of the Civil Service Commission states that they have done that; they have inquired carefully into the cost of living. That is what1 they say in their report; I am not speaking from my own knowledge because I have not got information on this question. * Not only that but the deputy ministers of the departments were associated with them in discussing this matter. Afterwards the whole case was reviewed by the Audit Board who had all this information placed before them. Hon. gentlemen now have in their possession the schedule which was the result of ail this investigation.
I am not going to take time to go into the whole matter this afternoon. I simply wish to say to hon. gentlemen-whether they are in favour of the Civil Service Commission or are opposed to them-that I think we can agree they are an impartial body to deal with a matter of this kind. Now, the postal employees, to be fair to them, complained they were not given full opportunity to present their case. I asked that the Civil Service Commission hear the postal employees; and a second time they complained that they were uf't, given sufficient time to place their case before the commission. Furthermore the postal employees had an interview with the Audit Board and, I understand, they discussed their case very fully with that body. As a
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]
result of all this discussion and presentation of facts, both by the postal employees and by the officials of the Post Office Department, you have the schedule before you which embodies the finding of the Civil Service Commission.
Hon. gentlemen argue that the minimum salaries of the postal employees are too low. I should like to point out that the minimum salary under the old schedule was 8780. The minimum salary proposed here is $1,020.


William Gawtress Raymond: Is the minister keeping
in mind the fact that there was a cost of living bonus.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking of the salaries of which revision was made. Of course the Civil Service Commission as I have already explained, were asked to bear in mind the cost of living conditions and the conditions that prevailed under the bonus. But it is a fact that there is a reduction as between the old salary and the salary with the bonus added.


William Gawtress Raymond: Did not the postal
employees make the contention that the cost of living bonus should be added: to the salaries?


Charles A. Stewart: I am coming to the matter of the presentation of the claims of the postal employees. My hon. friends have had the schedule before them; I am merely mentioning the minimum wage because it came into the discussion this afternoon. This may be said with respect to the adjustment of the minimum wage:	All three
are nearly in agreement about the minimum, although not about the maximum.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the bonus
arrangement came into operation was there not an additional amount provided for western employees on account of the cost of living west of the Great Lakes?


Charles A. Stewart: It has been the practice to allow that in the case of the whole service. But one of the difficulties -I might allude to it while I am considering this branch of the subject-was this:	When
the adjustment of salaries was being made, that is to say in regard to the $780, it was pointed out to me by the commission and by the post office officials that that was the salary payable to a junior, to a young man entering the service. At the conclusion of the war, when our soldiers were coming home and it was difficult for them to get employment, the age limit was abandoned and married men became eligible for employment. Consequently in their case the salaries were found

Postal Employees
50 be too low. In considering this matter also it must be borne in mind that there are certain perquisites in the way of clothing that go with the salary and are still continued. I am not dwelling unduly upon that, but I want to say this: The result of the investigation is almost unanimous with respect to the salaries for those in the lower grades, but there is a difference of $60 between the recommendation of the Audit Board and that of the Civil Service Commission, and an even greater difference between the amount suggested by the officials of the department and the salary asked for by the employees. I am speaking now of the maximum salary, although the same remark applies to both the minimum and the maximum salaries. The point I want to emphasize is that throughout this investigation all agreed, or practically agreed, upon the minimum salary, and so recommended to the government. We have had that recommendation before us and it was returned to the Civil Service Commission upon two occasions. Hon. gentlemen have the memorandum of the commission before them and I am not going to refer to it, but the commission explain how they arrive at their conclusions. The statement of the government now is that when salaries generally are revised they are prepared to act on that basis and make it effective to the whole service. We have had that statement from the Prime Minister to-day and I am not going to dwell upon it.
My hon. friend (Mr. Church) makes a statement that the government have been notified officially by the officers of the Postal Employees organization that we had twenty-four hours in which to come to a satisfactory agreement with them. Well, we have no knowledge officially of that statement. It appears in the press but the department has received no information to that effect, and the Prime Minister has not been officially informed with respect to it. I did expect that when the postal employees-because we were constantly in touch with them; Mr. Murdock and I met them upon every occasion they came to Ottawa-had time to examine the schedule and had discussed it with their fellow employees we would probably have a further conference with them. I do not know whether they propose to adhere to the schedule they originally filed, or whether they would be willing to accept a modified one. If they adhere to that schedule its adoption would mean an additional expenditure in the Post Office Department of over $2,000,000. I am not saying that if that sum is required to give these employees a decent living it should not be granted, but I think the matter would want some further consideration than even the government or the House are prepared to accord it at this moment. I do not in any way suggest that we are shutting the door in the face of these employees, and are going to deny to them the right to discuss this matter with us and thresh it out until we reach a decision that will be satisfactory and avoid further difficulty. Nobody wants a strike. I would be the last to deny to the worker the right to take whatever action he sees fit and proper in order to protect his own interest. But surely civil servants, employees of the government and of parliament, are in a vastly different position to that occupied by the different workers throughout the country.
Do not assume that I am denying them the right of negotiation, the right of protest, or the right to take every proper means to bring legitimate grievances to the attention of the government or to those who may be in authority; but I do most solemnly protest and object to them taking such drastic action as would tie up the business of the country by way of strike. I think in fairness to the House and to myself I should make my position very plain. I have stated to the employees themselves that, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared in every legitimate way to give the postal employees or any other employees of this government what they are entitled to. But what does a strike mean? What will be the result of the strike? If one would judge by the temper of some of the speakers this afternoon, it means that parliament must succumb to the rights of the postal employees, without consideration of the question whether it is right or wrong, in order to avoid trouble. Surely the parliament of Canada is going to reserve to itself the right to run this country. Surely we cannot surrender that right, no matter what we may think about it, and I for one am prepared to go the limit. I am prepared to discuss with these men to-night, to-morrow or at any time, their legitimate grievances, and to sit down with them at any time and go into the matter. I have not the authority at the moment to say what the salaries shall be. In fairness to the Civil Service Commission, I say that they have gone into this matter conscientiously and fairly and made their finding. Perhaps further material might be brought to their attention, but if so I do not know of it at the moment. As far as I am able, I am prepared on all occasions to give to the civil servants of the country a fair deal; but I would deplore drastic action in the way of a
Postal Employees

strike, and I think every hon. gentleman in this House would agree with me in that connection. It should be a very last recourse in industrial concerns; but so far as the police forces and the civil servants of the country are concerned, I cannot agree that it is warranted under any circumstances.
In reference to the newspaper reports upon which my hon. friend's motion is based, we certainly have no knowledge of a communication of the sort referred to. If there has been a communication of that sort it had not reached the officials at twelve o'clock to-day; certainly it had not reached me, and we have the statement of the Prime Minister that it had not reached.him.
Mr. MARCIL (Ronaventure)Has the acting minister received from the secretary of the Dominion Federation of Postal Employees a request for a conference?


Charles A. Stewart: Not since
the announcement of a civil service board. I did expect to have a conference with them, and will be glad to see them at any time.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I see by the press the following statement emanating from the Secretary of the Dominion Federation of Postal Employees:
The public are warned through the press that all important mail should be posted before twelve o'clock noon to-morrow.


Jacques Bureau: Who signs that?


Charles Marcil: It is given
out by the Secretary of the Dominion Federation of Postal Employees.


Jacques Bureau: It is a report to the press rather than to the government.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
oeen in touch with the postal employees, and constantly in communication, but we have not received the official notice purporting to be embodied in my hon. friend's motion. I am bound to think, Mr. Speaker, that before drastic action of that character is taken the representatives of the postal employees will desire to have further discussion with the members of the government at least. Undoubtedly a good deal of propaganda will be inserted in the newspapers, propaganda is bound to be circulated; but this is a very important matter, and I think we should be fair but firm in the situation.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):: This
might be an opportune time for me to bring the attention of the government to a case in the service which seems to be entitled to perhaps more attention than even the

matter which is now under discussion, although I do not rise for one moment to in-terefere with what may be considered absolutely fair from their point of view. In my opinion, if there is one class of employee in the government service whose condition is deplorable from a financial standpoint, and who is entitled to some redress, it is the rural mail carrier. We were told that under this schedule the minimum salary is $1,020, and we have heard statements made to the effect that men cannot live on $1,400. Have any of us stopped to reflect on what is expected of a rural mail carrier? He travels twenty miles and his remuneration at the rate of $45 a mile is considered by some excessive. I think I would be correct if I said the average rate was $43, but placing it at $45, we find that on a route twenty miles long he gets $900.


Henri Sévérin Béland: For a daily service?


William Alves Boys: For a daily service-and I am coming to that in a moment. Until last year he never had one holiday in the whole year except Sunday. Last year he secured New Year's day as a holiday. He works Dominion Day, Christmas Day and every other day in the year, excepting Sunday, even now-he has the one single holiday, New Year's day. If he does his work in the summer time with a horse and rig, he cannot travel a route of twenty miles without two horses. He has to maintain his horses and buggy in summer and his cutter in winter. And nobody seems to worry about him at all. Last year when the postal estimates were under consideration I took occasion to speak at some length on this subject, but I do not intend to speak at such great length to-day. I suggest to the acting minister that when he comes to consider, as he says, the whole government service and the revision of the employees' pay, for goodness sake d!o not forget the rural mail carrier. There is only one answer ever made, so far as I know, regarding him, and that is that he works on contract. He signs a contract, and when the contract expires a new one is advertised, and somebody is bound to do the work for perhaps a few dollars less. If you wish to apply the same argument to the postal employees, I venture to say that if the minimum salary is $1,020, and any one of those positions is advertised, you would get one or two hundred applications to fill the position at the same figure. I am not saying that that is a good reason why they should not get that much money-I do not say that-but I say it is not a good reason either when applied

Postal Employees
to the rural mail earners. These men render one of the best services, in my opinion, that has ever been rendered to the farming community. We want to see efficient men who are capable of doing their work well filling those positions. It is our duty to see. that they get fair play which they are not getting just now. I most earnestly ask the acting minister to give them consideration when the whole question is under consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: Would the
hon member abolish the tender system?


Mr BOYS:: Yes, I would. They have no
such system in the United States, they have a standard, and a man must live up to that standard. A fair remuneration per mile is given them. Let us look into the matter and see what is a fair wage for that service. How can we spend time talking about men being underpaid at $1,000 or $1,500 when we have men who have to work for the small wage paid to rural mail carriers? These men are not getting any consideration. I am not seeking in any way to interfere with the just claims of the postal employees, but I do most emphatically state that if it is thought their salaries should be raised, the rural mail carriers should also receive fair compensation.


James Joseph Hughes: I did not hear the suggestion the hon. gentleman is making.


Hewitt Bostock: Might I ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the subject under discussion. Rural mail carriers are under contract and are not postal employees in the sense in which those whose salaries are being discussed are postal employees. When a motion to adjourn on a question of urgent importance comes up, the rule is that the discussion must not raise any question which, according to the rules of the House, can be debated only on a distinct motion under notice. I must, therefore, ask my hon. friend not to go beyond the motion which is before the chair.


William Alves Boys: I realized myself, I may say,
that, perhaps, strictly speaking and very technically, what I wished to say was not in order.


Hewitt Bostock: No. It comes under the
postal service, but there is a distinction, because rural mail carriers are under contract whilst employees of this class are salaried.


William Alves Boys: I shall be quite content to say no more than to answer a question which has been put to me by an hon. gentleman.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member suggested that another principle be followed in
regard to rural mail delivery, and I did not hear it. That is very important.


William Alves Boys: In the first place, I do not
suppose it is our duty, sitting where we are, to devise ways and means of dealing with this matter. I brought to the attention of the government what, it seems to me, is worthy of their attention, but I have no desire whatever to keep secret my thoughts. I would be prepared to change the system and to fix the remuneration at so much per mile, just as is done in the United States, at whatever rate may be considered fair.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie and Napierville):: That is the question that I have put to myself since the system of bonuses was commenced in the public service. If the civil service employees are not satisfied with their jobs, why do they not give them up and go to work on the farms? They will find out pretty soon that if they could get back their jobs they would take them as quickly as possible. In Ottawa what do we see on the streets every morning? People running, not working, but running because they are late, sometimes, for nine o'clock. If the people were to do that in the country, it would be pretty late in the morning before the cows were milked. The job is not the same at all.
As regards the situation in Montreal and other big cities, the claim is made that the postal employees want to go on strike. If people were wanted to fill their places, I think I could send to Montreal the next morning about 1,000 people who would be willing to give up their jobs at the brick yard at La-prairie or Delson and be pleased to go to Montreal, take those jobs and work five or six hours a day.
I do not object to a poor man with a family receiving a fair salary. The lowest, as stated by the minister, is $1,020. Where is the man in the country, where is the man at the brickyard at Laprairie, who makes as much as that? Our people get only $3 a day and they work about seven or eight months a year. They are, however, getting along all right. They raise families; their children are well clad and have shoes to go to school with, although their father has a salary of less than $1,000 a year. The trouble with the people in the cities is that they spend a little too much money to go to the movies sometimes; they go to bed too late and they acquire some habits, smoking cigarettes and that sort of thing on which they spend money for nothing. We, the farmers and the workingmen of the brickyards of Laprairie and Delson do not acquire those bad habits. We put that money in a sure place, that is, into the hands of the good woman who keeps the house and saves the money 'for us. We cannot go to the movies or smoke good cigars or good cigarettes. We buy meat, bread and sometimes molasses, and that is all we want. So I have been all my lifetime a man who has taken good care of money, and I think that is the only way to make a little money even though it takes a long time. That would not have been the case had I been a man to spend money for all the opportunities that come before me, for things that are pleasant enough sometimes. It is very pleasant to smoke a good cigar costing twenty or twenty-five cents, but I smoke that just on Sunday; and if I

had any advice to give to the civil service employees, it would be for them to follow my footsteps. In that way, I believe in the long run they would not find it necessary to come before the Civil Service Commission or before parliament, and they would likely be able to save money. I understand that we want to be able in the near future to make both ends meet; that this parliament is not yet too well off, and when a man in private life is not too well off, he cannot spend money for nothing. I should like to see economy practised, and the government should set the example for the rest of the community. When my right hon. friend was in opposition, I discussed the question of bonuses for civil service employees. What I said then, I say the same thing now. I trust the government will find a way of having fewer employees, paying them better and endeavouring to get from the same employees a good day's work. That is all I want.


Mr. JOHN PRITCHARD (North Wellington) :: I agree with the sentiments of the
hon. member (Mr. Lanctot) who has just concluded as well as with the remarks of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys). 1 understand that some hon. gentlemen are of the opinion that remarks of the nature I am going to make are out of order, but I shall try not to depart from the rules in the few minutes I shall occupy. In the matter under discussion to-day we are faced with one of the real problems which this parliament will have to deal with sooner or later. The wage problem in this country is a serious one, and it is all the more serious at the present time because it has got out of balance. One section of our public service is now insisting that it shall retain the pay which it received during the time of the high cost of living. The fact of the matter is that we still have a high cost of living; the cost of living has not gone down, and the question naturally is, what is the reason for this? Well, the cost of living is high, for one thing because wages are high; and how we are going to reduce that cost of living is the important question. As the hon. member for South Simcoe observed, letter carriers who are receiving to-day $600 for travelling twenty miles daily during twelve months of the year must subscribe to the cost of maintaining the city employees with whom we are dealing to-day; he has to give the other man twice as much as he himself is getting. It may be said that the cost of living is higher in the city than it is in the country; but as a matter of fact the man who has to keep two horses and a rig in the country on $600 has a harder problem to

Postal Employees
cope with than the city employee getting SI,200. I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion every man engaged in a useful and honest occupation ought to be given such wages as will keep his family respectably and comfortably, afford his children an education, and allow him to put 'by something for a rainy day. If a worker is not able to do that because his wages will not permit it, then I say his wages are not high enough.
Now, there are two ways in which we can help the workers to realize this condition; we can either increase wages or bring down the cost of living. In my opinion it is imperative that the cost of living shall be reduced, because as I have said on two or three occasions one half of the people receive half of the wages which the other half of the wage-earners are given for their work. That state of things cannot continue, and as the last speaker remarked, there is no better way in which parliament can approach this subject than by reducing the indemnities of its own members. I have said that before.
I know that some members of parliament might perhaps be justified in going on strike if that were done, as they might not be getting enough compensation for their time. But we all know how we are spending our indemnity; there is no denying it. I think we could do with less if we saw fit. So far as the present question is concerned, as has been observed, unless we are prepared to treat alike all the employees in the various departments we can do nothing at present; there should be no discrimination. When we can put every man in the employment of the government on an even basis it will be quite right to make a change. But in the meantime I think the suggestion is a wise one, that we wait until we receive the report of the Civil Service Commission before taking any action. The bonus might be retained temporarily until something definite can be done, but I agree with the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil), that those who are in the service of the country should not assume the role of dictating to parliament, for after all we as the representatives of the people are, I am sure, anxious to do what is fair by every one.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation):: I do not wish, sir to prolong this debate, however I deem it my duty to request the government to kindly keep up the civil service bonus, which was granted during the war at a time when the high cost of living prevailed, until reclassification of salaries takes place,
not only as regards the Post Office Department, but all departments as well. One should bear in mind that the cost of living has not gone down in proportion to the general wish of lowering the salaries. To-day, for instance, rents are 50 per cent higher than they were at the beginning of the war. The same is true for fuel and at present we are paying $16 per ton for coal. Indeed, I do not think thar the civil employees without the bonus can manage to live on the pre-war salaries.
I find it strange that it is always the salaries of government officials that we first pounce upon when it is a question of economizing. I think there are measures of economy that would be more equitable and more profitable to the country than the cutting down of the civil servants salaries. If there be too many employees, we may dispense with some; but let those who are needed and do the work receive a fair salary so as to allow them to bring up a family in a decent way and hold in society the rank which their position entitles them to. Again,
I did not wish to let this occasion slip by without protesting-not only on behalf of the electors whom I represent, but on behalf of the electors of the whole country-against the lowering of salaries, especially before a final report is brought down in the House. I entirely agree with suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin) to continue the bonus to employees until the reclassification of salaries takes place for all departments.
Right- Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN( Leader of the Opposition): It is a mere platitude to say that like every other hon. member of this House I believe in fair salaries. The question as to what fair salaries are does not enter sharply into this debate, it does not enter now into the consideration of what the duty of parliament and of the government is in the premises. But, speaking of fair salaries, let me make this intimation to the government:	I think that the facility with which
they have yielded to the demand of the higher officials of the country for larger salaries year after year has had very considerably to do with increasing the unrest among those who are more moderately paid. The government, in so far as salaries have been within their own supervision and decision, have almost in every case yielded to pressure; and such salaries have now reached a scale very perceptibly above where similar salaries were at a time when the cost of living was virtually where it is to-day. This accentuates a situation which causes unrest and invites disturbance.
Postal Employees

I have always supported the principle of having the general scale of salaries investigated by an impartial tribunal and by that tribunal determined, and after its decision and recommendation to the government, placing upon the latter the responsibility of acceptance or rejection. This was the system established some seven or eight years ago; it is the system in force to-day. Under that system the government has a power of review, and if it is desired that the general scale recommended by the Civil Service Commission should be increased or diminished, any government knows that if it takes responsibility in the matter the commission will follow its suggestion. In the -time when the responsibility was ours, when we once accepted the commission's recommendation we stood by that recommendation, we took the responsibility for it and presented a united front to the service and to the country. Now, I say to the administration, I do not know whether there is to be a strike or not, but if ever a government invited a strike this government has done so by its vacillation, its pusillanimity, by- its determination to avoid every responsibility and not even to stand by the officials of the country. The government's course from the beginning has been an effort to incite the service against the commission; never has the Prime Minister risen that there has not fallen from his lips a reflection oblique or direct on the system and on the commission, an effort to show that the government's goodwill knows no bounds but that the commission sits over there holding fast the government's beneficent hands. If only the matter were in the power of the government, if the late administration and the late parliament had not tied its hands, how bountiful it would be; but the commission is in control, responsible government is gone, and this commission-ridden government is compelled now to submit to a restraint that it deplores! Has not this been the continuous attitude of the administration? Would anybody expect contentment in the service, or a belief that after every possible consideration had been given to their claims they had to abide by the decision or leave the service? All the service have been led now to understand that the usurper to be dethroned is the Civil Service Commission, that already it is looked at askance by the government, and that, if only they raise enough disturbance, down will go the despot and their liberty will be complete.
What is the history of this matter? We had first of all the Civil Service Commission. This commission pursuant to the duties imposed

on it by this House, some years ago recommended a classification and a scale of salaries in accordance therewith. The scale they recommended was designed for what they termed normal times, and they arrived at it by taking the ascending line of cost of living and of salaries which prevailed before the war, and projecting that line through the years of the war and the years thereafter right up to the time of the fixing of the scale; that is to say, they assumed that but for the abnormal conditions of the war the cost of living would have gone up at the same rate during the period of the war as it went up before, and they fixed the salaries accordingly. But they said to the government: We are quite aware that these salaries do not take account of abnormal living costs due to the war; these should be taken account of temporarily, because they are likely to be in themselves temporary; that responsibility of fixing a bonus was ours, and we fixed it as we felt right to meet the situation then prevailing. These are the circumstances that continued up to the period of this administration. There was some cutting of the bonus a year ago. At my hands this received no criticism. This year the government, anxious to make a display of economy, announced early in the session, or before, a very considerable bonus cut applicable throughout the service iSuch announcement was equivalent to stating that in the view of the government under the cost of living conditions of to-day the entire bonus with the salary fixed by the commission amounted to too high a total. When this decision was announced there was a protest on the part of the Civil Service. The government, afraid to stand to its guns, saw the commission sitting over there, and said: We will put it on them, if we can. And the administration made a reference to the commission and asked for a revision of the whole salary list again. This was the first attempt to avoid taking any responsibility, or rather to avoid continuing the responsibility which it had taken, because when it made the reduction it declared to the service that it believed what they were receiving was too high. When the protest became loud enough the reference followed. I have gone through sufficient of the return just brought down-I have not had time to go through the whole of it-to make clear to me that the words of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) were abundantly justified when he said in effect that if ever a commission or a body of men conscientiously went about its duties, this commission did. He states they received a representation from the post office employees

Postal Employees
once, and again a second time. This is true. But according to this return they received a representation a third time, and still a fourth time, before the final submission of their recommendation took place. And as far as the return shows, nothing in the way of information or opportunity was denied, save a demand that the actual figures of the commission's recommendation, which already had been before the government but not approved, should be made known. The justice of this refusal, of course, every hon. member sees. The duty of the commission was not to make public its recommendation until the government had approved it; the government would have justly found fault had the commission done so in the meantime.
Now I come to inquire as to just what is the result of the investigation and report. I am astonished that the government has not disclosed to the House the real situation-the real schedule as approved by the administration, indeed, I am astonished that it has not gone further, that it has not made known to the country the outstanding facts so that all could judge the merits of the situation, because on the general judgment of the country the ultimate solution depends. On the contrary, the government has risen, chiefly through the Prime Minister, to profess itself impotent, sorry that it is so, of course, and, to the applause of those behind it who crave for patronage, to declare, "The commission is there, and until it is got rid of or shorn of its powers the government can do nothing." Would not the government have been better employed if it had first ascertained to the best of its knowledge whether the commission had fully done its duty, taken all things into account, and then, having so decided and approved the commission's finding, had stood up in this House and said: "The commission is right and we are behind the commission, and we intend to stand behind it through all eventualities?" I think this would have been worthy the dignity of the country, and would probably have led to much better results than confront the administration now.
I am going to give the facts so far as I have got them from this return. The cost to the country in 1924-5, under the scale obtaining the year before with the bonus of the year before, would be 113,134,000. Consequently had the government not acted and made by order in council a reduction in the bonus, the cost to Canada this year would have been- estimated, of course, but doubtless very accurately-$13,134,000. This is the amount the government considered too large and determined to reduce. They made a reduction on
their own responsiblity, the total reduction being such amount as brought it down to $12,664,000; the difference, hon. gentlemen can calculate. Now, this is the reduction the government made. A protest then arose and the Civil Service Commission's work came in. The commission made a report, which was referred back but which subsequently was adhered to and constitutes the report approved to-day. On the commission's report the cost this year would be $12,956,000.


Roch Lanctôt: Would that include the amount required for the civil service in Ottawa?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: No, for the postal employees affected by the order.


William Irvine: Does the right hon. gentleman suggest that the government, by actually fixing !be reduction, practically tied the hands of the commission in making their revision?


Arthur Meighen: No; when I want to suggest anything I will do so. I have not said anything about that. The commission was perfectly free in the matter.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The reduction to which my right hon. friend referred amounted to $470,000.


Arthur Meighen: Then $470,000, was the reduction the government effected. The commission then reduced from what it would have been if the government had never touched the bonus, that is $13,134,000, to $12,956,000, or approximately li per cent-a total reduction of $178,000. The government's reduction was $470,000, according to the figure just passed across to me. So under the commission's report, which I presume stands now, the cost for this year is $12,956,000, as against $13,134,000 had the government not interfered, and $12,664,000 had the government's reduction stood unmolested.


Mr. CRERAR:: Has my hon. friend the total amount in 1920 when the full bonus was
in effect?


Arthur Meighen: No. I rather think it is in the return, but I did not note it for the purpose of discussion. Now, I have gone far enough to show just what the effect of the finding is, and also just what the position of the government is. Let me add that when the commission made its recommendation first, the protest still continued. The government made a reference back and asked the commission to reopen the subject, stating the grounds to be as follows:
The Acting Postmaster General and the chief officials of his department feel that further occasion should
Postal Employees

be afforded them to make representations regarding certain anomalies apparent to them in the schedules submitted.
The fepresentatives of the employees have also requested that a wider opportunity be given them to present their claims and to discuss proposals than was found possible to be allowed them when they were heard by the commission in the matter.
That is to say, the government referred these schedules back because of anomalies claimed to exist by officials of the Post Office Department, and secondly, because the employees desired further opportunity to be heard. It will be noted that the government made no statement or comment whatever as to whether the general scale and total were too high or too low. Having the reference back, the commission again heard the employees, once or twice,, I am not sure which. They heard the post office officials, and the post office officials made recom-S p.m. mendations as to their own employees which, if they had been accepted by the commission, would have raised the total to $13,487,020. That is to say, the Civil Service Commission was faced with this situation: A salary scale of $13,134,000 reduced by the government.to $12,664,000; and at the same time the government's own officials of the Post Office Department coming to the commission and demanding a scale which would have totalled $13,487,020. In other words the commission was faced with a demand from the department for an increase of three hundred thousand odd dollars over the same figure which the entire government had reduced by $170,000. Hon. gentlemen will understand what part the government was playing in relation to the commission'-just the measure and quality of cooperation which was being afforded.
It is very natural for the officials of a department to seek a considerable scale for their own employees. I do not think there is a department of this government the officials of which will not argue-and probably argue conscientiously; certainly argue vociferously-that their employees are all paid too low compared with the employees of any other department. Naturally the post office officials so contend, and they put before the commission a scale which would have put the total at over $354,000 above the total from which the government had reduced it in order to make a display of economy to the people of Canada.
The employees, on the other hand, made their representations, as they had a perfect right to do.


Charles A. Stewart: Is my right hon. friend through with the reference to the

post office officials? Because there is one important point there as to savings that might be effected in connection with arrangements regarding working hours. I think a reference to that will be noted in the memorandum of the commission as well as in that of the Audit Board.


Arthur Meighen: That must come in the
latter part of the correspondence. I did get as far as a reference to certain working conditions.


Charles A. Stewart: I merely
mention it in fairness to the officials.


Arthur Meighen: I venture to say that
taking into consideration all the changes in working hours the post office officials had in mind, the amount involved would still aggregate a figure substantially above the total which existed before the government's reduction. The emplojmes presented claims which in the estimation of the commission would have involved a payment this year of $15,055,000. Such was the plight of the commission. They placed before the government the major considerations which they felt should guide them in the discharge of their duty-recited them one by one; and I venture to ask hon. members to read the report of the commission and to read the recital of those factors which governed the commission in their decision. If hon. members do, they will say that regard was paid to those very things to which regard ought to be paid in coming to a conclusion in a matter of this kind.
It is surely the duty of hon. members of this House to be fair to the Civil Service Commission. If there is a body of men that has a difficult, well nigh impossible, task in this country it is that commission. They have to stand between the taxpayers of Canada and those who have to gain by importunities at their door; and they apparently also have to stand between the desire of the taxpayer for economy and the desire of the government for evasion and popularity as the prize of evasion. This seems to be the position that the commission is in. Now, on the last report being forwarded a confirmation of the first, with all the reasons, it was almost an intimation as to what the cost to Canada would be if the higher scale were followed -either the higher scale of the post office officials' recommendations or of the postal employees-what the whole cost to Canada would be applied over the entire service, and this information is in the hands of the gov-

eminent now. In the presence of these facts the government approves and that scale becomes the law of the land.
When a strike is threatened what is the conduct of the' administration? Yesterday when the matter was called to the attention of the Prime Minister he rose and delivered himself of these words-I invite the attention of the House and the country to them as illustrating the position this government assumes in the face of what now confronts this Dominion:
Parliament also gave to the commission like powers-
Having referred before to its powers as to appointments.
-with respect to revision of salaries of civil servants, so that the power of revision of salaries of civil servants is taken away entirely from the government. This illustrates wherein to some extent we are being governed by commission and not in acordance with a system of a responsible government in the strict meaning of the term.
If this is not an attack upon the commission, on the whole system, I should like hon. members to define to me what is. Here is a declaration to the Dominion that the Civil Service law at the present time constitutes government by commission and is a negation of responsible government. Could a plainer incitement be thrown out to all those who feel they are not getting what they want at the hands of the commission an incitement to go on with the attack and the onslaught because the very institution they are attacking has not the support of the government itself? Then he goes on:
The government, appreciating the position, took care at the outset to associate with the conmission in the matter of revision of salaries of civil servants, in particular the salaries of postal employees, which were the first to be referred to the deputy ministers and the Board of Audit. On each of two occasions that a report was made by the commission, having learned that the report was not acceptable to the postal employees, the government took such steps as were possible to secure a further consideration by the Civil Service Commission of their report. The government has gone in that direction just as far as it is possible to go in the matter, and as my hon. friend has said, if there is to be any further change in salaries, they will have to be made by parliament itself. The government is placed in the position, either of asserting that it is not prepared to accept the legislation which is on the statutes and of being obliged jn consequence to ask parliament to enable it to revise or amend that legislation, or to stand by the legislation as it appears. We have not felt, at the present, at least, that we would be justified in asking parliament to amend or repeal the statute under which the Civil Service Commissioners have acted, nor to take action in any way other than in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.
What is the whole tenor and purport of that statement yesterday? Does it embody the slightest intimation that the government
Postal Employees
stands by the commission in the prosecution of its work? The slightest intimation that the government is prepared, in the event of a violation of the responsibilities of parliament and of this House, to stand by the recognized authorities of the country? Why, it is an intimation in every line that the government is not satisfied with the situation, it is an intimation to all those who threatened trouble that there is ground for their complaint, and the reason the ground exists is because parliament has tied the hands of this benevolent government and if it had not done so all these grievances would have been redressed. I want to know from the Minister of the Interior, in whose speech to-day I found a little more inspiration than in that of any other member of the government on this subject, whether he thinks that quotation reflects a manly stand, whether he thinks it reflects a stand worthy of the dignity of this House?


Charles A. Stewart: If I may be permitted to interject a word: I think my right hon. friend is taking a wrong construction entirely of the statement of the Prime Minister by quoting one paragraph and alluding to it as an indication of his stand. There may be a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and my right hon. friend with respect to the commission, but surely the right hon. gentleman will not argue that every precaution was not taken in connection with this adjustment by the government and by the Prime Minister.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a case of precautions at all, it is a case of an intimation to the country and the House.


Charles A. Stewart: If my right hon. friend will permit me, will he dwell on the concluding paragraph he has just read?


Arthur Meighen: I will read it again. The two concluding sentences are these:
The government is placed in the position, either of asserting that it is not prepared to accept the legislation which is on the statutes and of being obliged in consequence to ask parliament to enable it to revise or amend that legislation, or to stand by the legislation as it appears. We have not felt, at the present at least, that we would be justified in asking parliament to amend or appeal the statute under which the Civil Service Commissioners have acted, nor to take action in any way other than in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is exactly what he said after explaining the helplessness of the administration. And why would he explain the helplessness of the administration
Postal Employees

unless he felt there was a grievance to be redressed? What object was there in proclaiming the helplessness of the administration if there was no grievance to be redressed?


Charles A. Stewart: All I beg my right hon. friend to do is to consider the conclusion.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, after explaining this helplessness he says: Under all the circumstances we feel there is nothing now for us to do but to accept the recommendations of the commission. Is that just to the commission?


Charles A. Stewart: My right hon. friend is putting on the Prime Minister's statement a wrong construction.


Arthur Meighen: No other construction is possible.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend is putting a wrong conclusion on the statement. There is no word of the Prime Minister that would indicate that he had any further suggestion to make. He recites the facts and forms his conclusion. If my right hon. friend will confine himself to that I will be content.


Arthur Meighen: Let me quote again:
This illustrates wherein to some extent we are being governed by commission and not in accordance with a system of a responsible government in the strict meaning of the term.


Charles A. Stewart: Now my
right hon. friend has gone back again to the beginning.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, I take it all.
I have read it all and most of it twice. Is not this that I have read an intimation that there is something to be redressed? Then he goes on and says: Seeing that all we can do to redress it is to come to parliament we have decided we will not do it, for the present we will accept the recommendations of the commission. That is a precise and exact interpretation. In fact we do not need any interpretation; read the language itself and give the interpretation in the very language uttered. The duty of the Prime Minister was this: Having made up his mind, as he must have, that the schedule submitted was right, and having approved of it, it was his dutv to stand up in this House and defend it.


Charles A. Stewart: Is not that exactly the conclusion of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday?


Arthur Meighen: If this is defence then may Providence help the cause that gets a defence of that kind. And, now the subject is up again to-day, what is the attitude of the government? Are we told to-day that the government believes that what it has done is right, that the government believes the schedule is fair, that the government believes that between the taxpayer and those importuning the commission, the schedule adopted by the commission is just? No, we are not told so at all, Seeking for some way to postpone, and put off, and evade, they hit upon this, this is their last hiding place. We do not know just what the effect is going to be until we get the revision for the whole service; we will have to wait until that time; parliament will not be sitting then, but everybody will have to wait till that time-in the meantime giving intimation to those who threaten a strike in the public service that when that time comes they are going to be prepared to review the whole story again. This is the fine fortitude displayed by the government this afternoon. I do make this appeal. There is fairness coming to everybody. There is fairness to the Civil Service Commission acting in the discharge of an onerous and distasteful duty. This government from the beginning has been utterly lacking in according that fairness to the commission, and this government now in the face of an emergency, where probably for the first time in its life it will ultimately have to take some definite stand, is only being visited with the penalty which its own weakness and vacillation have brought about.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Of course we are
accustomed to the scolding of my right hon. friend. No matter what we do or where we go, or when we come back, the government is wrong; it is always wrong. My right hon. friend appeals for fairness for everybody. He has not the first scintilla of fairness in the makeup of his constitution when he refers to the government. It would ibe well now for him to start and be fair to the government. I know it will be a hard task, and cause a good many spasms, but let him try it once. He puts us in the position "you'll be damned if you do, you'll be damned if you don't."


Arthur Meighen: Oh no, I told you what to do.


George Perry Graham: Of course. My right
hon. friend's contribution, or even his suggestion, &s to the best method to proceed in the settlement of this question cannot

Postal Employees
be found in his speech. From beginning to end he talked about something else, so as to get a whack ait the government. The government is wrong if it upholds the commission-


Arthur Meighen: I never said that.


George Perry Graham: -and the government is to be abused should it not uphold the commission.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell
me one sentence I have uttered, either in this debate or any other, where I have said the government was wrong in upholding the commission?


George Perry Graham: It is not what a man
says, but how he says it, and the connection he makes with other things he says. He has argued for half an hour (against the government because it accepted the finding of the commission.


Arthur Meighen: He did nothing of the
sort. My hon. friend cannot quote one sentence of mine to support that statement.


George Perry Graham: Then what is all the
scolding about?


Arthur Meighen: Just for what I described in the plainest possible terms.


George Perry Graham: I am talking about what
it did. The government accepted the finding of the commission. That is all it had power to do, unless it rejected the finding. My right hon. friend might leave the impression with the country that the government had power under the statute to change the finding of the commission.


Arthur Meighen: I never said that.


George Perry Graham: Certainly not. But that
is the inference many hon. members would draw from his remarks.


Arthur Meighen: I would now ask any
hon. member in this House to say that he drew that inference from my remarks.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps they will not
accept the invitation, because he will then have an answer in some other direction.


Arthur Meighen: The minister did not
draw the inference himself.


George Perry Graham: No, because .1 knew
better.


Arthur Meighen: I knew better, too.


George Perry Graham: I made a note of my
hon. friend hedging and dancing round that point when he referred to the duty of the government, and what a pusillanimous government it was and that when the report came back it could not do one thing or the other. The Department of Justice has stated that all the government can do under the act is either to reject or approve. Would my hon. friend say we were right if we had rejected the report? Of course he would have said we were wrong no matter what we did, but would the country have said we were right had we rejected the report? What would have happened if we had rejected it? There would have been chaos, or another report would have been brought in which would have been exactly the same, and then another rejection. That was not the government's idea. The government saw that there was a vast difference of opinion between the postal employees and the Civil Service Commission on the one hand and, the postal department and the Audit Board on the other. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that when the Civil Service Commission made its report it gave good and substantial reasons for their finding. The matter was then referred to the Audit Board, who, except in some of the higher classes, I think, practically agreed with the finding of the Civil Service Commission. In order-and I appeal to hon. members on both sides of the House on this point-if possible to get unanimity of opinion expressed in their report, the Audit Board and the Civil Service Commission were brought together to discus before the government-not alone but to discuss in the presence of the government in the council chamber-their differences and their reasons. Now would it not have been a good thing if the Audit Board and the Civil Service Commission could have been brought together and made a report to which they both agreed? Certainly it would. That is what the government did. After the Civil Service Commission had heard all the Audit Board had to say in reference to its stand, its members took all these things into consideration; and were asked by the government, in view of all these things and the new light that might have been brought to them, if they desired to make any change in their report. They took a few days to consider, and made no change in the report. I want to say distinctly and not offensively that the government is standing by the Civil Service Commission because it is the body authorized by statute to make this report and to give a decision. There has not been any abuse of the Civil Service Commission, because the government did its best, on behalf of the peace and good government of Canada, on behalf of the employees of the govern-
Postal Employees

ment and of the commission itself, to ascertain if it were not possible to have unanimity in the finding or in the conclusions of the Audit Board and of the Civil Service Commission. That unanimity was not arrived at, and under the statute the government has approved of the action of the Civil Service Commission.
Referring to the strike, I am sure I will not say anything to incite a strike. I am inclined to think that some things have been said here to-day that will not mollify the feelings of the gentlemen who are inclined to striks, but will furnish encouragement for them to do so. I say now to the postal employees of the Dominion of Canada that the men who advise them not to strike are their friends far and away beyond those who advise them to strike. The parliament of Canada is always in >a position to deal with situations if it is allowed to do so, but employees can put themselves in a place where parliament can only do one thing, and that is not what the postal workers desire. My right hon. friend, of course, abused the government. I am not surprised at that. That is a habit. As Harry Lauder would say, "That is nae a habit, it's a gift".
One of the reasons my hon. friend ascribed for this unrest in the Civil Service was the fact that some of the officials in the higher grades had their salaries increased. I want to say right here, with some experience, that the majority of the men and women in the Civil Service who get the higher salaries can obtain better salaries in other walks of life. Men and women who are taking the full responsibility for the expenditure of millions of money, handling work of great importance in this country, can almost at any time they desire have their salaries increased by going to a private concern. That happens time after time, and the reason why salaries were raised -and it was a selfish reason in many cases- was in order to retain the services of men who would otherwise leave the service and secure higher salaries. I can instance man after man in the higher salaried positions of the Civil Service at Ottawa who can, in ten days, secure a better position than he has now at Ottawa. The worry and the responsibility of one of these men in the higher positions of the Civil Service of Canada, to say nothing of the work is sufficient to drive the best men out of the service, and I am surprised sometimes that we are able to keep them. I believe it is only on account of their devotion to public duty that we are able to retain some of the men in the higher positions of the service of this country.

One of the difficulties in the Civil Service- my right hon. friend referred to it from another angle-is the fact that everybody in the Civil Service knows what every other person in the service is receiving. Publicity in that respect, many members of parliament will say, ri good. But knowing what it is to be at the head of a department, let me say that the jealousies arising in the Civil Service create a great unrest, and if one of the clerks comes with a complaint, it is not that he or she is not well paid, but that another employee beside him or her is not doing any more w'ork, but is getting better pay. If we could devise some means by which, no person in a department would know what salaries the other employees are receiving, that would remove a great deal of the jealousies in the Civil Service.
I do not know what else the government can do. The government is behind the Civil Service Commission in its report. The threatened strike is undoubtedly a serious matter; but I say now-and I want to say this without any harshness-if, under all the conditions at present existing, the postal employees are not prepared to await the final decision of the Civil Service Commission for all the service, but inisist on putting the business of this country into a great turmoil, then the parliament of Canada is not responsible for that, but they will have to take the responsibility. I appeal to them, to their friends to advise them not to take that responsibility, but to accept what has been done in the legal, constituted way through the Civil Service Commission, and perform their duties under the new schedule, because there is not so much difference between it and their demands and the old schedule. I would suggest that they wait until the decision of the Civil Service Commission has been arrived at for all the service, and parliament may then decide in its *wisdom, not to over-ride the Civil Service Commission, but to devise some method by which an adjustment can be made that may be nearer the desires of the postal employees.
What I want to make clear is that the government has done its duty to the employees of the postal department; it has done its duty to the parliament of Canada, and it is prepared to accept all the responsibility for what has been done. We do hope and trust that the postal employees will not be misled into taking an action which will make it more difficult for parliament to deal with the matter in a manner that it might otherwise desire to do.

Postal Employees
I	" "


William Irvine: ,Mr. Speaker; I am very glad that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) has brought before parliament this matter of the dissatisfaction of the postal employees with this proposed salary revision. I had intended in response to urgent messages which were sent to me from the postal employees of the city of Calgary, to bring this matter up to-morrow in a similar way, in which case I would have required some data with respect to the cost of living and salaries, which I had not. I am glad, however, that the matter has been brought up and that so many hon. members have expressed their opinions. I am delighted to know that no hon. member so far has even hinted that the dissatisfaction of the postal employees is in any way unfounded, although at the same time a number of hon. gentlemen have kept as far away from the real problem as, I think, they could possibly get. Theoretically, the Canadian parliament is supposed to be supreme in all matters, and surely a question that involves the possibility of a strike of public servants is well within the jurisdiction of a parliament that claims to be supreme. At the same time it appears to me that ministers of the Crown have become involved in some way by placing the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission between this parliament and the proposed strikers outside and saying virtually this: Now, if you are going to strike, just look at this; here is the Civil Service Act. That is all we can say to these men. We are virtually declaiming against our own boasted theoretic power. I do not propose even to suggest that the Civil Service Act or the Civil Service Commission shall come between me and my duty or parliament and its duty with respect to the matter which has been brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for North Toronto.
The question really is not one of the Civil Service Commission, although much of the debate between members of the government and of the opposition has circled around the Civil Service Commission. The real question is: Are the proposed salaries of the postal workers sufficiently high to keep them from striking? The employees have not said: We are going to strike because you have a Civil Service Commission. They have said: We are going to strike because the proposed salary revision is too low. We have not heard very much comment on the part of the government with respect to that question, and that is the question. I could not hear the hon. member for North Toronto when he was speaking. I presume, however, that he reviewed briefly 209
the history of the negotiations of the employees in regard to salary revision.
Hon. members know that a cost of living bonus was added to the salaries of civil servants involved in order to meet the increase in the cost of living caused by the war. That has gone on until the present year when the government has proposed to remove it. Last year they removed part of it. This year they proposed to remove it all. They, however, suggested that the bonus would not be removed; that it would be added to the salary. It is very well understood, I think, that the postal employees looked upon the salary plus the bonus as being too low, and they had looked forward to the proposed revision in the hope that their salaries would be increased. But when the proposal came from the Civil Service Commission, it was discovered that there was a substantial reduction from what they received last year. It is not more than six weeks, I imagine, since the postal employees threatened to strike last time and as a result of that threat there were renewed negotiations. The schedule was sent back to the Civil Service Commission for revision; the final revision has come up, and again the postal employees have made clear their dissatisfaction with this proposal and threatened a strike in consequence.
I was rather amused to hear the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) a moment ago suggesting that the postal employees should wait until the complete report of the commission comes down; that is to say, they should wait until they know what some other class of civil servants are to get before they go on strike. So far as I can see, that is very poor advice. What difference would it make to the postal employees if the report should give twice as much in the way of salaries to some other class, or half as much, or put them on a similar basis? What difference in the world would that make? Would it put any more money into the pockets of the present employees of the postal department? I think not; yet it would have to convey a promise to do something of the kind before it could be considered good advice to the men who have threatened to strike, or induce them to stay their hand.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil), who I understand is acting as Postmaster General, suggests that this is not the logical way of meeting the situation; I presume he means that to bring the matter of the revision of salaries of the postal employees to the attention of parliament, as is being done now, is not the proper mode of procedure. He goes on to indicate to us

Postal Employees

liow the Civil Service Commission arrived at its conclusions, and he points out to us that this body is the logical one to deal with salary revisions, that it is impartial, that its actions were approved of by the Audit Board, and so forth. This of course is all very interesting and it is perfectly all right. But the point is that it has not been approved of by the people whom it most concerns, the people who will receive the salaries which have been fixed by the commission. The minister did not tell us whether the employees concerned had been consulted when the revision was made. What I want to know is upon what basis this competent body arrived at the present scale of salaries for the postal employees.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
correct the statement of the hon. member that the postal employees were not consulted. The postal employees filed a schedule and spent some time on two occasions with the commission presenting their claims.


William Irvine: I understand that the postal workers did present their claims; but to present claims and to be consulted in regard to the revision of salaries are, from my point of view, two entirely different things. Indeed, the postal employees are presenting their claims in the present instance, but that does not constitute any sort of consultation. Now, the situation is approaching an industrial warfare, and I do not see that there is much difference between the presentation of the claims of the postal employees to the Civil Service Commission, to which the minister has just referred, and the present manner of presenting those claims, except that at the present time there is a threatened strike. The matter is a little more decisive in its present character than was the mere presentation which the minister has interpreted as a consultation.
I am speaking from memory, but I think that the average estimate made by several bodies in Canada of the minimum amount required for the maintenance of a family of five is approximately $2,000; that is about the average estimate for such a family. We find, under the salary revision of the Civil Service Commission as it applies to the postal employees, that many of these workers, in fact the large majority of -them, will have to work for half or less than half what is estimated as being necessary to maintain a proper standard of living for the average Canadian family. So -that it would1 be interesting to known upon what basis the Civil Service Commission arrived at the proposed salary list.

But I am more interested at the moment in what is going to be the attitude of parliament towards the threatened' strike. And this question was dealt with by both ministers of the Crown who have commented upon the subject before the House. The Acting Postmaster General wants to know whether we are merely to succumb as a parliament to the threat of the employees without an inquiry to ascertain whether there is any real difficulty under which these men are suffering. And he suggests that parliament should of all things be firm; in other words, parliament must actually resort finally to the club. The minister, I believe, declared that we must be fair and then be firm.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
object to the imputation of the hon. member; I never suggested that parliament would resort to the club; I was careful not to make any such suggestion.


William Irvine: I assure the House that I
had no intention of misquoting the words of the minister; I believe his exact words were that we should be fair and then firm. I know that there is probably no hon. member who is fairer than the Acting Postmaster General, and I do not think that there is anyone who is kinder than he is. I do not suggest for a moment that the minister himself wants to resort to the club; but I do say that he has left no otheT course open to parliament. Merely to express the opinion that parliament wants to be fair first and then to be firm is all very well. But when parliament has nothing fair to offer, when parliament completely abandons the course of fairness and simply has nothing left but the club, then the club is what parliament will use.
There are two methods which parliament might adopt in this matter:	One is the use
of intelligence and the other the use of the club. If intelligence is to be applied it means that we must meet the situation precisely as it exists at the moment; it does not mean that the leaders of the two great historic parties shall get into a scrap as to whether the commission should or should not be. The question is, are the wages that are being paid to the civil servants in question too low? If they are too low, then what are we going to do to increase them and thus to prevent the threatened strike? That is the question to which we must apply intelligence; and if we do not deal intelligently with the situation there is only one thing left for parliament and that will be the club, in the event of the employees in question carrying out their threat.

Postal Employees
I do not believe in strikes personally; I do not think they settle any question. But what I believe, or what any hon. member believes in regard to strikes makes no difference; strikes will occur if proper steps are not taken to ward them off. Under the existing situation they are inevitable. So that the question still confronts us, shall we apply the method of intelligence or shall we use the club? Upon the answer to that question will depend whether or not a strike occurs in the present instance. I want to point out that no hon. member has expressed the opinion, at least so far as I have been able to gather, that the salaries now paid postal employees are at all too high; no suggestion of that kind has been made. I think therefore I am justified in concluding that in the opinion of those who have spoken these salaries are if anything too low.


Charles A. Stewart: Has my hon. friend read the evidence submitted by the commission with respeot to the investigation that was held to fix the salaries of postal employees?


William Irvine: I have not read it. However, I have read the schedule embodied in the last order in council dealing with this matter, I have seen the estimated cost of living figures, and I have received the protests of the organized workers concerned; and for the moment these are the factors which lead me to my conclusion.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is assuming that the protests of the postal employees are correct, and that anything short of their demands is not justified. I do not wish to enter into a controversy with him, but I would point out that the instructions in the order in council were for the commission to make careful inquiry as to living costs and the prevailing rates of wages in similar employment. The commission have done so, and upon that basis they have arrived at certain conclusions. In fairness, I think my hon. friend should not assume that one side of the question is all right and the other all wrong. If the commission have made a mistake in their conclusions, something might be said in objection, but they say they have carried out their instructions.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has not brought any more light to bear upon the matter by objecting to the position I am taking. I take, the position that the salaries fixed by the commission are not sufficiently high to ensure to those who receive them a proper standard of living for Cana-209i
dians. If the minister believes the salaries are high enough, then why not say so and assert that the whole claim of the employees is monstrous?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is dealing with one particular phase of the matter; there are many phases. I might mention the hours of employment, the rates of remuneration, and the runs of mail clerks; these make a vast difference, and the schedule does not expose them, but they undoubtedly would bear some discussion.


William Irvine: But the schedule does expose the fact that one class of postal employees at least will receive less according to this schedule than they received last year, and there is no evidence to show that there has been a corresponding reduction in the cost of living. Even the cost of living estimate put out by the Labour department is very much above the scale of salaries which is being paid to the large majority of postal employees. So I think I have good grounds for assuming that the salary proposals are altogether inadequate and that the objections to them are well taken. While that is so, and while the minister concerned and his colleagues who have spoken this afternoon have not taken objection at all to this claim, they are going to let things drift.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) r If my hon. friend will take into consideration one very prominent class of employees in Canada, namely, retail clerks, and compare their salaries-and I am not arguing for these salaries, but I think in fairness to the commission we should be frank about these things-he will find that even the $1,020 that is paid to the minimum classes of postal employees, and they are not very numerous, compares favourably with the salaries of retail clerks. I do not for a moment say that retail clerks are getting all they should get, indeed in fairness to them I think we should say that they are one class of workers in this country that is not receiving the remuneration which is due to its members, but I simply mention them in passing. If my hon. friend will compare the minimum with the salaries received by retail clerks he will find that even the postal helpers, who are the minimum class, though not very numerous, draw about the same salary. Then you have a higher class in the letter carriers who begin with a minimum of $1,080.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to the minister that he advise the Civil Service Commission how much Chinamen are paid in this country.
Postal Employees


Charles A. Stewart: I am dealing with white people.


William Irvine: I thought the hon. minister was trying to find some excuse for the commission having arrived at this schedule by citing the remuneration of one of the lowest paid classes of workers in this country. As a matter of fact, the government is, I suppose, the largest employer of labour in Canada. It has accepted the principle of the fair wage basis, and we are expecting it to carry that principle into practice-so are the working people throughout the Dominion. How can we expect other employers to carry out their obligations with regard to the fair wage system if the government does not set them an example? I expect the government to pay more than the starvation wages paid to retail clerks. However, I do not think that has anything to do with the argument. The postal employees cannot live on the excuse which the Prime Minister has made for this government taking no further action. He has virtually said that not all the report is down and the postal workers should wait until they see what other branches of the service are going to get. But all the report is down so far as the postal employees themselves are concerned, and they are not interested in what other civil servants may get. The point is that the 'statement made by the Prime Minister will not be sufficient to prevent the threatened strike.
Let me suggest two or three things that might possibly be done for the moment. I think the government has accepted the principle of Whitley councils, that is, joint councils in cases of disputes of this character. I would suggest that they put the principle into practice. If they will not do so, then I would suggest that they take this matter out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission; or else, as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said, stand by the commission and make it clear to parliament, to Canada and to the workers concerned that the schedule in the opinion of the government is a fair one and will not be disturbed. Let them take some definite position like that. But meanwhile I would suggest that to-night the government give assurances to the postal employees that until the final revision has been made those employees will receive no less salary than they did last year. Of course, I am not authorized to say that this would be acceptable to the postal employees, I do not know that it would be fully satisfactory to them, but I think it is the minimum that would reassure them in this respect. I urge
fMr. Irvine.]
upon the government that they take this point into consideration without delay.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) made his usual high percentage of bull's-eyes in this afternoon's discussion.


George Perry Graham: There was nothing to
shoot at.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He made a lot of splendid jokes. The only man he could have shot at was his right hon. leader. My hon. friend may think that the Prime Minister is "nothing to shoot at;"-well, probably he is right. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many hon. members had any idea from anything that was said by the right hon. Prime Minister-who, I may notice, after making a very brief statement in connection with this very important matter, abruptly left the House-


George Perry Graham: He is out of the city.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then of course he cannot be here. But I wonder if any hon. gentleman ever got the slightest inkling of the real facts of this case from anything that the Prime Minister said. I wonder, for example if there is a single hon. gentleman on these benches who knew that before this question had even been sent to the Civil Service Commission the government had reduced these wages by $470,000? The House has been given to understand from the very beginning that so far as the right hon. gentleman and his government were concerned they had had nothing to do with this matter; it had been referred to the Civil Service Commission and nothing he could do could change the result; he was not responsible. Did anybody understand anything else? I am going to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) whether he can point to anything stated in the House in answer to any of the questions put that would lead to any other conclusion? He cannot do it. Why, if there is one thing .the government have to be thankful for it is that the Civil Service Commission is there and that they can use it as a smoke screen, as a buffer-they are always doing it. That is the kind of thing they thrive on. The reason it went to the Civil Service Commission was thak it was sent there by the government. Why was it sent there by the government? Because the government had made .their cut of $470,000 in those wages.


George Perry Graham: Bonus.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not care
what it is called-bonus or wages. Of course

Private Bills
the cut was in the bonus. Apart from a bonus the report of the commission raises the wages, all of them; therefore it is idle to play upon words or to differentiate between bonus or wages. The real truth is that the only reason why there was this reference to the Civil Service Commission was that the government had cut the salaries of postal employees by $470,000, and, running true to form, would not take the responsibility for it. There was a chance to squirm, and the screw was working just as well as it ever worked. No responsibility on the part of the government, but a reference to the Civil Service Commission. Now, after getting to the Civil Service Commission, what further did the government do? Taking every one of the interpellations that were made here-
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The House in committee on Bill No. 47, to incorporate the United Church of Canada.-Mr. Forke.
Robert Forke: Stand.



LIFE UNDERWRITERS' ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 60, to incorporate the Life Underwriters' Association of Canada.-Mr. McKay.
On section 1-Incorporation.
George Perry Graham: What is the purpose of this bid?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: The bill, which seeks
to incorporate the Underwriters' Association of Canada, came before the Private Bills committee ait their last meeting. The incorporators, as explained by the promoters of the bill, are prominent insurance men all over Canada who are also connected with various provincial associations. The only change made was in sub-section 2, sub-section "E" where it was proposed to authorize the exclusive use of the title "Chartered Life Underwriters of Canada". The committee and the promoters agreed to the elimination of the word "exclusive". That was the only question that was raised, the other provisions being considered satisfactory.


Mr. MARTELL:: Then we are to consider the committee were in favor of the bill?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: The bill received the
support of the committee.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the real object of the bill is to incorporate an association or company in which the insurance companies will have membership.


The CHAIRMAN:: Thait is the idea.


Thomas Langton Church: In view of the large
powers that are being given to the fire underwriters to fix rates and to exercise certain functions regarding property and civil rights in the provinces parliament should be sure that it is acting legally and is not going outside the limits of the Canadian Insurance Act. I should like to learn from the chairman of the committee if the inspector of insurance has approved of the principle of this bill?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: The inspector of insurance was present at the meeting and approved of the provisions of the bill. The only question raised was as to the exclusive right to use the name.


Thomas Langton Church: I see that the underwriters have t'he power to issue negotiable notes and papers and to prescribe rates. Will the government have any control over them with respect to these matters?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I am not aware that
any sections of the bill contravene the provisions of the general Insurance Act.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If the chairman of the committee has approved the principle of the bill I think we should accept the measure. The question as to whether or not the provisions of the bill encroach upon provincial rights is a matter for the law courts, not for this parliament. The chairman of Ithe committee having recommended this bill to the favourable consideration of the House, we should accept the recommendation, because the hon. member is very careful in all these matters.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Angus Martin. -Mr. Sheard.
Bill No 147, for the relief of Lester Ernest Greenwood.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Charles Lawson.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Margaret Hickey.-Mr. Anderson.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of William John Chenery.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Florence Roberts.-Mr. Hocken.
[Stage Direction]
Postal Employees
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Hugh Allan Macdonald.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Whilhelmine Christina Slater.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Emma Doris Perley.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Arthur Hill. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Louis White. -Mr. Lovett.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Emily Elizabeth Reeder.-Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Merlin Engle-hart Clubine.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Victoria Stella Haswell.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Thyrza Ewart (otherwise known as Thyrza Hodgins).-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Rebecca Messer.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of James Henry Kirkwood.-Mr. Anderson.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Dorothy Marie Robinson.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Raymond Anderson Mashinter.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of James Koniaris. -Mr. Wallace.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 177, respecting certain patents owned by The Canadian Summer Iron Works, Limited.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Katherine Gossage.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Alice Moore. -Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 180, for t'he relief of Alexander Cruikshanks.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Francis Albert Armstrong.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Eythe Kathleen Victoria Canniff.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Helen Tuer. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Gordon Ailing-ham.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Hilda Maud Ward.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Rosie Race.- Mr. Harris.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Church to adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance.
Henry Lumley Drayton: At six o'clock
I was referring to the manner in which this

government had used the Civil Service Commission in connection with the question under consideration. I had recollected nothing which gave the House the truth as to how the Civil Service Commission was seized of this dispute, and I invited my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to furnish me with the references, if there were any. I do not propose to go through them all. My right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) dealt with the last reference by the right hon. Prime Minister; I will give another just for the purpose of making absolutely clear what has happened in this case-that this House, yes, and the members of the Civil Service have been allowed to go on in the belief that the reference to the Civil Service Commission was for the purpose of increasing salaries, while as a matter of fact the reference was made necessary by the reduction of the bonus effected by the government. I turn to Hansard at page 3158 dealing with this question, and there I find the following statement by the Prime Minister on June 13 last:
The government, in order to ensure the fairest possible consideration for civil servants in that connection, required that the Civil Service Commission should prepare its report in conjunction with the deputy ministers, and also in conjunction with the Audit Board.
The government has taken particular care to see that the commission should carry out its wishes in that regard, and has on two or three different occasions referred back the report submitted by the commission to the government, before its final acceptance. I may mention that on the first or second occasion on which the Civil Service Commission submitted its report the report was signed by two of the commissioners. The postal employees requested that if possible the government obtain the signature of all three commissioners before accepting any report from them. The government insisted on that additional step, and the position of matters now is that the report has been made. The government had either to approve it or disapprove it. To disapprove it was to leave the salaries where they were; to approve it was to give effect to such increases as had been made by the Civil Service Commission.
Let us get behind the smoke screen and see what the real truth is. The salaries now paid, including the bonus, amount to $13,134,000. Then the government's proposal came along for reducing the bonus, resulting in the entire bill for salaries and bonus being cut down to $12,664,000. It was as a result of this proposed cut in the bonus that the question was referred to the Civil Service Commission, and the commission in its report fixes the whole amount at $12,956,000. Now, what is the government's quarrel with the commission? If the government be-by accident-consistent for a short period of time, its quarrel must be, not that the commission has cut too much, but that it has not cut enough off the

Postal Employees
bonus. The government's cut was $470,000; the cut made by the Civil Service Commission is $178,000.
Now, the point made by my right hon. leader absolutely stands,-that this government has in every possible way invited trouble and taken the position all along, so far as the public and this House are concerned, that the commission was the only obstacle which prevented the government being just-yes, being liberal with the postal service. That was their attitude, an attitude of finding fault with the commission instead of helping it. It is quite true that to-day the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) states boldly and definitely that the government stand behind the commission's report. Well, it is a great pity that the government did not try to do something to strengthen the hands of the commission if they were going to stand by its report; before they did everything they could to ruin its reputation and to make it easy for anything to be said against the report. I suppose it is still open to the government to make an eleventh hour repentance, but they have worked hardship in the meantime. Even the Globe to-day points out exactly what has been pointed out before, that if any real injustice is being done there is no trouble about remedying it, that it is idle to hide ourselves behind the skirts of the commission, that the real responsibility is on parliament. The Globe also points out some oases of apparent hardship. I do not know whether it would be a hardship or not on the government, but I do know that it was the direct duty of the government to go carefully into the whole matter and to see to it that justice was done. '


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will not suggest that the government should interfere with the work of the Civil Service Commission after the instructions they had given it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the government are not by the act turned into a mere rubber stamp. They have a right of approval or disapproval, and before giving their approval the government should have seen to it that full justice was done.


Mr. CAHILL:: How?


Henry Lumley Drayton: By simply withholding their assent. If that had been done the former higher basis of salary would still continue. There is no difficulty about it, not the slightest. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the point made by my right hon. leader is absolutely proven, that in their twistings and
turnings to appear on the one hand,-when there is this cry of economy,-to do something for the taxpayers, and on the other hand to let the postal employees understand that the government want them to get more money, and that but for the Civil Service Commission they would get more money, that by pursuing this tortuous course the government have been trying to play both ends all the time-something which cannot be done successfully. To-day, at the eleventh hour, we see the government, for the first time perhaps, facing a position where they must make a decision.
With respect to the threatened strike, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the postal employees will listen to wise advice and not strike. There is nothing that this House cannot do for them. This House is not in the slightest degree bound by the Civil Service Commission, and we all know it. The Globe points that out, if my hon. friends do not believe us.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does my hon. friend mean to say that when the Civil Service Commission make an appointment we have any power to interfere with it unless we get the vote of the Commons and the Senate?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is not going to get me beside the mark in a discussion of that character.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I have every respect
for my hon. friend's opinion; I always get along very well with him in committee. But my hon. friend would like to give the impression to this country that this House-I do not mean parliament, because parliament is composed of the Commons and the Senate-that this House may appoint and dismiss civil servants. Now, this House has no power to appoint and dismiss civil servants without the concurrence of the Senate, therefore under the law as it stands at present the Civil Service Commission is all-powerful and paramount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not discussing appointments or dismissals. I am discussing salaries.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The same thing applies
to salaries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as salaries are concerned it is clearly a matter of annual vote, and that is something this House can look after.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend is a very able man; he has occupied important positions in this country. Will he say that this
Postal Employees

House, or parliament as composed of the two Houses, can increase or reduce the salaries of civil servants without the concurrence of the Upper House?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows how much work the Upper House does in connection with the estimates.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But if the estimates da not suit them they will soon throw them out


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, we have
not yet seen that done. Perhaps the Senate ought to do it, but they do not do it, and I would not suggest that they should.


Jacques Bureau: A bad doctrine.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that would be a bad doctrine; the Minister of Customs was right that time. His batting average now goes up a hundred per cent. But, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, certainly this parliament is above the Civil Service Commission.
There is no secret as to where we stand on the question of strikes. We believe in being consistent-we have had to deal with them before. We believe ini con-
9 p.m. sdstency; we believe in firmness, and we believe in fairness. Strikes anywhere are poor things, but so long as the private employer of labour, working for gain, has the right to employ the lockout no fairminded man will deny the. right of strike. There is a difference between the position of the man who is working for his country, working for an employer who is making nothing out of it, and that of the man in private employment. The servant of the state is really in the position when he strikes of dealing a blow, and sometimes a nasty blow, at his country. The position we took was that government employees ought not to strike. Why, no government can exist that is going to be regularly and systematically unfair to its employees; it cannot be done. There is enough of a sense of fairness in the people to make sure of that. But after all, when you ask the government employees not to strike you are only asking them to trust the people, and the position we took was that if a man struck we were no longer in a position to do anything for him. He lost his job; he had committed an offence against the country. I sincerely hope that there will be no strike, but I am quite sure that if there be no strike and if there be any injustice existing to-day, that injustice can be remedied.


James Joseph Hughes: And will be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And will be
remedied by this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then what is the
use of talking about it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not quite get that remark, Mr. Speaker. It is a good thing we have had this discussion. It will be an extra good thing if as a result of this incident the government will for the future take a direct stand so the people will know where they are. This trouble could very largely have been avoided. Just think of the absurdity of the position: so far as the postal employees are concerned the commission has been painted to them by the government, until the last moment, as a vehicle of oppression; as being the reason for cuts in salaries; as justifying-


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think that is fair to the government. I am prepared to say that nothing of the kind ever happened. My hon. friend has had a pipe dream so far as his last statements are concerned. We can stand for a good deal, but we cannot stand for that sort of thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if I
had better read Hansard again. My hon. friend will find it there in black and white just as it has been read-how the government was putting it up and up and up to the commission in order to do justice to these people.


Charles A. Stewart: If I may
be allowed, I would like to say that that is direct evidence of the government's desire to be fair to all parties. My hon. friend is going a very long way in stating that the government had no desire to meet the requests of the employees and I want to say that the government will continue to try to meet those requests in a legitimate way. I defy my hon. friend to find one place where the government or a member of the government has criticised the Civil Service Commission, as he is trying to show.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why, we have
had it read this afternoon and read again to-night.


George Perry Graham: Read into.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Read into? Not at all; there is the English language and it speaks for itself.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend has stated that the employees were so informed by the government. There have

Postal Employees
been only two or three members of the government meeting the employees, and I say that they never informed the employees anything of the kind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
employees read the public press? I suppose they know what is going on im this House?
I suppose they know-in fact I am sure they do know-the position taken by this government, the position taken by the Prime Minister only yesterday, when he talked about governments by commission and abandonment of proper representative government. What nonsense it is to say that these are not the facts. Let my hon. friend look at Hansard. My hon. friend says, where are the inconsistencies? Well, in their first dpasm otf economy the government took $470,000 off the wage list, and then when the Civil Service Commission takes $178,000 off they are shocked, or pretend to be, and send the report back, and back again-yes, back again. I wonder if my hon. friend thinks that is consistency. Of course this government, when there is any row, like any weak institution, wants to do something-


Charles A. Stewart: It would not be logical to be fair, would it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It knew where
it was when it started out to make a cut of $470,000. It knew where it was then- that was before there was any row.


George Perry Graham: Did my hon. friend or his friends not make a reduction in the bonus in 1920-21?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, and stood by it-did not hide ourselves behind any Civil Service Commission. We believe in standing by what we say.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The Civil Service Commission were your friends.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but we did not use them to hide behind. We did not use them as a smoke screen or anything else of that kind. We took our responsibilities.


George Perry Graham: We did not use them
to cut the bonus.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no, my hon. friends did not use them to cut the bonus. How did they use them? The}' made the cut of $470,000, and then sent it back to the Civil Service Commission so that, that cut could be made good.


Jacques Bureau: If is not a question of
bonus, it is a question of salary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is how it was done. So we find that so far as the government is concerned-


George Perry Graham: Poor government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -the Civil Service Commission has just made a cut of a little more than one-third of what the government proposed. That is all. I really hope that the government will take some stand and stick to it, and will see that if there be any injustice at all that the right thing will be done.
Mr. JOSEPH T. SHAW (West Calgary):
I want to make a very few observations in connection with this matter. I think the issue that is now involved dates back considerably beyond this session. I recall that last year a special committee of this parliament was organized for the purpose of inquiring into the operation of the Civil Service Act, and perhaps I may be permitted to refer to a couple of the recommendations made in what seemed to me to be a very commendable report. I may say that with the exception, I think, of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) the committee were unanimous in the recommendations they made to parliament.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member for
Hants is proud of what he did.


Mr. SHAW:: The hon. gentleman apparently takes pride in the fact that he dissented from that report.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Exactly.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Anybody who reads the report might suggest that perhaps it would reflect upon the pride of the hon. gentleman. Now, may I be permitted to read from the sessional papers the following:
The evidence submitted to your committee by representatives of the various civil service organizations brought out the fact that considerable dissatisfaction existed among the civil servants with decisions on classification, promotion, salary adjustment, and other matters generally affecting the service. One of the principal causes for this dissatisfaction seems to be due to the lack of the existence of a permanent board to which the civil servant can appeal.
The report goes on to state that much valuable evidence was heard in connection with the proposal to adopt the Whitley council plan in the Civil Service. The recommendation made was this:
Your committee therefore recommends that the Civil Service Commissioners be given power to establish without delay departmental personnel boards to be made up of an equal representation of the Civil Service Commission, the department and departmental employees. These boards are to act in an advisory capacity in matters of classification, promotion, dismissal, salary revision, leave of absence and other kindred problems affecting the welfare and efficiency of the departmental service

Postal Employees
Again the report goes on:
The evidence submitted to your committee disciloses the urgent need of a general readjustment of salary. Your committee therefore recommends that immediately after reorganization and retelassifrcation has taken place, salary revision and adjustment be proceeded with without delay. Pending this revision the bonus is to be continued-
The bonus, of course, being the bonus of the 1923-24 standard.
Your committee feels that the creation of personnel boards, hereinbefore recommended, would furnish excellent means for the solution of some of the difficulties now experienced by civil servants in regard to the classification and other problems incidental to their work.
The government for some reason with which I am not familiar, has never seen fit to incorporate any of the many valuable recommendations of the practically unanimous committee into legislation. I think that if we had had last year the necessary legislation to carry into effect some at least of these recommendations, the matter of the salary revision should have properly received attention, and a board could have been appointed on which the civil servants themselves would have been represented and before which they could appear on a basis of equality with the department and the Civil Service Commission.
It may be interesting for hon. members to know that according to a return (No. 174) brought down on 15th May, last year, of some 19,467 permanent employees in the service 11,661 received salaries of $960 or less per year, while 7,806 received salaries of $800 and less. I want to compare those salaries with the figures given in connection with the standard of living of various official organizations. Perhaps it may not be uninteresting to refer to some investigations made by certain American organizations. The United States Bureau of Statistics in the Labour Review for July of 1919, established a figure of $1,850 per annum for a family of five. The Philadelphia Bureau of Municipal Research, in Bulletin No. 567, of April 5, 1923, found that the cost of the working man's standard of living as of March, 1923, was the sum of $1,854.28. The National Industrial Conference Board, of Detroit, Michigan, in September, 1921, fixed these figures:
For a family of four	 $1,527 08
For a family of five	 1,697 95
For a family of six	 1,868 82


James Joseph Hughes: Are there any figures for a young man or a young woman?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No, these figures are for the average family of four, five and six respectively.
	.


James Joseph Hughes: Are there any figures for single people?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No. The Visiting Housekeeper Association of Detroit, Michigan, found on March 1, 1924, that in the case of a family of five the figure should stand at $2,060.64; and John A. Ryan, author of "A Living Wage," figured on June 1, 1919, that the amount should be $1,605. The average of the Railway Arbitration Boards in Canada approximates $1,900 for a family of five.


Jacques Bureau: For what year?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The figures apply to a number of years. It is the average, I say, of the finding of the Railway Arbitration Boards in Canada.


Jacques Bureau: Including the .peak prices of the war time?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No. On page 431 of the Labour Gazette of Canada, I think for the current year, $20.58 is stated to be the weekly budget for a family of five, and covers the necessary minimum cost of food, fuel, light and rent. This amounts to $1,070.16 per year. On the same page it states that for the average family of five the expenditure on these items of food, fuel, light and rent would be perhaps two-thirds or about 65 per cent of the total income. Adding this additional amount the figure, according to the Labour department, amounts to $1,605.24. Then, before the special Civil Service committee of last year evidence was produced by the civil servants themselves which indicates that for December 1922 the figure stood at $1,752.84. Now, here is a mass of figures, not only from this country but also from the United States, which indicates that the amount necessary to maintain a proper standard of living for a family of five is certainly greatly in excess of the figures which I have just quoted as the average salaries received by the civil service employees in Canada.
With regard to the particular matter which is the subject of the present controversy the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has pointed out that under the Post Office Department's proposal for an increase of salary for this year the total would be $13,487,020. Under the Civil Service Commission's proposal, which was the subject of criticism, the amount would be $12,956,000. The employees' proposals as presented to the commission represent a total of $15,055,000. If to the present salaries, which amount to $11,164,000, is added the bonus of 1923-24 -that is the bonus existing before the last cut-the total would be $13,134,000, or a sum less than $200,000 in excess of the pro-

Postal Employees
posals made by the Civil Service Commission. In other words, the proposal made by the Civil Service Commission represents a reduction of less than $200,000 in the salaries now received by the potal employees counting the bonus of 1923-24. That means simply that where only a matter of $200,000 is involved there is a possibility of a strike taking place which may disorganize the entire business interests of the country. I do not think it is belittling to the dignity of parliament or to the dignity of the cabinet or the government to simply continue in existence the salaries amounting to $11,000,000, as I have mentioned, and the 1923-24 bonus, until such time as the salary revision is completed, and I feel confident that a temporary arrangement on that basis could probably be made with the concurrence of the postal employees. They would simply have to wait until the Civil Service Commission has had an opportunity of revising the salaries of all employees in the service, and they would then be entitled to get such additional amount as that award would give them, or suffer any decrease that might then be fixed. It seems to me that, for that small amount involved, it is absurd for this parliament to allow the possibility of disorganizing the whole of the business interests of the country. I think it is very foolish and very uniwise indeed. In view of the fact that the salaries now received by the postal employees, and the salaries proposed by the Civil Service Commission and by the employees themselves, are far less than the standard of living as indicated by the figures I have given, it seems to me it is only fair that the government, as a model employer, should seek some avenue and some means of escape from the unfortunate condition which now exists, and I suggest to the government that it is not yet too late to make this proposal to the postal employees, in order that the threatened strike may be averted.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend has cited
figures, in those figures he puts a certain number of employees at a salary of $800, and the figures he cited as to the cost of living apply to married people who are keeping house. I would like to know how many single men and women are employed and are included in the number who receive $800 a year? Has the hon. gentleman the information?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I regret to say that the information is not available. In no figures presented to the House have I been able to secure that information, but taking the figures which I have mentioned and adding
thereto the average bonus in every case it would bring a sum much less than the average standard of living indicated by the figures not only in this country but also in the United States.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that the
$800 includes the bonus also?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No. To the figures given
must be added the average bonus, which would not exceed in any case more than $250 per annum.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I have been requested to put a question to the government. Is the government prepared to submit the question of postal salaries to an arbitration board, consisting of one government appointee, one departmental appointee and a member to be appointed by the employees.


Charles A. Stewart: The government is not prepared to give any answer to any question of a character such as my hon. friend proposes, until we have a further discussion with the representatives of the postal employees. I expect to have that tomorrow.


Thomas Langton Church: Since the House took recess-


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member for
North Toronto speaks now it will close the debate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I desire to speak very briefly to the question which has engaged our attention this afternoon. I think the government might have shown a little more strength and a little more decision in dealing with this question than they have done. It is quite clear that there is a distinct limitation in the fixation of salaries for the postal employees, or indeed for any other government employees, at the present time. That has been fully explained this afternoon in the fact that the Civil Service Commission has the authority under the law to consider this question and to lay down a schedule of salaries that shall govern. That is the law of the land, and that for the time being, at any rate, must govern. No one contemplates the possibility of a postal strike throughout this Dominion without very grave apprehension. I know of nothing, unless, as was stated this afternoon, it would be a strike on the part of the railway employees, tying up transportation, that would more disorganize business and cause more inconvenience than a strike of the postal workers, and I would suggest to the postal workers this thought:
Postal Employees

That in any action they may take in this very, very grave question which they have before them for decision they should carefully weigh the effect their action is going to have on public opinion throughout this whole Dominion. I may offer my opinion as an individual that if a strike takes place under the present circumstances public opinion throughout Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, will not support the postal workers in that action.
The law is on the statute book, and for the time being that law must stand. If I may offer a suggestion to the postal workers, it would be that they first ask that the law be changed. This they have not seen fit to do. Apparently, after receiving the report of the commission, and after receiving the schedule of salaries which the commission has laid down, the postal workers have reached the decision without any further discussion that they are going to tie up this country in a strike. I think that is a very grave action for them to take. I am satisfied of this, Mr. Speaker- and I think I am within the judgment of the House when I make the statement-that every member of this House desires to do full justice to not only the postal employees of the Dominion but to every other civil servant in this country, both in regard to the question of salaries and the question of working conditions. A good deal has been said in the discussion this afternoon by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and his colleague from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), and a reference was made to it by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), who has just spoken, as to the necessity of a decent wage or a living wage. I think my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg used the term "a decent standard of living." What is a decent standard of living? What is there that determines a decent standard of living? My hon. friend from West Calgary-and I have some regard for his ability and judgment-has quoted here tonight, American, Canadian and other authorities, as to what constitutes a standard of living, what constitutes a satisfactory wage. That depends altogether on the standard of living. If the parliament of Canada is to adopt a principle of fixing a wage in consonance with a certain standard of living, what is that standard of living to be? Are you going to measure it by the living conditions of the farmer out on the prairie or the farmer in the Maritime provinces or the fisherman down by the sea? I want to say in all seriousness to this House that there are in western Canada to-day tens of thousands of [Mr. Crerar.l
farmers who work hard the whole year round and who do not have but a fraction of what is said here to-night to be a living wage.


James Joseph Hughes: And the same in eastern
Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. That question will
have to be dealt with ultimately by this parliament if it is to be settled in respect of one class of people who labour in the Dominion. After all, what is the difference that exists to-day between the postal workers and the government in this issue? Reference has been made already to the difference between the total existing salaries and the total salaries that are asked for. Let me refer to this again for a moment. Under the salaries existing at the present time or that have existed during the past year with the bonus that has obtained in the past year, the total amount drawn by the postal employees of Canada was $13,134,000. Under this schedule as laid down by the Civil Service Commission, they propose to reduce this to $12,956,000, or a difference for all the postal employees of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific of $178,000. That is a very little over a decrease of one per cent. One per cent would be $131,000, and the total difference is $178,000, or roughly, about li per cent. The argument is advanced by the postal employees that the salaries that they were receiving with the bonus prior to this year were not sufficient, but the fact is that those salaries obtained prior to the present time. Has there been any reduction in the cost of living in this country in the last three years, or, indeed, in the past year? If we study the statistics, the index figure of the Department of Labour or of the Bureau of Statistics, you will find that the line is coming steadily downwards in the cost of living. Only this morning I noticed in one of the morning papers published in this city a comparison of wholesale prices for May of the present year with May of 1920, when we had the peak of prices in this country as well as throughout the rest of the world. In May of 1920, the index figure was 256 in the range of wholesale prices in Canada. To-day, by the same authority, the index for that range of wholesale prices is down to a little over 150. There has been, as every one knows, though perhaps not nearly so rapidly as we all should like, a steady decease in the cost of living in this country.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is my hon. friend aware of
the fact that the index figure at the time the bonus was first granted was 161, using as a

Postal Employees
basis the average prices in 1913, Whereas, in December, 1923, the index figure, on the same basis, was 151?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have given the figures
showing the change that has taken place in wholesale prices of commodities; but even taking my hon. friend's figures-I will not dispute them, I have not the figures before me-they show a decrease from 161 to 151, or a decrease of ten points at any rate between prices that existed eight or nine years ago and present prices. If someone is of a sufficiently mathematical turn of mind to figure that out, that will probably amount to the difference that exists between the total salaries the postal workers received last year and the schedule proposed by the Civil Service Commission.
I wish to support a suggestion that was made first this afternoon by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). The Civil Service Commission are at present engaged in a revision of those salaries. At the request of the government, they tackled first the salaries of the postal employees and to-day they are engaged in an inquiry into salaries prevailing in other departments. I think there is some force to the point urged by the hon. member for North Waterloo that there should have been no disturbance of salaries and bonus until the whole classification of salaries had been made so that the whole thing might be done at once.
No one deprecates more than I the difficulties and disastrous consequences that may flow from a strike of the postal workers in this country. I am not going to discuss at the present moment the question whether postal workers or government employees of any kind have a right to strike under any conditions. I have my views on that question, and possibly at a future time in this House I may have an opportunity of expressing them. That question, however, is not germane to the discussion at the present moment. It is of the greatest importance that a strike at the present time should be averted if that possibly can ibe done. I appreciate the fact that the postal workers, in the position they have taken, have gone so far that it may be difficult for them to recede, and under those circumstances, there is no loss of dignity to the government or to the parliament of Canada if the position is frankly taken: Well, we do not admit your contention; but we think that this salary schedule should not have been put into effect until the whole matter of salary revision had been considered by the Civil Service Commission in its relation to all departments;
consequently we put you back upon that basis until we have the full report from the Civil Service Commission, and then we shall decide.


Jacques Bureau: Will they accept that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If they do not accept that, then their case is so much worse before the country. But once that is done, once the Civil Service Commission, as the authority constituted under the law to do that work, have investigated these questions of salaries, have heard the evidence, as I understand they have heard it from representatives of postal workers on one, if not two occasions, after they have made a complete revision and brought that down to the government, the plain duty of the government is to put that into effect, stand behind it and say: We are going to stand behind it.


Arthur Meighen: Inasmuch as we know
the precise effect of this schedule on the service, taking the total amount this year as compared with last, is there the slightest difficulty in telling now what the effect of a similar schedule will be on the total for the whole service?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the result over the whole service will probably be a slight reduction.


Arthur Meighen: In proportion to the
amount for this department?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In proportion to the amount for this department, that would depend, however, on whether the relation between the salaries in the various departments was on an equality. I cannot speak of that.


Arthur Meighen: Parliament passed the
schedule on the recommendation of the commission, and we have a right to assume that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but the salaries, for
instance, in some departments, as they stand to-day, have not been fixed or determined by the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: I understand so.


Jacques Bureau: In the Customs department, they have.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In any case I do not know that my right hon. friend's argument is conclusive. The government have decided upon the policy that the commission shall review these salaries, and I presume that the purpose of that is to get them on an even keel throughout all the departments, or at any rate to ensure that they shall bear an equit-
Postal Employees

able relationship to one another. If I am correct in that, then I think the government are justified in taking the position I have indicated and in saying to the postal workers:
We restore your pensions for the time being and are going to put you back this year in the position you were in in 1923-24; but we do that only until the commission has brought down its full report in respect of the salaries m all departments. Once that report is before the government and the government are satisfied that it is fair, we will stand behind it and ask parliament to do the same". In my judgment, if the government take that course frankly and honestly a strike will be averted and the question will be settled finally, with support, I hope unanimously, but at any rate in a large measure from the House. That course in my opinion would obviate this threatened strike and it would tnable the postal workers to recede from a position which it would otherwise be somewhat difficult for them to abandon. The total additional cost to the country would be infinitesimal in comparison with the very heavy losses that are bound to ensue if this threatened tie-up in the mail transportation and distribution services takes place.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend counsels the government to restore the bonus. Would he restore the bonus on the basis of the salaries recommended by the Civil Service Commission or on the basis of the salaries which the employees were receiving before their case was submitted to the commission, and in respect of which the difficulty arose?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I thought I had made that perfectly clear. I would not superimpose the bonus on the schedule recommended by the commission; I would restore conditions as they were in 1923-24. I would allow the recommendations of the commission the schedule which has been submitted, to stand for the time being until the schedules in respect of the various other departments were brought down. Once they were brought down I would then put the whole thing into effect.
Mr. FOR.KE: Was it not on the representation of the postal employees themselves that they were put on a permanent basis? I believe the statement has been made that the department had already been classified.


Charles A. Stewart: They were in the classification.


Robert Forke: I thought they had made representations asking to have the bonus done away with and to put them on a permanent basis.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, that is true.


Thomas Langton Church: I
trust that as a result of the discussion which we have had to-day the parties will get together and this matter will be settled satisfactorily. Parliament is supreme in this country, and neither parliament nor the government should seek to evade herein the responsibility which properly belongs to it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon rather intimated that the present situation did not constitute an emergency, and I understand that the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) is of the same opinion. I do not by any means agree with these hon. gentlemen; I say most decidedly that there is an emergency. The present situation is a very serious one and the responsibility rests not upon the Civil Service Commission but upon the government to see that proper steps are taken, and taken without any delay, to have matters satisfactorily adjusted and a strike avoided. We are supposed to have representative government in this country, and as I have said, parliament is supreme in all these matters and can revise the decision of the Civil Service Commission or any other commission. There is therefore no reason whatever why the government should seek to shirk its legitimate responsibility. We have not made much progress in disposing of this vexed question in the past six months; it has been bandied about between one department or commission and another and has been passed on from deputy ministers and heads of government to the Civil Service Commission and to a new body known as the Board of Audit with no apparent results. No satisfactory settlement has been arrived at; the recent revision of the Civil Service Commission as presented to the men of the post office proves more unsatisfactory than ever. The scale of wages which has been proposed is utterly unsatisfactory and most unfair to the older employees, the sorters and letter carriers, and all those men who have grown old in the service.
It is all very well to say that if these men strike on service their places can be filled again. That is absolutely untrue; you cannot fill at a moment's notice the position which is held by any one of these older employees. Take for example such an emergency as occurs at Christmas; does any hon. gentleman contend for a moment that a merely temporary employee who has had no experience whatever could take the place of an old sorter or any other postal employee

Supply-Indian Affairs
who has spent a number of years in the service? It simply cannot be done; no one can learn the post office business in a day, whether it be in the position of a sorter or a letter carrier or in any other capacity. Furthermore, very grave responsibilities attach to those who have to deliver registered mail; the responsibilities on the rank and file are greater and altogether the work of the- postal employees, particularly of those men who have grown old in the service, is onerous and calls for the most satisfactory remuneration which the country can afford. The postal service has given every satisfaction, and moreover it is a public utility which is self-sustaining and gives service at cost including low labor costs.
In the city from which I come the revenue in this department amounts to $6,000,000 as against an expenditure of some $2,250,000. and a large profit is made from the Toronto post office. Now, the country is not bankrupt, nor is the Post Office Department in any impecunious state; so that there is no excuse for any evasion on the part of the government of its responsibility or for placing it on any commission. And if the government does seek to evade its responsibility in this matter I hope that the House at all events will do its duty. Let me read what the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. New-combe, has said in regard to the question of regulating the rates of compensation to be paid employees. These are his words:
The Governor in Council has, in my op inion, no authority to regulate rates of compensation independently. He may approve the rates submitted by the commission for approval, and the rates will thus become effective, but he has no authority to approve or sanction any rate in excess of that which is rceommended by the commission. Such an increase can be sanctioned only by parliamentary authority.
The government shelters itself behind all this and seeks to evade its responsibilty. The commission is subservient to parliament. In view of the fact that at six o'clock to-night, it was announced, the voting of the employees on the question as to whether or not there should be a strike throughout Canada closed it seems to me that the government must realize the extreme gravity of the situation; there can be no doubt whatever as to the existence of an emergency in this case. Tomorrow evening as I understand, unless the matter is satisfactorily settled, there is likely to be an interruption in the service. The president of the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto after carefully considering this revised schedule, gave it as his opinion that there was just foundation for the claims of the men. The department by the new schedule and
after turning the bonus into straight salary shows a saving of some $179,000 all told, and there is no reason why the government should not meet the requests of the postal employees. Let me say in conclusion once again that upon the government and not upon the Civil Service Commission rests the responsibility of settling this problem; and if a strike occurs to-morrow night, paralyzing business that is already none too good and is suffering to a great extent, the blame will lie at the door of the government. Business conditions are bad enough as things are now and very little business in some retail lines has been done all spring on account of weather conditions and other unfavourable circumstances, so that the business of the country cannot afford to incur the loss that must result from a strike. The business men are demanding that this question be settled, and I am only fulfilling my duty as a representative of the Toronto district in bringing the matter to the attention of the House.
Motion withdrawn.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- TRANSCONA SHOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Representations have been made by
workers in the Transcona shops that the management of the Canadian National Railways is discriminating against members of certain labour organizations. Is it or is it not the policy of the government that the employees should be permitted to belong to whatever organization or form of organization they themselves decide to adopt?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): The policy of the government in that respect, whatever it might be, would not affect the situation. The railway employees are under certain unions and the men govern themselves; they say who shall be' promoted and all that sort of thing. So far as I am concerned, I may say that the government has heard nothing about this matter andi knows nothing about it.



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Indians-Nova Scotia, $52,340.
Arthur Meighen: Are the Indians increasing?
Supply-Indian Affairs


Charles A. Stewart: Slightly.
There is a reduction in the total vote, we having made some readjustments.


Arthur Meighen: I see the cost of Indian education is going down, while the cost of the more material things is going up.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
accounted for by the fact that we are not spending as much for buildings this year. As my right hon. friend knows, last year we made some substantial increases in our build. mg programme. There are some changes in connection with medical attendants.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent
last year in Nova Scotia?


Charles A. Stewart: We spent
$50,140. We spent all our vote last year throughout the whole department.


Arthur Meighen: Is the Indian reserve trouble near Sydney settled yet?


Charles A. Stewart: A property was purchased some years ago and very serious objection was taken to its location. We had a property in another part of the towp inspected, but there is too much land in connection with it, and we still have the matter under consideration. We have not moved the Indians.


Arthur Meighen: Does the employment
and pay of the doctors come under this vote or under Indian education?


Charles A. Stewart: Under this
vote in Nova Scotia.


Arthur Meighen: What is the new system for doctors?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no new system. We have increased our medical work in some instances in connection with tuberculosis. There is an increase in Nova Scotia of $2,200. Last year we spent $10,000 for medical attendance and medicines; this year we are asking for $12,000. We are putting on a nurse in Nova Scotia, who will travel around and assist the Indians wherever they need her. We have found nurses in western Canada very helpful to the Indians. I may say that in a general way the hospital fees are going up; that is in evidence everywhere.


Arthur Meighen: Is the appointment of
doctors by the Civil Service Commission quite satisfactory?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I have no objection.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is not
suffering the way the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) is, for example?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
know he was suffering.


Arthur Meighen: I was not sure of it myself, but he made very loud complaints.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick, $35,574.
Arthur Meighen: This is a big increase.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Does this vote include an appropriation for buildings on the Indian reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
a slight increase in salaries of $240, and an increase in relief of $6,000. We voted $18,000 last year; we are asking for $24,000 this year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Perhaps the minister
did not hear my question?


Charles A. Stewart: The building appropriation does not appear here; it is in the vote for education.


Mr. DOUCET:: What is the necessity for
an increase in relief of 33 per cent?


Charles A. Stewart: In New
Brunswick there are always a number of children of school age whom the parents are not able to support, and there are also a number of orphan children. Our reports show 95 children to whom the department must give assistance through their parents or guardians. In the past, in view of the fact that the department had no residential accommodation east of Ontario, the cost of maintenance of these children has been charged to the school fund. This practice has been discontinued. Hence we have an increase of $6,000 for the purpose mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario and Quebec, $264,535.
Mr, McQUARRIE:	The hon. member
for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), who is unavoidably out of the city to-day, asked me to mention the case of the Lake of the Woods Indians. I think a petition was forwarded to the minister signed by the chiefs and representatives of a number of tribes. Apparently there was some difficulty in connection with this petition. In the first place it was presented to the Indian agent at Kenora, who undertook to forward it to the department but who failed to do so. Later, I understand, Mr. James Robinson, of Kenora, who is very much interested in the

Supply-Indian Affairs
subject, forwarded the petition on to the minister, but- no acknowledgement was received until Mr. Robinson had communicated with the Prime Minister, and then after a further delay of two or three months an acknowledgement was received, from the deputy minister,
I think, stating that the matter would be looked into. The subject has been covered in a statement prepared by Mr. Robinson, which I think, has been forwarded to the department. The case is very concisely put in a foreword to that statement, and perhaps I may be permitted to read it. It says:
The Lake of the Woods Indians complain to the parliament of Canada of unfair treatment. They declare their treaty rights have been violated and gross injustice done -them for the past forty years. They charge that most of their agents have shown little interest in their welfare and are high-handed and domineering in their actions and do not recognize the authority of their chiefs.
A petition to the government containing statement of their grievances and asking for an independent investigation of their complaints was sent down on August 21st last and no reply was received until November 29th, and then only after complaint to the Prime Minister that no notice or reply had been received to the petition. Their solicitor writes a series of letters to the press setting forth their complaints, which are re-produced herein with a short summary of the situation. No action has been taken by the head of the Indian department in reply to their petition, and this statement is issued in the hope that the parliament of Canada will listen to their complaint.
At time of making of the treaty in 1873 no one had any idea of the value of their territory. In area it was a small province within itself, 55,000 square miles of some of the finest territory in Canada, rich in timber, minerals, fur and fish and much of it of splendid agricultural possibilities and now dotted with thrifty towns, villages, hamlets and farming communities.
They surrendered this territory after negotiating a solemn treaty with the government of Canada (treaty No. 3) and in return were allowed certain reserves, many of them containing valuable timber w'hich has been disposed of by their agents and the timber cut and removed. During past fifty years they have never had a statement of how much timber has been cut and removed or what dues have been collected or what amount of money is to their credit.
As to matter of schools, the Indian chiefs at the time of the making of the treaty made special requests in their talks with the commissioners asking that schools be established and that teachers be sent to instruct their young people with the knowledge of the whites. Within this agency there are 600 Indian children of school age without the advantage of education. The only schools within this agency are two, one at Kenora known as the Indian industrial school established by the Roman Catholic Church and another out at Shoal lake known as the Cecilia Jaffray School established by the Presbyterian Church. The area of their agency is equal to about 250 miles from east to west and 225 from north to south. The two schools mentioned are the only schools within their territory, neither of which was established under direction of the Indian department, but one of which, the Kenora School has recently been bought by the government but left in the care of the original owners.
Fifty years is surely long enough for the Indian department to have experimented on these people, yet after that length of time these Indians are in a 210
worse condition than when the government took away [DOT] their lands and made them "wards of the crown." When are they to become free men and made responsible citizens of Canada if education is denied them and they remain in a state of servitude?
Every honest self-respecting Canadian will blush and hang his head in shame when he reflects how these people have been treated by the government of Canada. Instead of being a happy and contented people they are gradually dying off and will ultimately become extinct. Is this the keeping of Canada's word of honour as expressed in the treaty referred to?
More than one of the provinces of Canada since entering confederation have asked for a re-consideration of their rights. Are not these people entitled to a review of their treaty rights and for further consideration at the hands of our government?
It is requested that an independent commission be appointed to consider
First the prayer of their petition and
Secondly to generally review and report on the best methods of making an honest effort to observe the treaty and bring their native citizens of Canada (indigenous to the country) to a state of civilization and advancement equal to their virility and self respect when in the primitive state as at the time of the treaty and give them some of the opportunities and advantages given to (in many cases) the questionable element of European immigrants brought into Canada, to enjoy the fulness and bounty thereof, at great expense and, in too many cases, to Canada's harm and hurt.	_
I also have in this pamphlet the petition referred to. It is dated at White-10 p.m. fish reserve, Lake of the Woods, June 7, 1923, and addressed to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. The petition reads:
The petition of the people of the Whitefish reserve respectfully sheweth:
1.	Years ago our reserve contained a large number of peopfle, but through sickness and death, our numbers have been reduced to 14 families, about 70 people.
2.	We submit for your consideration, and ask for a chance in some regulations affecting us.
3.	We ask that allotments of land on the reserve of 80 acres for farming purposes, be made to each head of family-of those who wish it-and that the same be made inheritable to our own descendants, but not alienable to others.
4.	We ask that a farm instructor be sent us to instruct us and teach us how to farm, who shall be permanently here as an overseer.
5.	We ask also that horses, cattle, implements and seed grain be sent us with which to make a start.
6.	The land on our reserve is arable-could nearly all be cultivated and there is no better soil in this province, admirably adapted for the growth of such grasses as red clover, alsike and alfalfa, which have been grown to perfection right here. And we submit that the venture could be made self-sustaining as well as profitable.
7.	There are 27 children on the reserve-21 of whom are of school age, and, we submit, are entitled to the same advantages of education as the children on other reserves and those of the white population, but we are 50 miles from the Indian industrial school at Kenora. We ask that a school be established with a difly qualified school teacher.
8.	We suggest that a competent teacher (and his wife) be sent. One who has some knowledge of medicine could be of much use, as Dr. Ferguson is 50 miles from us, and is usually too busy to come here. Very seldom comes.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Indian Affairs
[Stage Direction]
9.	We submit there has been gross mis-management in regard to the timber on our reserves, and that no statement has ever been made, showing how much or what quantity of timber has been taken from the reserves-although we have repeatedly asked for statements from your various agents.
10.	We further say that during the past 40 years, the Rat Portage Lumber Co., has cut and removed the timber on 400 acres, being a portion of the 2.647 acres, being that portion of Indian reserve 32, 33 and 34A, surveyed by A. H. Vaughan, D.L.S. in 1879, lying south of Lobstick Bay, and north of the White-fish rapids and lake.
11.	We charge that 12 years ago, the Rat Portage Lumber Co., cut and removed the timber on Indian reserve 35H, on Sabaskong bay and that the same has never been accounted for, or any payment made therefor.
12.	We charge that the Rat Portage Lumber Co. some 10 or 12 years ago cut and removed the timber on reserve 32C belonging to us, having camps on Turtle portage, from which there has never been any accounting or payment.
13.	That we have made repeated requests of the agents you have appointed for statements and for accountings for the said timber so taken from our reserves, but have never on any occasion, received any statement or accounting, except hereinafter mentioned.
14.	During the year 1921 and 1922, two payments were made us, amounting to $2,688 being $42 for each of the 64 persons then residing on our reserve. But apart from that, we have never received any statement or accounting whatever, during the past 40 years.
15.	We charge that your former agent, Mr. R. S. McKenzie, neglected and refused to give any statement as to the quantity of timber cut and removed by the Keewatin Lumber Co. on our Reserve 32B, on Black river, although requested by our Chief, Bob Roy many times, and that we have never received one dollar therefor.
16.	The agreement made by your said agent McKenzie, with the people of our reserve, when he was selling our timber to the said Keewatin Lumber Co., was that we were to receive 30 per cent of the total price each year payable at the time of treaty payment until fully paid. Instead of that we received only 15 per cent in 1921 and 15 per cent in 1922.
17.	The said Keewatin Lumber Co. through your agent McKenzie, leased one acre of land on our reserve, just south of Whitefish rapids for the purpose of a store house, and built thereon their store house and have occupied it, but have paid no rent therefor as far as we have knowledge.
18.	The said Keewatin Lumber Co. also leased as we were informed some land at the mouth of Black river, for the purpose of a garden, but no rent has been forthcoming for that.
19.	Your said agent McKenzie, 3 years ago, promised one of our people, Pekowbetung, lumber for the flooring and roofing of his house and instructed him to proceed and put up the frame, but so far no lumber has come, and the said Pekowbetung, with his family of eight persons, had had to exist as best they could in a small shack.
We respectfully ask for investigation into these matters, that we consider our grievances.
(Sgd.) Chief Robt. J. Roy (Sgd.) Counsellor John Bird,
Counsellor Sha-bah-tise. Counsel! or Peter White and twelve members of the Band.
It is pointed out in this pamphlet that in the United States the Indians have been very much better treated than have the Indians

in this country, at any rate, in the part of Canada referred to, and that as a consequence the former are now in a very flourishing condition; they are becoming educated and taking their places as citizens of the republic. It is also pointed out that in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan the Indians have been looked after and are now producing very large quantities of grain. I want to say that in repeating the foreword of this pamphlet and the petition of the Indians it must not be understood that I am making any charge. I notice in the pamphlet there is a reply from the Indian agent at Kenora to certain statements published in the Kenora press which explains various matters from the standpoint of the present agent. I am simply asking, on behalf of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), that the case of these Indians be looked into, and that an independent commissioner be appointed to investigate the whole question.
I may say there seems to have been a good deal of controversy on these matters with the department, or at any rate with certain of the Indian agents who are now, or have been in the past, in the service. The main claim of the petitioners is in regard to the timber. It seems to me that the Indians are quite justified in asking for an accounting, and I do not understand why their request in that regard has not been granted. Apparently an accounting has been asked for many times. Surely they are entitled to know how much money their timber has brought, and how that money has been disposed of. If there is any sum to be placed to their credit they are entitled to know it. Apparently only one accounting was made by the department. Then there is the question of providing educational facilities. If these Indians are ever going to be lifted out of their position as wards of the government it seems to me they must be afforded some chance of obtaining an education. Apparently no facilities of this kind are provided for them at the present time. The Indians also want to be instructed in agriculture; they think they are entitled to the same treatment that has been extended to the Indians in Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is another demand to which they appear to attach considerable importance, namely, that some kind of a house of rest should be provided for them when they go to Kenora, as the Indians quite frequently do. They are not able to stay at hotels, because they would not be welcome guests, and there is absolutely no place in Kenora where they can put up. In conclusion I submit to the minister these requests should

Supply-Indian Affairs
receive consideration. These Indians have certain rights under the treaty and the government should be prepared to strictly carry out those rights.
Charles A. Stewart: The complaint voiced by my hon. friend, and backed by the petition he has been handed, has been brought to the attention of the department. I may say there was a change in agents about three years ago. As far as I can learn, the agent who occupied that position prior to that time was not entirely satisfactory and the change was made. So far as I know the present incumbent is giving satisfaction. My hon.' friend would agree that a grievance running back for over forty years is rather a serious matter, and I am asking to send Mr. Paget, the accountant of the department, up there to make a thorough investigation, to hear all the complaints of the Indians, and to bring back a full report as to the conditions existing. With respect to the accounting, 1 would refer my hon. friend to the public accounts. Complaint is frequently made by the chiefs of the Indians that they do not get an accounting of the funds. An accounting is made every year, and it is at their disposal if they wish to avail themselves of it, but we propose to have a thorough investigation of the allegations of these Indians.


Mr. HALBERT:: Has the minister had
any complaint from the Indians or the Indian agents on the Rama reserve with regard to the medical attendance there, and will the minister give me the name of the doctor in that district?


Charles A. Stewart: Dr. Gilpin.
I do not know where he lives.


Robert Henry Halbert: He lives at Brecken,
about twenty miles from the reserve. Has the minister had any complaints or requests for a change of doctor?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I think we have had complaint on account of the distance the doctor lives from the reserve.


Robert Henry Halbert: Has there been any
change in the doctor.


Charles A. Stewart: No, the
matter is under consideration.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the minister explain
how it is that we have salaries detailed for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island and none for Ontario, the prairie provinces or British Columbia? The salaries are not given in the latter case in the details. If they are not given here, where can they be found?


Charles A. Stewart: I can give
my hon. friend the amounts. He is referring to the Civil Service list, I presume.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I am not referring to
the Civil Service list. I take it that the Civil Service list contains the officials at Ottawa, but these are the salaries or the details of the different moneys to be voted by provinces. Nova Scotia has six items, one of which is local salaries of Indian agents and so forth. The same is true of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island; but when we come to the other provinces, w'hile there are details as to relief and so forth, there are no items for salaries. Why are they not there, and where are they?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed they are under the item "General Expenses" and have not been separated in the prairie provinces.


Mr. SPENCE:: There is an increase of $31,000 in this item. Could the minister give a reasonable excuse for that increase and let us know how much of the $246,000 was used in Quebec? The balance would be for Ontario. Why are the items not kept separate, the same as in the case of the other provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: We are asking for $8,800 in connection with the wing of the Lady Minto hospital at Chapleau, which provides, under the Victorian Order of Nurses, excellent nurses. There is a limited number of patients. Unfortunately the hospital is not able to afford sufficient accommodation for the Indians of the district, and consequently about 318 Indians of the Cree and Ojibway tribes, and in addition pupils of the Chapleau boarding school, are unable to obtain hospital accommodation, and this item is to provide the neccessary accommodation for the Indians in the hospital there, and also to provide an amount towards placing the Caldwell tribe of Indians on St. Ann's island in lake St. Clair. This is a band that has never been located. They have been wandering about south-western Ontario and have been the cause of a good deal of complaint by the municipalities. They are without a home, and we are endeavouring to establish them on the island. This vote this year will be used for the purpose of drainage to prepare the island for their reception. There are about 104 souls in this band comprising twenty-one families. This vote will defray the cost of the completion of the road in the township of Onandaga in the Six Nation reserve; the $9,000 is to carry the road right through and gravel it. It is used a great deal by the Indians themselves as well as by
Supply-Indian Affairs

the general public. These are the three items that go to make up the additional $31,000 for Ontario and Quebec. My hon. friend wants to get the difference?


David Spence: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: The figures are: Ontario, $159,224, Quebec $87,311. The population in Quebec is 13,348, and in Ontario 22,344.


Air. SENN:: How much of these funds are held in trust by the government for the Six Nation Indians, and what income is derived from that fund? How is the money expended? Will the minister tell us the general policy of the department in expending the money?


Charles A. Stewart: At the end of last year we had $683,431.69 of the trust fund on hand. That is the capital fund, and the interest accruing on that fund is used in the interest of the band. The interest fund is $43,010.07, and we have a large number of disbursements charged to the interest fund. If my hon. friend will get the Auditor General's report he will find complete details. Of that $43,000 we have remaining to the credit of the band $2,749.65.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister tell me why the policy of the government of late has been not to distribute any money among the Indians as was formerly done? I understand relief orders arc given to the Indians. Who issues these relief orders, and why have the Indian council relief orders not been honoured during the past year?


Charles A. Stewart: In all cases relief orders are issued by the agent. Needless to say, we have had considerable friction on the Six Nation reserve and we are trying to get it adjusted. A considerable amount of propaganda has been going on, which is somewhat embarrassing at the present time and it is backed by the council. I do not want to go into the details of the matter. We are keeping a very careful account of the expenditures. My hon. friend can get those accounts, examine them and see exactly what the money has been spent for; but it is a fact that we have been issuing relief orders on the instructions of the doctor and the agent.


Mark Cecil Senn: How many doctors are there
on the reserve doing work for the department? I understand a petition has been received by the department that the council should be an elective rather than an hereditary coun-

cil. Could the minister tell me offhand how many names on that petition are of men who have received relief orders during the past
year?


Charles A. Stewart: I could not
give my hon. friend that information. It is true that we have had a petition asking for a change in the method of appointing council to an elective system. That is a very live and controversial question down there. As my hon. friend knows, the council very strenuously oppose any change being made. We have had a good deal of difficulty with the Six Nations Indians, but I think our administration has been firm and fair. That is what we have sought to make, it, and I am sure the effect will be felt in a short time. As in many other cases, outside interference will create influences that sometimes , are detrimental to the management.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister did.not answer
my question as to how many doctors are, employed on the reserve by the department. I understand there are two and one of them does not reside on the reserve. Complaints have reached me in respect of that. Are these relief orders issued, or is it the policy of the department to issue them to returned men or to widows and orphans in receipt of mothers' allowances?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no particular class to which relief orders are issued. They are issued only in case of absolute necessity. One doctor resides on the reserve, and in answer to a request that more medical attention be furnished, a second doctor was appointed who lives not on the reserve, but quite close to it and who renders service when called upon.


Mark Cecil Senn: Complaints have reached me
that the doctors who are employed on the reserve are furnished with drugs. At least one of the doctors is practising outside of as well as in the reserve. A complaint has also reached me that the secretary of the Indian Council has not received any pay from the department for at least two years. I understand it has been the policy of the department that the funds that are in trust tor the Indians there should be used for that purpose. Has that been discontinued, and if so, what is the reason for that?


Charles A. Stewart: The reason
was this, that they summarily dismissed the secretary-treasurer without consulting the department. For a time they were taking the law into their own hands and we had a cer-

Supply-Indian Affairs
tain amount of difficulty with the council. That difficulty is not entirely removed yet. The present incumbent of the position is not being paid for his services because he has never been recognized by the department.


Mark Cecil Senn: A complaint has reached me
to the effect that Indians are not allowed to cut their own firewood on their own farms for their own use. Has any such order been issued by the department?


Charles A. Stewart: I have
never heard of any such order.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Has the minister any statement to make with regard to the progress of negotiations and the work of the commissioner appointed to investigate the trouble with the Indians? Has any report been made by the commissioner?


Charles A. Stewart: A report has been made by the commissioner to the department. I shall be glad to give a copy to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn); but we have a very serious situation with a representative of the council in the Old Country endeavouring ,to stir up trouble with the League of Nations over this matter, setting up the claim that these tribes are not Canadian subjects and making statements of that character. These matters are all unsettled yet, and while I do not care ho have the report made public at the present time, I shall be glad to put it in the hands of my hon. friends.


Arthur Meighen: What has the government done as a result of the report of the commissioner?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
the report. We have taken no action upon it so. far. Perhaps I should not say that we have not taken any action, because we have taken action with respect to some of the recommendations, education, particularly.


Arthur Meighen: What has been done in
the matter of education as a consequence of the report?


Charles A. Stewart: An endeavour has been made to give better facilities for education, more schools. There is a recommendation with respect to -the Mohawk institute that we have not yet acted upon, but we propose doing so in the near future.


Arthur Meighen: One would think that
the department's own officials would know
about those features better than any commissioner whose experience would be limited to the commission.


Charles A. Stewart: As my
right hon. friend who had at one time charge of the Indian department well knows, one of the difficulties is that the Indians often make the complaint that they do not receive fair treatment from the officials of the department. That is constantly coming up, and sometimes with respect to the agents. In order to put a quietus on that, I thought it worth while to send some one outside of the officials to whom they could come and make their statements, and who would give them a fair hearing of all the grievances, fancied or otherwise, that they might wish to bring before him. That was done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much
has that commission cost to date?


Charles A. Stewart: $5,510.34.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the work of
the commissioner completed?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Are the Indians now
happy?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: I thought so. I have
no faith in these special commissions to look into grievances of this kind. The officials of the department have infinitely more experience. I fancy the principal object was to help the commissioner rather than the Indians. May I ask who is representing this Dominion at the League of Nations in its contest with the Six Nations Indians.


Charles A. Stewart: Dr. Riddell is furnished with all the documents.


Arthur Meighen: Who is he?


Charles A. Stewart: He is an
attache-


George Perry Graham: He was appointed by the former government.


Charles A. Stewart: He is a
Canadian attache at the League of Nations and was appointed by the former government.


Arthur Meighen: Of Manitoba university?


Charles A. Stewart: I think he
was originally from Manitoba.


George Perry Graham: He was in Toronto for a
good while.
Supply-Indian Affairs


Arthur Meighen: Have the Indians got a status in the league yet?


Charles A. Stewart: Not that
I have heard.


Arthur Meighen: Who is over there,-
this man Long?


Charles A. Stewart: No, Deska-het.


Arthur Meighen: That is worse.


Charles A. Stewart: He is known generally throughout the country around Brantford and he was in London when last I heard of him. Unfortunately this man has created a considerable impression, particularly upon the representatives of the smaller nations. It is amazing, nevertheless it is a fact that he did have some influence and has given trouble. He is now in England stirring up all the discontent he possibly can.


Arthur Meighen: Has he gone over there
since the commission was appointed?


Charles A. Stewart: He was over there before the commission was appointed.


George Perry Graham: We are inclined to smile here at the Indian situation in relation to the League of Nations, but at one time during the sessions of the assembly of the league it did not appear to be a laughing matter. The representatives of the Indians arrived at Geneva by way of London. They first made their appeal in London and went further to the League of Nations; through the Netherlands they made an attempt to become members of the league. While in Geneva the Canadian representatives, I would not say experienced difficulty, but at any rate were of the opinion that Canada might be placed in a false position before the league inasmuch as the Indian representatives with their legal adviser from across the line had stirred up considerable enthusiasm in their case in the city of Geneva. As the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) has pointed out the smaller nations seem to show great interest in the Indians' claim. They made the claim that they were neither British subjects nor Canadians; they declared that they were allies of Great Britain, their status having been recognized under an old treaty made many years ago. And when it was pointed out that they had served with the Canadian troops as Canadians overseas their reply was that they had done nothing of the kind but had gone overseas as allies of Great Britain, fighting side by side with other allies, who were Canadians. In short, they claimed the status o" a nation and asked to be admitted

to the ieague on that basis. There is an organization in Geneva for the protection of the Indians, and meetings were held nightly there protesting against the alleged treatment of these Indians by Canada. A deputation was sent from this association to wait upon the ex-Minisfer of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) and myself, asking why we had treated the Indians in such a manner. The Canadian delegation was at first inclined to be sceptical of the seriousness of the matter, but it soon appeared that the representatives of the Indians were really in earnest. In reply we directed them to send the Indians and their legal representative to us so that we might discuss the matter together. They never came, but at a meeting of the league the representatives from Persia were very insistent on a motion being made to have the whole question of the treatment of the Indians by the Dominion of Canada discussed in the Assembly. Application was made to Sir Eric Drummond, who I believe was secretary to the Assembly, and the matter was referred to the president and a certain board the name of which I cannot recall at the moment. It was decided that the Indians had no claim to a status in the league and their case wa?< not brought up in any way before the Assembly. For two or three days it seemed as though the Canadian representatives might be called upon in the Assembly of the League of Nations to defend the treatment of the Indians by the Dominion of Canada. When this attempt failed the representatives of the Indians remained in Geneva, and I am not sure that they are not there now. They remained there for a time disseminating propaganda, and I believe they wrent to Paris for a while and then on to London. The latest information I have is that at the next meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations another attempt will be made by the Indians to be recognized as a nation in the League.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid I find my enthusiasm for the League of Nations actually waning. If it is spending its time on humbug of that sort it seems to me it might soon be time for us to consider whether we will vote the money Canada supplies.


George Perry Graham: That is what the Canadian representatives thought.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It will soon be as bad as the Canadian parliament.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is it true that a provisional council has been appointed by the department to administer the affairs of the Six Nations?

Supply-Steamship Services
If so, what is the status of the present council, and is it looking after the affairs of these Indians? Further, why are their officers not paid from the funds?


Charles A. Stewart: I explained why the secretary-treasurer was not paid. The council is doing business, meeting once a month and carrying on its usual work. The summary dismissal of the secretary-treasurer accounts for the fact that the temporary officer appointed by the council has not received payment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-Halifax, Canso and Guysboro, steam service between, $9,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the life of these contracts?


Hon. T. A. LOW (Minster of Trade and Commerce):: One year.


Mr. SPENCER:: How long has this subsidy been paid?


Thomas Andrew Low: About twenty years.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know Whether
the minister considers it appropriate under this item, but I have traced back some information he gave the House on other items and found it very inaccurate-in fact grossly wrong.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am very much surprised to
hear that. I should be very glad to know what my right hon. friend has found wrong in the information which I gave.


Arthur Meighen: For example, the minister complained of regulations of the Civil Service Commission compelling him to employ as commercial trade agents university graduates alone.


George Newcombe Gordon: That is Civil Government.


Arthur Meighen: I know it is not appropriate here ,but the minister has got away from Civil Government. Is he aware that the insistence on university graduates came from his own deputy minister, who refused to have any qualification whatever of that restriction?


Thomas Andrew Low: As I understand, it is a regulation by the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: It is.


Thomas Andrew Low: But I shall be very glad to look it up and inform my right hon. friend whether I am right or wrong. I am certain however that it is a regulation of the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that it was not a regulation of the Civil Service Comission, but the fact that the regulation is as it is was due to the insistence of his own deputy minister that no one else but a university graduate could qualify for the position of commercial trade agent, and that when the commission suggested that a lesser educational equipment would do his deputy objected. Still the minister came to this House and complained of the regulation.


Thomas Andrew Low: That may be true, but I have
not had an opportunity of looking up the origin of the regulation. I know that in appointments made recently the regulation had to be observed. I have only been in charge of the department for about eight or nine months, but I may say that, as minister, I am opposed to the regulations, as they stand.


Arthur Meighen: But he should not attribute to another body what his own deputy is responsible for. Besides, the minister complained of the age limit. Is he aware that a similar condition applies there?


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend knows very well that it is a regulation of the Civil Service Commission. I do not consider that I misled the House.


Arthur Meighen: Very good;-a regulation of the commission upon which his own deputy insisted would hardly be a regulation which the minister would be in a position to complain of. Then also he said that the training for the year was under a man appointed by the commission. Will he now admit that the training is under a man who was there before the commission existed?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am now prepared to say that the training was under a man appointed by the commission.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the man?


Thomas Andrew Low: Mr. Poussette.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say
that Mr. Poussette was appointed to the service by the commission?


Thomas Andrew Low: He was appointed director by
the Civil Service Commission.
M. MEIGHEN: He was in the service.


Thomas Andrew Low: Not in that capacity. He was a trade commissioner and was appointed director of the service by the Civil Service Commission, and I repeat that Mr. Poussette was placed in charge of that branch of the department by the Civil Service Commission.
Supply-Steamship Services


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Poussette was in the service before the commission existed.


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend will not
argue that when Mr. Poussette was in South Africa he was in a position to train the junior commissioners that we were bringing into the service, nor will he deny that he was placed in charge of this branch during the regime of the former Minister of Trade and Commerce while my right hon. friend was Prime Minister?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Poussette was moved from one position to the another with the approval of the commission, but he entered the service not under the commission at all. Certainly it is the latter impression which the minister gave the House.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, I endeavoured to convey
to the House that the man in charge of the training was placed in charge of that training by the Civil Service Commission, and I stand by that statement.


Arthur Meighen: He was not.


George Perry Graham: He was appointed to that work by the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister complain of him in that work?


Thomas Andrew Low: I did.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax, LaHave and LaHave river ports, steam service between, $6,000.
Arthur Meighen: Who has this contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Western Steamship Company of Halifax.


Arthur Meighen: How long have they had it?


Thomas Andrew Low: Four or five years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax and Newfoundland, via Cape Breton ports, steam service between, $5,000.
Arthur Meighen: I notice there is a mercantile marine service in Newfoundland. Why is there a subsidy as well?


Thomas Andrew Low: This service starts from Halifax, the other from Montreal and Sydney.


Arthur Meighen: Would not the Sydney boat call at Halifax?


Thomas Andrew Low: This could not be done without great inconvenience. It is an entirely different type of boat.


Arthur Meighen: What company has this work?


Thomas Andrew Low: Farquhar and Company, Halifax.


Arthur Meighen: How much was paid for the service from Sydney before the mercantile marine took it over?


Thomas Andrew Low: There was no subsidized service from Sydney. This boat performed the service prior to the mercantile marine taking it over.


Arthur Meighen: If this boat called at both places before, why cannot the mercantile marine boats call now?


Thomas Andrew Low: This is a small boat that goes through the Bras d'Or lakes; the mercantile marine boats are too large.


Arthur Meighen: There was a subsidy
previous to the Sydney service by the mercantile marine. What was the subsidy which covered both ports?


Thomas Andrew Low: 



SI0.000.

Arthur Meighen: So the facts are these: Previously for a small boat that would go through the Bras d'Or lakes, calling at Sydney and Halifax, and proceeding to Newfoundland we paid a subsidy of $10,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: As against a subsidy to-day of $5,000.


Arthur Meighen: For a small boat going through the Bras d'Or lakes and calling at Halifax alone.


Thomas Andrew Low: The same boat.


Arthur Meighen: The same small boat;
and the mercantile boat made a profit last year of $40,000. That is the evidence, I see, of Sir Henry Thornton before this commission; I was just reading it to-night. So in addition to earning the $40,000 it saves us a subsidy of $5,000 and gives a separate and large boat service instead of a single and small boat service.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is to our advantage, of
course, to save that $5,000, and we have a profitable service the other way.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I see that. I was
just pointing out that we saved the subsidy and got a far better service now, and make a profit besides. This boat must not be such a decrepit thing as the others that are so much complained of. It must be a fairiy good boat. With regard to item 189, what is the name of the company?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Halifax & Sheet Harbour Steamship Company. That service goes to Spry Bay and on to Cape Breton.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Steamship Services
Halifax, South Cape Breton and Bras d'Or lake ports, steam service between, $5,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Why the decrease in
this item?


Thomas Andrew Low: The company are making a
fair profit, so we decreased the subsidy.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What profits are allowed
before the subsidy is decreased?


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no fixed amount. It
depends on the capital charges or capital investment.


Arthur Meighen: Does it depend on who
owns the ship?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, not in our case.


David Spence: How do you arrive at the
amount paid by way of subsidy? Is there never any change?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have endeavoured to decrease some subsidies as my hon. friend will notice.


David Spence: There is one lower; should they not all be lower?


Thomas Andrew Low: We call for tenders and the
lowest tender is accepted, unless we decide to renew the contract with whatever company has had it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax and west coast of Cape Breton, calling at way ports, steam service between, $6,000.
Arthur Meighen: It seems very strange
that there should be so many boats over the same route, between	Halifax and Cape
Breton.


Thomas Andrew Low: This is the west coast. I have looked into these services and I do not think there is any duplication.


Arthur Meighen: About how much profit
is being made on this one?


Thomas Andrew Low: A very small profit. The
financial reports are received in
11 p.m. confidence, but I have no objee-tion to showing them to any hon. member if he will call at my office.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it not only fair that
where a company is getting a subsidy from the government its bookkeeping should be made public?


Thomas Andrew Low: I question whether that would
be wise. As I say, however, I should be glad to show any hon. gentleman the statements if he will call at my office, because I know that it would be treated in confidence.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister consider using on these services some of the boats that he is standing up for and his Minister of Marine is standing up for, thus avoiding the payment of subsidies? They are small boats and they would likely go through the Bras d'Or lakes.


Thomas Andrew Low: I question very much whether
they could be used there, I have not looked into the matter. However, it is worth looking into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mainland and islands of Miscou and Shippegan, service between, $2,000.
David Spence: What is the reason for the l eduction?


Thomas Andrew Low: They showed a fair profit.


Arthur Meighen: What is the name of the company?


Thomas Andrew Low: Gloucester Navigation Company, Limited.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it impossible to get
boats to ply between these points without a subsidy?


Thomas Andrew Low: As soon as we threaten to reduce the subsidy they say they will withdraw, so we usually stand by it. On the other hand, if the subsidy were withdrawn the rates would be increased. When we grant a subsidy we have control of the rates, and we have the right of ratifying any rates that are put into effect.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is passenger and
freight rates?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, passenger and freight
rates.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the department
have an accounting from these shipowners as to the whole of the year's operations?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like to point
this out: On the surface the amount paid in subsidies to steamship companies for these services looks like a lot of money, but it is possible there is just one feature that is not apparent to hon. members who have not lived in the small places served by these steamships. In many cases they are small communities on isolated islands or headlands and are without railway communication. Even with the existing service I think most of us would not want to be placed in the same position at all. Without these subsidies it would be impossible for them to have any
Supply-Steamship Services

regular means of communication. For example, take the case of a man who is raising produce in one of these isolated spots and wants to get that produce to the market in some of the larger towns. It is impossible for him to get across, we will say to Halifax, with his produce unless a regular service is provided. Without such a service there might be a danger of such places becoming depopulated. It is not only a matter of the inhabitants obtaining their mail but of getting their produce to market. And in many cases there would be great difficulty in inducing the shipowner to put his steamship on the route unless a subsidy wrere granted. I think I am safe in saying that without such a service there would be danger of these particular places becoming depopulated. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) would know more about the conditions because I imagine he lives very close to them. However, I know such a condition exists. I confess that it looks as though a lot of money is paid for these sendees but it provides a means of transportation to the people who are carrying on a line of production both in fishing and in farming, and it enables them to stay where they are and produce and maintain the population of the country. That being so I think it is money well spent.


David Spence: I should like to get a
little information about this vote; I must confess I am ignorant in regard to it. How many months in the year do these boats operate that are giving the service from the mainland to those particular islands which my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell) spoke about. He has figured that the population in one of these islands is small. Now, I presume these boats are simply carrying the passengers who live there backwards and forwards, delivering mail and so on. I should like to have particulars about the service that is carried on, and whether it would not be necessary to move the inhabitants off these islands to the mainland seeing that it requires so much in subsidies to maintain the services in question. My hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell) led me to believe that these islands were miniature islands. Well, there is lots of room on the mainland in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Why do not these people leave these islands and settle there? It may be that some of these places are just summer resorts and the people frequenting them are getting the benefit of these services.
[Mr. Caldwell.}


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I hope I did not leave a wrong impression on the mind of the hon. member. This applies to the people of the mainland because there are many communities so located. If you look at the map of the Maritime provinces you will find the coast line is very jagged; there are long points running out, and deep bays between the headlands. It is impossible to give people living in such places railway communication; in fact their only means of getting from where they live to market is by boat.


David Spence: The hon. member talked
about islands.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I did refer to inlands
but communities on the mainland are similarly situated. The people on the mainland are perhaps not as isolated as regards transportation facilities as they are on the islands, but in many cases their only outlet is by the sea, the coast is a rough one and very broken, and very hard to navigate in stormy weather.


David Spence: During how many months
of the year are these boats operated?


Thomas Andrew Low: From the opening of navigation until it closes, a period which usually lasts from May until November. On some of these islands there are from two to three thousand people.


David Spence: Is there liable to be any
increase in the population of such places, so that there would be the promise of an increase in freight and passengers to an extent that would make the operation of these boats pay?


Mr. ROBINSON:: May I say just a word or two about some of the communities referred to. In some cases there are villages inhabited by three or four hundred people who have been settled there for perhaps two or three hundred years. Even on the mainland the people may, in some cases, be eighteen to twenty miles distant from a railway. It is impossible to move these people from their homes; they would not want to go any more than we would wish to move ourselves. The only communication they have with the outside world is during the summer months, say from May until November. These little steamers run along the shore. Take the coast of the Bay of Fundy with which I am familiar. The steamers call at the various ports once a fortnight, or something of that kind, and gather up the freight. Perhaps they start from St. John and call at different points as they go. I do not think it would be possible to operate these steamers without a govern-

Supply-Steamship Services
ment subsidy; in fact it is claimed they do not pay as it is, and they do not give as good or as regular a service as the people are entitled to. We have heard a lot about the inconveniences suffered by people in the West who live twenty or thirty miles away from railways. Hon. members who have a knowledge of conditions such as that may have some sympathy with these people on the Atlantic coast. They have been settled where they live for years and they grow their produce there. In many cases cultivating fertile patches of land. If a subsidy is warranted at all it surely ought to be justified in such cases as these.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mulgrave and Guysborough, calling at intermediate ports, steam service between, $9,500.
Arthur Meighen: Who has the contract for this service?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Elaine Steamship Company.


Arthur Meighen: How long have they had it?


Thomas Andrew Low: For four or five years.


Arthur Meighen: Who had the contract previously?


Thomas Andrew Low: Hugh Cann & Sons.


Arthur Meighen: Did the former contractors abandon the service?


Thomas Andrew Low: They abandoned the service
because they could not make any money out of it.


Arthur Meighen: Did they get the same subsidy that is now being paid?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, slightly less. The then
government-my right hon. friend's own administration, I presume-called for tenders.


Arthur Meighen: How much did the former contractors get?


Thomas Andrew Low: Six thousand dollars.


Arthur Meighen: Which is increased now to what amount?


Thomas Andrew Low: To 89,500.


Arthur Meighen: Is there better service given now?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is the best we can get for the money. We called for tenders.


Arthur Meighen: What traffic is carried by that service?


Thomas Andrew Low: Passengers and general freight. Guysborough has no railway communication.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I suppose when we
get the new Guysborough railway built we will be able to cut this out?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Do I understand the minister to say that we are getting better service to-day than under the regime of the Cann Steamship Company?


Thomas Andrew Low: I did not say so.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The increase is $3,500,
and we are entitled to a little better service. I know the country down there very well; I know for what purpose the subsidy is given, and when a subsidy is increased by fifty per cent, the travelling public generally will expect to get a better service.


Mr. McISAAC:: This is a daily service between Guysborough, the county town, and Mulgrave on the Canadian National, a distance of thirty-five miles. The people of Guysborough town and the surrounding district are satisfied with the service performed. The increase in the subsidy is caused by having the boat call at Queensport, an important fishing centre, and the ferry'trade from that port has largely increased the revenue of the Canadian National Railway in expressage and so forth. The service is now giving every satisfaction to the people along the whole line.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Newcastle, Neguac and Escuminac, calling at intermediate points on the Miramichi river and bay, steam service between, $5,000.
Thomas Andrew Low: The lower ports are not served at all.


Arthur Meighen: What are the lower
ports?


Thomas Andrew Low: Loggieville, Oak Point, Bay
du Vin, Hardwicke and Neguac; they have no railway sendee.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Loggieville will have
railway service.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend who lives in
that locality knows more about it than I do.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I may say for the benefit of my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) that of the places named by the minister Loggieville is the only one that has railway accommodation. There is a branch line there but the others have no accommodation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Steamship Services
[Stage Direction]
Pelee island and the mainland, steam service between, $11,000.
Mr CHURCH:: I have no objection to
the policy of the minister regarding these mail subsidies and steamboat subventions, but I would like to find out from the minister the policy of the government, and on what principle these subventions are granted. No province in the Dominion is suffering to-day from the lack of transportation facilities as much as Ontario. Steamboat towns like Pic-ton and many other places are dead to-day, and the steamboat has been frozen out of the lake business in the province of Ontario owing to a monopoly. I would like to see the principle of the mail subsidy established in Ontario, and subsidies granted to the small steamboats. These boats have had to go out of business, for instance, on the bay of Quinte. They should be given a subsidy in return for services rendered, and we would have a better mail service. Dear knows, in rural Ontario the mail service is not what it should be, as has been explained by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys). I have no objection to these particular grants, but I doubt if they come within the meaning of the British North America Act as being works for the general advantage of Canada. I think the principle of granting subsidies should be extended to the province of Ontario and subsidies should be given to the boats running to towns on the north shore of lake Ontario and to boats calling at ports on lake Huron, where they have only one through service a day. Some of them have not even that. The result is that we have to depend very largely on the rural mail delivery. The Maritime provinces get this particular form of service from the Department of Trade and Commerce. I do not see why the principle should not be extended to the province of Ontario. Such subsidies have not been granted to this province.


Thomas Andrew Low: In the province of Ontario
the service was started about twenty years ago from the mainland to Pelee island, and it has been continued ever since.
Mr. CHURCH. I am not objecting to the particular vote, because no doubt it is necessary, but every vote should be on a basic principle, and if you are going to adopt the principle of giving to the Maritime province services by boats and branch and trunk lines to rural places which have many other forms of transportation, the principle should be extended to Ontario. You are giving them a boat service and subsidizing that service. I brought up this question last year, and the
[Mr. Doucet.l
Minister of Trade and Commerce on that occasion appreciated my argument, as will be seen by a reference to Hansard. He said something was going to be done to give the boat service a chance in Ontario. It is time something was done in the way of subsidies and subventions to assist the boat business in Ontario. It is very badly needed. If you compare the mail service by boat on Georgian bay, and in the Muskoka district, and around Windsor on the Canadian side with the service rendered on the American side, you will see that we are far behind the times. If the Maritime provinces are to be given subsidies I think these subsidies should be extended to Ontario and other parts of Canada. They need some subventions to build up the steamboat business. It is not right to permit that business to be run by a monopoly. These boats cannot run without some assistance from the government. I am very much in doubt, however, whether these subsidies come within the British North America Act. However, if they come under the British North America Act, and the government is going to build up the Maritime provinces by granting these subsidies, the principle should be extended to Ontario. The rural parts of Ontario have been demanding better service. They have not the boat subventions and the mail subsidies which they should have and which the other provinces have. I should like to see the Maritime provinces get everything they can, because the country in my opinion did not keep faith with them. There are many parts of new Ontario and of old Ontario which have a very poor service and cannot under present conditions get a better service. The Canada Steamship Company has frozen out all these small steamboat operations at Sarnia, along the Detroit river and along the north shore of lake Ontario as far as Belleville. They have monopolized the boat business and driven all the small boats out of commission. The only remedy is to give the small boats a subvention. I hope the minister in the recess of parliament will look into the matter of subsidizing Ontario in regard to the boat business.


David Spence: I object to the vote carrying. This Pelee island vote is the only one in the province of Ontario.


Frank S. Cahill: What constituencv is the
vote in?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mulgrave, Arichat, and Petit de Grat, steam service between, $10,000.
Arthur Meighen: Where are these large
points?

Supply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: In Nova Scotia, on the Gut of
Canso.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pictou, Murray Harbour and Georgetown, steam service between, $6,000.
Arthur Meighen: Who has this contract?


Thomas Andrew Low: There was no service last year. We are going to call for tenders.


Arthur Meighen: There was a vote last
year.


Thomas Andrew Low: It was not used.


Arthur Meighen: Was there a service the
year before?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What was the company's name?


Thomas Andrew Low: La Have Steamship Company of West La Have.


Arthur Meighen: How much did they get?


Thomas Andrew Low: 


Arthur Meighen: Why did they quit?


Thomas Andrew Low: They could not make any
money.


David Spence: Can the minister get anyone else?


Thomas Andrew Low: We are going to try again this year.


Arthur Meighen: It looks as if there was not much business doing.


Thomas Andrew Low: There cannot be a great deal
or somebody would take up this service. If any steamship company were sure that with the $6,000 subsidy a profitable service could be established the service would have been taken up.


Thomas Langton Church: Am I to understand that
these mail subsidies and steamship subventions apply only to the Maritime provinces? I cannot understand how, by the wildest stretch of imagination, these can be said to be works for the general advantage of Canada so as to come under the jurisdiction of this parliament. There are just as many ports in Ontario that have no form of transportation and that need a service for carrying mails and freight. In some of those places the mails and freight have to go by wagon route and other kinds of routes. That is the case in old Ontario, the Nipissing district, the Muskoka district, the district along the north shore of lake Ontario and many other parts of lake Ontario,
and the Georgian bay district. This principle should be extended to the province of Ontario. Just fancy what a difference it would make if a subsidy of $15,000 or $20,000 were given to a steamship company to carry mails and freight between Napanee and other places on the bay of Quinte and the county of Prince Edward. This county is stagnant today and the population has decreased on account of lack of transportation facilities. There used to be a boat service all along the bay of Quinte, but it has been frozen out today. If a subsidy could be given for a boat plying between Napanee, Desoronto and these other places, those parts of Ontario would come into their own, and they are just as much entitled to a mail subsidy for a boat to carry mails and freight as the Maritime provinces. I am not objecting to these mail subsidies and steamship subventions for the Maritime provinces, but there should be equality of treatment. Old and new Ontario alike are stagnant to-day and things are dead in that province simply because of lack of adequate transportation facilities. The minister should have a survey made of Ontario in order to see whether it would be advisable to grant subventions in order to build up the province and to act as a controller of rates. Three hundred and twenty-four municipalities in Ontario voted for a railway system of their own because they were so sick of the service that the steam railways were giving them, and a subvention of $10,000 a year for a mail and freight service would be enough to establish a boat service in all the small towns of Ontario along the Great lakes. This matter was brought up last year and the year before but nothing has been done. There is no province in the Dominion suffering worse than Ontario on account of lack of transportation facilities and I should be glad if the minister would make a survey of the province because the former minister was going to do so but did not take any action.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be very glad to make a survey.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pictou, Mu]grave and Cheticamp, steam service between, $11,000.
Arthur Meighen: Was a service carried
on last year?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What company has it?


Thomas Andrew Low: The North Bay Steamship
Company of Port Hood, N.S.
Supply-Steamship Services


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are Mulgrave
and Port Mulgrave the same?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It seems to be a very important place. Many of these services seem to radiate from Mulgrave or Port Mulgrave.


Thomas Andrew Low: My friends from the Maritime provinces say that it is a very important place. Seriously though, it is the "jumping off" place between Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.


Mr. DUFF:: I might, perhaps, explain to
hon. members from other parts of the Dominion that Mulgrave is the connecting point between Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, and passengers from Halifax and other parts of the Maritime provinces get off at Mulgrave to take steamers for Arichat, Guysborough, Inverness, Cheticamp and other points along the shore.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pictou, New Glasgow and Antigonish county ports, schooner service between, $1,500.
David Spence: Have we a breakwater or wharf at all these little peninsulas out in the sea? Are they little summer resorts for individuals?


Thomas Andrew Low: Not at all. If my hon. friend would ask the Minister of Public Works, he would be glad to answer these questions.


David Spence: Last year, when we were discussing the estimates of the Minister of Public Works we were building a dock for svery individual living around the shore there. Now we are providing a boat service for those people.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Mulgrave, St. Peter's, Irish Cove and Marble mountain, and other ports on the Bras d'Or Lakes, steam service between, $10,350.
Arthur Meighen: Why the increase?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is not possible for us to
carry on the service without this extra amount and the service is an important one. We are not losing money on it. Certain improvements are contemplated.


Mr. THURSTON:: What are the proposed improvements?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not the details here but I shall be glad to show them to my hon. friend if he will drop into the office. The contract is only for one year and we can discontinue it next year if that is advisable.


Mr. KYTE:: The Bras d'Or lakes are of course inland waters; they are in the island of Cape Breton, and the service which is afforded under this vote accommodates a large farming country. The markets are in the mining centres of Cape Breton county and this boat is subsidized to perform a service which has been rendered now for twenity-five years. The service performed heretofore was not considered adequate. More ports of call have been added and in order to meet the requirements of the people who have no railway accommodation in that part of the country and who therefore are entirely dependent upon these subsidized steamers it is necessary that water communication shall be maintained. This service is an important one and is successful. As time advances and the population increases further accommodation becomes necessary periodically.


Arthur Meighen: Is the population increasing?


George William Kyte: In certain centres it is. Marble Mountain, and Iona are important farming districts, and the population has increased in these places and in the mining towns. There are more products consumed in the mining certres to-day and there is therefore a greater necessity for continuous communications.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the service
weekly?


George William Kyte: It is a tri-weekly service.


Arthur Meighen: I do not understand why there should be half a dozen different companies running boats on the Bras d'Or lakes. There are several places in the estimates where subsidies are provided for boats in these lakes. The Bras d'Or lakes are of course beautiful but they are not very large. Would it not be more economical if one concern had the whole thing in hand and if one subsidy were voted?


George William Kyte: The same company owns all these different boats. For instance, the boat that operates in the north part of Cape Breton is owned by the same company that owns some other boat, such as the Richmond, which operates on a different route.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: I would suggest to the minister that as he has made considerable progress we should now adjourn.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not many more items.


Arthur Meighen: The next one is an item that will require some discussion and we have already passed the hour of adjournment.

Supply-Steamship Services


Thomas Andrew Low: There are only a few more items.


William Duff: Go on.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says, go on.


William Duff: This is the middle of June, I want to get home.


Arthur Meighen: We heard a different
tune when the hon. member was on this side.


William Duff: I would help you if I were sitting there.


Arthur Meighen: This is a different
opposition now. We have had a fair discussion of each item and reasonable progress has been made.


William Duff: My hon. friend used to keep us until two o'clock.


Thomas Andrew Low: I should like to get items 181 and 182 carried.


George Newcombe Gordon: These items are:
Charlottetown and Pictou, steam service between, $8,000.
Charlottetown, Victoria and Holliday's Wharf, steam service between, $4,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the adjournment of the House.
Arthur Meighen: What will be the business to-morrow?


George Perry Graham: To-morrow we shall take up certain resolutions and bills standing in the name of the Minister of Justice. Following that probably we shall take up the bill in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to the Gold and Silver Marking Act, and probably one or two other bills. Thereafter we shall take the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, followed by the estimates of the Public Works department.


Arthur Meighen: Will all the resolutions
standing in the name of the Minister of Justice be taken up, and if so are they first?


George Perry Graham: Among those that will be taken up will be Orders:	No. 22, second
reading of Bill No. 39 to amend the act to authorize re-arrangements and transfers of duties in the Public Service; No. 23, second reading of Bill No. 65, to amend the Judges
Act; No. 27, second reading of Bill No. 116, to amend the Exchequer Court Act; No. 28, second reading of Bill No, 117, to amend the Expropriation Act; and No. 32, second reading of Bill No. 120 to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


Arthur Meighen: That ought to be enough.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Justice
did not think that they would take very long, but it is just possible he may be under a misapprehension as to the length of time they will require. We shall also take Order No. 39, the second reading of Bill No. 176 to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913. After that we shall go into supply taking up the estimates I have outlined. Before the House adjourns I want to say that by agreement, as I am informed, between the different parties interested the Church Union bill will be taken up on Tuesday next and the day will be devoted to the discussion of that measure. It is earnestly hoped by all those who are anxious to get through that hon. members will be on hand so that if possible the discussion may be concluded on that day.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is quite right in so far as the leaders go; I agreed to Tuesday, but I had no opportunity to consult anyone else. If there is any hon. gentleman anywhere who has a very valid objection to the discussion taking place on Tuesday he should be allowed to express it now; the debate is an important one.


Mr. GARDINER:: I understood that next Tuesday the question would come up with reference to the disallowance of the Alberta Tax Act. The Minister of Justice had agreed to have that question discussed then owing to the fact that it had been postponed for several days.


George Perry Graham: I spoke to the Minister
of Justice as to Tuesday being fixed for the discussion of the Church Union bill, and he was perfectly agreeable. It is a very important measure, and as it is thought wise that members should have notice several days ahead, I trust my hon. friend will not raise any objection to the course taken. The discussion of the other subject which he refens to can be transferred to another day without any loss of time.


Robert Gardiner: Provided, then, that
this other discussion will take place some other day with the consent of the government, I have no objection at all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 18, 1924