1928-05-21

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
First and final report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries-Mr. Duff.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many inmates are there in each federal penal institution of the following ages: (a) 16 years or under, (b) 17, (e) 18?
2.	What has been done to remedy the conditions?
3.	What became of announced proposed conference with the provinces on the policy, and what action was taken?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Penitentiary	U <X) 03 -T3 * S	03 55	03 i*Kingston	CO i-i a	i	>>
00 5St. Vincent de Paul...	10	38	45Dorchester	4	13	8Manitoba	2	1	1British Columbia.. ..	-	1	7Saskatchewan	-	3	3Total	.. 16	57	692.	The matter is receiving consideration.


GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS
Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	What county and high court judges have acted on government commissions during 1922, 1923. 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927, and on what inquiries?
2.	What sums were paid them?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of Finance
1 and 2. Living allowances and travelling expenses paid:	Maritime claims commission,
Hon. W. B. Wallace, $2,100; Home Bank commission, Hon. H. A. McKeoiwn, $2,558.60; Customs inquiry commission, Hon. J. T. Brown, 110,036; E. Roy, $8,992.62; W. H. Wright, $8,498.73; Sir Francois Lemieux, including expenses of secretary, $1,032.13.
Department of Justice
1 and 2. Athabasca election inquiry, 1922-23, nil; 1923-24, nil; 1924-25, nil; 1925-26, nil; 192627, Justice A. H. Clarke, travelling expenses, $829.36.	1927-28, Justice Trueman, commission re Judge Maulson, expenses, $76.
Privy Council
1.	Maritime rights commission, His 'Honour W. B. Wallace, judge of the county court, district No. 1 province of Nova Scotia. Date of appointment, 7 April, 1926.
2.	No information.
Department of Immigration and Colonization
1.	His Honour Judge Stubbs of the northern division of the eastern judicial district of Manitoba who conducted an inquiry in 1927 in the case of A. M. Graham, dismissed from the office of the soldier settlement board at Winnipeg.
2.	No payments made.
Department of the Secretary of State
1.	List of county and high court judges who have acted on government commissions from 1922 to 1927 inclusive.

Questions
N ame-Office-Date
Beck, Hon. Nicholas Dominic; Athabasca election; March 27, 1926.
Brown, Hon. James Thomas; Customs enquiries; January 14, 1927.
Clarke, Hon. Alfred; Athabasca election; July 10, 1926.
Denton, His Honour James Herbert; Operations of Toronto harbour commissioners; June 15, 1926.
Duncan, Sir Andrew (Rae) Wallace. His Honour William Bernard MacMillan, Professor Cyrus; Maritime claims; April 7, 1926.
Lemieux, Hon. Sir Francois Xavier; Brown, Hon. James Thomas; Wright, Hon. William Henry; Customs enquiry; September 28, 1926.
Lemieux, Hon. Sir Francois Xavier; Customs enquiry; July 20, 1926.
Maclean, Hon. Alexander Kenneth; contract with P. Lyall & Sons in re-construction work on Welland canal; May 21, 1927.
Maclean, Hon. Alexander Kenneth; Maritime fisheries; October 7, 1927.
Martin, Hon. William Melville; claims of British Columbia in respect of land conveyed to the Dominion under the terms of the union; March 8, 1927.
McKeown, Hon. Harrison Andrew; Home Bank; February 27, 1924.
Roy, Hon. Ernest; Customs enquiry; November 11, 1926.
Stubbs, Lewis St. George; dismissal of A. M. Graham from Soldier Settlement Board; January 31, 1927.
Trueman, Hon. Walter Harley; charges against Judge Maulson; October 7, 1927.
Turgeon, Hon. William Ferdinand Alphonse; Grain enquiry; May 1, 1923.
2.	No information.
Department of Trade and Commerce
1.	The Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, puisne judge of appeal court, Regina, on grain enquiry commission during 1923, 1924 and 1925.
2.
Allowance for Travel and living expenses sundries
1923- 24	$ 3,156 58	$1,646 461924- 25	
2,566 50	722 301925- 26	
9,851 92	238 48$15,575 00	$2,607 24
Department of National Revenue-Customs and Excise Division
1.	By order in council P.C. 1161, dated 20th July, 1926, the Hon. Sir Francois Xavier Lemieux, Chief Justice of the Superior Court for the province of Quebec, was appointed a
commissioner to continue and complete the investigation of the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise which had been commenced by the special committee of the House of Commons.
By order in council P.C. 1467, dated 28th September, 1926, a judicial commission was appointed to complete the investigation of the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise; and also to enquire into and report on the operation of the treaty made between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America dated June 6, 1924, for the suppression of smuggling along the international boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America.
This commission was composed of the Hon. Sir Francois Xavier Lemieux, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the province of Quebec, chairman; the Hon. James Thomas Brown, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, Saskatchewan and the Hon. William Henry Wright, a justice of the Supreme Court, of Ontario.
Subsequently the Hon. Sir Francois Lemieux was replaced by the Hon. Ernest Roy, a justice of the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec.
2.	In connection with his appointment under the first order in council above mentioned, Sir Francois Lemieux was paid by this department a total sum of $1,032.13 for living and travelling expenses.
No amounts were paid by this department to any of the commissioners appointed under the second order in council above mentioned.
Income Tax Division 1 and 2. Nil.
Department of the Interior.
1.	1922, nil; 1923, nil; 1924, nil; 1925, nil; 1926, nil; 1927, Judge W. M. Martin, investigation under the Inquires Act into the claim of British Columbia for the reconveyance of certain lands conveyed by that province to the Dominion at the time of the union. (Vote 519, supplementary estimates, 19271928.)
2.	Services, Judge W. M. Martin, $2,750; expenses, Judge W. M. Martin, $915.20. Department of Marine and Fisheries:
1.	Judge H. F. McLatchy, county court judge, Campbellton, N.B., commissioned August 23, 1927, to investigate salmon net privileges at the east end of Eel river bar, Restigouche county, NB.
Hon. A. K. Maelean, Exchequer Court of Canada, appointed by order in council Sep-
Questions

tember 24, 1927, as chairman of a commission to investigate the fisheries of the maritime provinces and Magdalen islands.
2.	Judge McLatchy $60 for expenses; Mr. Justice Maclean $2,772.78 for expenses.
Marine Branch
1.	Judge Auley Morrison, Vancouver, B.C., was appointed commissioner in June, 1926, to investigate the administration of Captain James F. Tait, former port warden of Vancouver.
2.	No remuneration.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- FLINT MICHIGAN STATION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has a new large railway station been built at Flint, Michigan, by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, what was the cost, was parliament asked for funds first, was it built by contract?
3.	What sums have been spent on the Canadian National railway station at Hamilton, Ontario. during the past two years, and when was the station built?
4.	What is being done to give Hamilton a new Canadian National railway station, and when was the question of a new station there agreed to?
5.	Will any concrete action be taken this year to secure a new station there?
6.	What sums are proposed to be spent on betterments on the Central Vermont?
7.	What amount of (a) cash and (b) credits or bonds of the old Grand Trunk was taken out of the old Grand Trunk Railway in Ontario and invested in the new Grand trunk Pacific for use by the Grand Trunk Pacific outside of Ontario?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	A new depot was built at South Flint, Michigan, in 1927 by the Grand Trunk Western Railway Company.
2.	The cost was $20,656.57 and the building was constructed by contract. The expenditure was charged to the funds voted by parliament in the 1927 budget for works of this character.
3.	$11,721. Station was built about 1875.
4.	For several years past the railway has been purchasing property for a new station site. The question of station facilities and the closing of certain streets in connection therewith is now under discussion with the city officials.
5.	An amount has been included in the budget for this year and if an agreement is effected with the city, and the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners secured, excavation and other work preparatory to the construction of a new station will be started.
fMr. Rinfret.]
6.	As this railway is under receivership appointed by United States court, we are not in a position to advise.
7.	No amount was taken out of the old Grand Trunk in Ontario and invested in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EQUIPMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: What amount of equipment of the Canadian National Railways during the past five years was purchased, (a) in Canada, and (b) in the United States?


Mr. DUNNING:: Years 1923 to 1927, inclusive: (a) in Canada, $56,024,219.49; (to) in the United States (for United States lines), $11,366,810.02, (for Canadian lines),$94,192.89.*
*Four (4) self-propelling gasoline cars not obtainable in Canada.


WINDSOR, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Does the government own the post office building in Windsor, Ontario?
2.	When was same built?
3.	What was the cost?
4.	Has an offer for the present site been made to the government?
5.	If so, when, by whom, and for how much?
6.	Would the government consider a fair offer for same?
7.	What is the value of the present property per running foot?
8.	How many feet are there on Ouelette avenue?
9.	Has any real estate firm or person in the city of Windsor an option of purchase of the property ?
10.	If so, on what conditions?
11.	Has it ever been offered for sale-or instructions given to anyone to sell it at a net price or on commission?
12.	If so, when, and to whom?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1879.
3.	$44,798.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Yes.
7.	No recent valuation has been made. In 1923 it was reported that the city assessor considered $2,500 per foot on a frontage of 200 feet on Ouelette street was a fair price.
8.	Approximately 200 feet.
9.	No.
10.	Answered by No. 9.
11.	No.
12.	Answered by No. 11.


ISLE AUX CRUES WHARF
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Has the Public Works department built a new wharf at Isle aux Grues, county of Mont-magny ?

Questions
2.	Has the old wharf been abandoned?
3.	What is the difference in the depth of wharfing between the two wharves?
4.	Is the new wharf situated near the public highway, and if so, how near?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Wharf under construction.
2.	Yes.
3.	1.4 feet more water at high tide at outer end of wharf under construction than at old wharf.
4.	(a) Yes; (b) Approximately 300 feet.



ISI.E AUX GRUES MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the transportation of the mail from Montmagny to Isle anx Grues?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Has contract been awarded, and if so, to whom ?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted?
5.	At what price was contract awarded?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Due at the Post Office Department, 29th April, 1927.
3.	4 and 5. No action has been taken on the tenders received.



ISLE AUX GRUES TELEPHONE SYSTEM

Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Has the government a telephone system at Isle aux Grues, county of Montmagny, Quebec ?
2.	If so, how many subscribers has such system ?
3.	Did any persons apply for telephone connection with such government system, during years 1926, 1927, 1928?
4.	Were any such applications refused, and if so, why was such refusal made in each case?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Twenty-three.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) This is a grounded circuit and loaded to capacity.



ILLICIT LIQUOR, ARTHABASKA, QUE.

Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	How many persons in the district of Arthabaska, Quebec, have been found in possession of illicit alcoholic products under the Inland Revenue Act and the Customs Act, during the fiscal years 1926, 1927, and 1928?
2.	If any, what are the names of said persons, and what action, if any, was taken in each case, and with what result?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Forty-five.
2.
Name and address-Action taken-Result
Alfred Beaudet, St. Christopher, section 185, fined $200 and' costs, paid.
John Normand, Victoriaville, section 204, fined $5 and costs, paid.
Amable Houle, Ste. Victoire, section 204, fined $20 and costs, paid.
Louis Tessier, St. Rosaire, no legal action, warned.
Pierre Belliveau, Warwick, no legal action, warned.
J. C. Denoncourt, Victoriaville, section 204, fined $50 and costs, not apprehended.
Fernando Arsenault, Ste. Seraphine, no legal action, warned.
Mrs. H. Chouinard, Victoriaville, section 180E, two months and costs, paid.
Pierre Duval, Victoriaville, section 204. fined $50 and costs, paid.
Mrs. Marie Briset.te, Bulstrode Station, no legal action.
Paul Picher, Bulstrode Station, no legal action.
Albert Constant, Ste. Clothilde, section 180E, fined $500 and costs, paid.
Desire Turcotte, St. Albert, no legal action, warned.
Joseph R. Crevier, Victoriaville, section 180E, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Joseph Gagne, Victoriaville, section 180E. fined $200 and costs, paid.
Henri Houle, St. Clothilde, section 180E, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Armand Frechette, Princeville, section 180E, fined $200 and costs, paid.
David Dugal, Princeville, section 204, fined $50 and costs, paid.
Henri Picher, Victoriaville, section 180E, fined $20 and costs, paid.
Louis Denault, St. Christophe, section 180E, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Armand Dupont, St. Norbert, section 185, fined $200 or 6 months, served.
Adelard Houle, Ste. Valerie, section 204, fined $50 and costs, paid.
Napoleon Gamire, Ste. Victoria, section 180E, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Delphis Carignan, Stanfold, section 180E, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Desire Trottier, Princeville, section 185, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Ovila Nadeau, Ste. Helene, no legal action, warned.
Clovia Barabe, Ste. Helene, section 204, fined $50 and costs, paid $25.
Ernest Beaudet, Warwick, section 185, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Pierre Chauvette, Ste. Helene, section 204, fined $50 and costs, paid.
Ovida Talbot, Victoriaville, section 185, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Questions

Alfred Bolduc, Victoriaville, section 180E. fined $200 or 6 months, served.
Ludger Beaudette, Warwick, section 181, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Louis Lambert, Victoriaville, section 185, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Amedie Mathieu, Victoriaville, section 185, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Thomas Caron, Victoriaville, section 185, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Evariste Desrosiers, St. Louis, no legal action.
Omer Boisvert, Victoriaville, section 176E, fined $200 and costs or 6 months, not apprehended.
Louis Lambert, Victoriaville, action pending.
Egide L'Abbe, Victoriaville, section 176E, pending.
Ludger Lavigne, Victoriaville, section 176E pending.
Moise Lefebvre, Daveluyville, section 206, voluntary penalty, $50, paid.
Henri Boisvert, St. Albert, no legal action
Chas. Beaudoin, St. Louis de Blandford, no legal action, warned.
Hermenegile Gregoire, Ste. Clothilde, no legal action.
Albert Constant, Ste. Clothilde, section 18QE, fined $200 and costs, paid.
Note.-Under the heading of " action taken " in the foregoing statement, the words " section 185 " indicate that prosecution proceedings were taken under section 185 of the Excise Act against the offender concerned " for having in his possession, whether the owner thereof or not, without lawful excuse, a quantity of spirits of unlawful manufacture or importation ".
Likewise, " section 291 " indicates action under that section of the act " for having brewed beer without having a lioense and without having complied with provisions of section 199 of the act ".
"Section 180 (e) " indicates proceedings under that section " for possession of an unlicensed still or a quantity of mash ".
"Sections 181 and 176 (e)" appearing in the latter part of the statement correspond to sections 185 and 180 as appearing prior to the revision of the statutes which became effective on February 1st.



BEATTPRE, QUEBEC, WHARF

Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	What amount has been expended by the government upon a wharf at Beaupre, Quebec, since March 31st, 1926?
2.	Is the title to said wharf vested in the crown ?
3.	If not, in whom is said title vested?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Nil.
2 and 3. There are two wharves at Beaupre. The one on the right bank of the St. Anne river is owned by the government, and the other on the left side of the east branch of the same river is owned by The Ste. Anne Paper Company.



HARROW, ONT., EXPERIMENTAL FARM

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What caused the vacancy in superintendency at Harrow, Ontario, experimental farm?
2.	Who was recent superintendent?
3.	When did he retire?
4.	What salary was he receiving?
5.	How will his successor be appointed?
6.	Was the recent superintendent a Canadian citizen?
7.	Will the position, when filled, be made by the Civil Service Commission?
8.	Will the department engage a Canadian citizen for the position?
9.	Is there any person employed at the farm capable and desirous of becoming superintendent?
10.	Who is filling the position of superintendent at the farm during the vacancy?
11.	What salary is he drawing?
12.	What salary has been paid the superintendent at the farm in the years 1923-1924-1925-
1926-1927?
13.	Who was superintendent in each of the aforementioned years?
14.	Are there any Canadian government experimental farms in Canada which have other than Canadian citizens as superintendent?
15.	If so, how many? What farms?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Resignation of the superintendent.
2.	H. A. Freeman.
3.	April 12, 1928.
4.	$2,700 per annum.
5.	By the Civil Service Commission.
6.	No.
7.	Yes.
8.	Yes, if a Canadian citizen, capable of filling the position satisfactorily can be found.
9.	One employee is, it is understood, desirous of being promoted to superintendent of the Harrow station but the department is not, as yet, quite satisfied that he is capable of filling the position satisfactorily.
10.	The experimental farm assistant. Mr. O.	G. Williams.
11.	$1,920 per annum.
12 and Year	13. Salary	Name of Superintendent1923-24	$2,460	D. D. Digges1924-25	2,580	D. D. Digges1925-26	2,700	D. D. Digges1926-27	2,580	(resigned June 16, 1926) H. A. Freeman1927-28	2,700	(appointed June 16,1926) (resigned April 12, 1928)
Questions
14.	No.
15.	Answered by No. 14.



TOBACCO GROWING INDUSTRY

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	When was the recent tobacco investigating commission appointed?
2.	On whose recommendation?
3.	When did they complete their work?
4.	How many sessions were held, when and where?
5.	How many witnesses examined?
6.	Who constituted the board?
7.	What salary was paid to each?
8.	What expense allowance was made each?
9.	What was the total cost of the entire investigation?
10.	What service did investigation render?
11.	Will the recommendations of the commission be implemented?
12.	If so, when?
13.	If not, why?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	By order-in-council of February 27, 1928.
2.	Minister of Agriculture.
3.	May 1, 1928.
4.	Chatham, March 2; Tilbury, March 3; Blenheim, March 5; Essex, March 6; Leamington, March 7; Dresden, March 8; Harrow, March 9; Windsor, March 10; Kingsville, March 12; Belle River, March 13; Rodney, March 14; St. Thomas, March 15; London, March 19; Simcoe, March 20; Chatham, March 21; Leamington, March 22; Kingsville, March 23 and 24; Hamilton, March 26; Montreal, March 27, 28 and 29; Quebec, March 30.
5.	Impossible to give the number of witnesses examined, because no special witnesses called. At the meetings which were called by the commission, however, large numbers of interested persons were in attendance, and
from among those present individuals were questioned, while other individuals volunteered information.
6.	E. S. Archibald, director of experimental farms (chairman); E. P. Tellier, Belle River, Ontario; H. B. Archibald, Cooper Leaf Tobacco Co., Wallaceburg, Ont.
7.	E. S. Archibald, (no additional salary); E. P. Tellier, $20 per day; H. B. Archibald, $20 per day.
8.	$12 per diem for living expenses, plus transportation.
9.	Information not yet available, as accounts not yet submitted.
10.	Too soon to enumerate nature and extent of services rendered other than that the investigation served to obtain definite information as to conditions as they exist in the tobacco industry, in regard to varieties grown, areas where grown, cultural systems followed, curing systems followed, methods of marketing, etc. A study of all these has permitted the commission to make recommendations looking to the development of the industry and the advancement of the interests of the growers.
11.	As far as possible.
12.	As opportunity offers.
13.	Answered by 11 and 12.



FERTILIZERS, IMPORTS

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many carload lots, or tons, of fertilizer were imported into Canada from the United States during the years 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926. and 1927?
2.	What is the appraised value of same per year to the importer per ton or carload lots as invoiced?
3.	To how many sections in Canada was it invoiced or unloaded and at what sections?
[Mr. Gott.J


Mr. EULER:: to
Questions

Statement showing the Imports of Fertilizers from the United States entered for Consumption in each Province of Canada during the Fiscal
Years ended March, 1923 to 1927

Continued
Item
Potash, muriate of.
Potash, sulphate of.
Soda, nitrate of.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island.
Quebec	
Ontario	
British Columbia	
Superphosphate or acid phosphate of lime.
Province
Totals...
Nova Scotia	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Alberta	
British Columbia.
Totals.
Totals.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island.
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Alberta	
British Columbia....
Totals.
Cwt.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
29,976
5,567
4C0
2,284
5,707
44,628
i,913
300
2,519
81,493
37,757
102,621
69,o87
i,812
650
19,443
313,377
Value

52,066
10,855
1,444
2,882
9,956
77,914
4,423
9
6,061
Cwt.
3,060
3,693
2,176
1,025
10,034
938
1,888
211,208
98,881
239,540
186,512
7,821
1,844
49,318
795,i99
193,890
95,675
1,772
23,832
67,818
95,244
44,081
12,718
76,676
1,203
1,046 40,686
271,654
176,314
216,415
63,009
120,781
382,987
576,519
Value

7,964
5,069
4,008
1,837
19,014
2,060

Cwt.
15,812
1,579
4,508
21,949
1,090
1,000
1,041
3,131
63,680
42,618
63,323
57,422
1,458
8,569
237,070
225,999
228,460
90,386
369,411
914,276
Value
Gwt.

30,586
3,104
7,778
41,586
2,775
2,253
4,531
9,564
167,901
113,095
4,521 li,590
4,192
7,556
28,489
1,560
2,667
71,708
87,469
157,335
143,518
5,454
20,862
608,165
117,775
127,468
49,375
169,500
464,163
45,108 50,921 1,139
27,261
283,606
191,055
435,409
118,936
631,346
7,789
1,384,540
Value

7,755
18,656
7,779 3,165 1,213
48,568
3,637
2,219
6,306
193,117
237,558
115,373 i33,309 4,084
Cwt.
4,710
20,544
44,301
2,414
13,334
i,039
86,342
675
4,018
.5,694
62,553
72,866
11,924
6,677
4i,558
70,171
753,612
107,522
266,553
72,741
359,509
10,604
816,942
4,948
200,531
271,806
324,717
131,467
102,544
615,528
37,508
1,483,570
Value

9,680
30,570
73,322
4,757
23,659
1,889
i43,877
1,905
8,413
i2,728
168,430
187,4,3
35,023
8,014
105,037
13,068
527,030
146,547
220,465
85,741
65,143
359,842
20,268
900,006
3196	COMMONS
Questions
Fertilizers compounded or manufactured, n.o.p.
Fertilizers unmanufactured, n.o.p.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island,
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia...
Totals	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
British Columbia...
Totals	
57,569 74,317	67,553 25,315	122,569 48,019	138,112 5,239 6 39,499 168,674 324	210,320 11,234 168 67,763 167,641 635	57,351 15,127	92,289 27,237	144,654 52,923 720 62,517 340,483 762 16	221,446 80,610 1,670 87,384 344,696 730 40064,376 99,798 1,002 183 330 306	56,358 105,880 5	76,199 123,017 149	44,404 291,912 39 19	68,881 311,112 221 422	457	2,769	33	232	23,457	18,123	570	1,268297,881	255,568	372,722	351,887	457,993	432,309	518,285	602,645	738,2044,907 19,925	9,383 37,832	7	19	3,554 34 5,886 38 3,698	7,616 254 14,775	14,307 612 5,131	30 9	83 6	4,842 2 4,859	4,289 20 7,739	
869	1,791				
								
13,210	34,535	59,263	23,514	21,841	46	108		
								
								



Questions
Questions



LONG TERM FARM LOANS ACT

Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	Has the government lately received a copy of an act passed by the legislature of Quebec, at its last session, as provided by article 8, chapter 66 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927?
2.	If so, does the government intend to put into force the Long Term Farm Loans Act as provided by chapter 66 of the revised statutes, and when?


Mr. ROBB:: 1 and 2. Yes.



WESTERN CITIES, POPULATION

Mr. GERSHAW:: 1.	What is the last recorded population of the cities of Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary and Edmonton?
2.	How many in each city were born in Canada?
3.	How many were British born, outside of
Canada?
4.	How many such were foreign born?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.
Census 1926
Population
Winnipeg	 191,998
Saskatoon	 31,234
Regina	 37,329
Calgary	 65,291
Edmonton	 65,163
2.
Canadian
Born
Winnipeg	 107,647
Saskatoon	 19,200
Regina	 22,625
Calgary	 36,502
Edmonton	 38,234
3.
British British At Isles Possessions Sea
Winnipeg	
46,545	592	33Saskatoon	
7,715	98	2Regina	
8,525	113	9Calgary	19,883	396	10Edmonton	
16,474	334	9
4.
Foreign
Countries
Winnipeg	 37,181
Saskatoon	 4,219
Regina	 6,057
Calgary	     8,500
Edmonton	 10,112



CELOTEX LUMBER

Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	Is a fibreboard marketed under the name of Celotex imported into Canada as Celotex lumber?
2.	If so, what is the duty and what amount has been imported?
3.	What is the duty on fibreboard?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	17J per cent general tariff. No information of amount imported, as article is not separately enumerated in import classification.
3.	Fibreboard is dutiable according to material, therefore subject to various rates of duty.



CHARLES PINAHD

Mr. TUMMON:: 1.	Is Charles Pinard, who is employed by the Department! of Public Works, first deputy reeve of Gloucester?
2.	If so, how many days and on what dates was he absent from duty in the said department during the past calendar year, exclusive of sick leave?
3.	How many days was he away on sick leave during the said period?
4.	For how many days did he draw pay from the said department during the time above mentioned?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 3 days.
(b) January 3, and April 26 and 28.
3.	Nil.
4.	365 days.



ROCK BALLASTING

Mr. PRICE:: 1.	Was there any rock ballasting done between Toronto and Montreal during 1925 and 1926 and 1926 and 1927?
2.	If so, how- many miles between what points, and at what cost per mile?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would like to ask the hon. member what railway he has reference to?


Mr. PRICE:: The Canadian National railway.	.
Question stands.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of the school lands file re sale No. 495 and 496 in respect to one Stephen McKeown.

Natural Resources-Prairie Provinces



SCHOOL LANDS FILE-JOHN GAIR

Mr. LUCAS:: For a copy of school lands file No. 159518, in respect to the lands bought by John Gair, Killam, Alberta, sale No. 4571, being the N.W. i of 11-43-13-West of the 4'th meridian.



SCHOOL LANDS FILE-ROBERT RORERTSON

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: For a copy of school lands files No. 13380 to 13383, inclusive, with reference to one Robert Robertson, Lanark, Ontario.



SCHOOL LANDS FILE-W. S. FEATHERSTONAUGH

Mr. KELLNER:: For a copy of school lands file No. 78720, sale No. 3818 with reference to one W. S. F eatherstonaugh.



SCHOOL LANDS FILE-W. H. KEMP

Mr. SPEAKMAN:: For a copy of the school lands file in respect to section 29-35-28-west of the 4th Meridian, and bought by one W. H. Kemp of Innisfail, Alberta.



SCHOOL LANDS FILE-PETER ALBEES

Mr. KENNEDY:: For a copy of school lands file in respect to section 29-43-22-west of the 4th meridian bought by one Peter Albees, Waterglen, Alberta.
FILE NO. 31458-MRS. ETHEL TRUSCOTT Mr. SPENCER:
For a copy of file No. 31458 relating to the
S.E. quarter of section 11. tp. 50, range 2, west of the 4th meridian, held by Mrs. Ethel Trus-cott, of Battleford, Saskatchewan.



JOL1ETTE POST OFFICE

Mr. CAHAN:: For a copy of the report made upon the inquiry held by the Post Office Department in respect of the administration of the post office at Joliette, Quebec, and particularly in respect of the robbery alleged to have taken place at said post office on or about February 29th last, together with copies of the depositions made by Messrs. Desaulniers, Champoux, the postal employees, and others at said inquiry.


Mr. VENIOT:: I would ask that the hon.
member allow this motion to stand. For the information of the house, I might say that we have made an arrest in connection with this robbery. Unfortunately, the prisoner escaped, but we are now in a position where we think we can recapture him. The first part of the motion is closely connected with the latter part of it, and I do not like to lay on the
table anything which might interfere with the proceedings that we are instituting. I would be pleased to let my hon. friend have a look at these reports.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will withdraw the motion for the present.
Motion withdrawn.



PADSTOW POST OFFICE

Donald MacBeth Kennedy: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, reports, and other documents passing between the Post Office Department and/or the Postmaster General and any other party or parties relating to the change in location of the Pad-stow post office, and the change of the postmaster of the said post office.



VALUATION OF IMPORTED STRAWBERRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question based on his statement as reported in Hansard, page 3054, that as soon as applications were received invoking the statute, an order in council under section 43 of the Customs Act would be passed authorizing the minister to fix values on produce of a class or kind produced in Canada, and on the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has acknowledged the receipt of three telegrams from the strawberry growers of three different districts in British Columbia invoking the statute and asking for the fixing of values on strawberries from May 21 to July 10. The questions are:
1.	Has an order in council been passed?
2.	If not, when does he propose to have the applications referred to, considered by the governor in council?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am not in a position to
disclose to my hon. friend what takes place in council, but I would say to him that when an application comes before council, it will receive due consideration.



NATURAL RESOURCES OF PRAIRIE PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Now that no feature of the question of the return of their natural resources to the western provinces is before any of the courts, I should like to ask whether the government has any statement to make in regard to the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been mentioned at
different times, I do not know whether in

Reparations Claims-Mr. Bennett
direct answer to my hon. friend or not, that conferences have been held between representatives of the western governments and our government with respect to the return of the natural resources. As a result of the conferences it has been definitely arranged that shortly after parliament prorogues a conference will be held first of all with representatives from Manitoba, later with representatives from Alberta or vice versa-I cannot say which will come first-and possibly also with representatives from British Columbia. It is understood by the provinces and ourselves that the conferences will be held after the prorogation of parliament, and I understand that arrangement is as satisfactory to the governments of the provinces as it is to our government.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Might I ask whether the return of their resources to Saskatchewan is not being considered?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said possibly Saskatchewan.


Mr. BENNETT:: The Prime Minister said British Columbia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I meant to say Saskatchewan. I am sorry.



SUPPLY-REPARATIONS CLAIMS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Saturday, May 19, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Ernst:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the refusal of the government to introduce legislation at the present session of parliament providing for the payment in full or in part of the various sums fixed by James Friel, Esquire, K.C., a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, as losses sustained by the civilian population of Canada during the great war."
["The Commissioner of Colonization is more particularly associated with the settling of immigrants after landing in Canada. He also has under his control the different agencies in the United States, but as his title implies he is more particularly connected with the settling of immigrants after they have landed in the country, in contradistinction to the' Commissioner of Immigration, who deals with them only in so far as their entry is concerned.\nProgress reported."]
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there is so little
difference between us with respect to some phases of this question that it is rather difficult to understand why the government has not taken the necessary action to liquidate the claims that have been made against this fund. The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) the other day referred to the fact that the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) was probably prepared and placed in his hands. That is not a matter of very great importance, but I should like him and the house to know that the resolution

was prepared by the hon. gentleman himself, and that with the exception of two or three words which were added in order that the resolution might afford the government an opportunity to pay part of the claims, if it so desired, it represented his views because he was vitally affected owing to the fact that of the 1,613 cases that were considered, some 752 came from Nova Scotia and of those 752 cases, 350 arose in the constituency represented by the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment. You will therefore understand why he is so vitally interested and why he prepared his resolution in the terms in which he did, looking towards the payment by the government of a portion of the claim or at least of those that were, we will say, not large in amount rather than embarrassing the government by pressing for the payment of them all.
The Secretary of State made a rather long statement with respect to the rights under the treaty of those who seek reimbursement out of the fund in the hands of the government. I do not propose to traverse that question. The matter is neither difficult not complicated. The treaty is very clear and plain, the moneys that were derived under the Dawes plan were available for certain purposes; those moneys have been received and they have been paid over. Why has the government kept back the money? Shortly put, that is all there is in the case.
Now let me go a step further. The hon. gentleman also referred to another matter, namely to the different considerations that prevail with respect to the settlement of the claims of the Massey-Harris Company and of the Thompson Steamship Company. Neither of those cases, as he very properly pointed out was similar in character to the cases we are now considering. They arise under another branch altogether of the treaty. The position may be summarized in this form. Germany admitted liability which was limited by the terms of the treaty of peace to injuries or damages sustained by the civil population. As I shall presently show, the government set up a tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining what those claims amount to and they have now considered judgments in their hands as to how those claims should be dealt with. Our contention is that it is their duty to pay over these moneys.
The Secretary of State dwelt at great length upon what he regarded as the legal position of the money and of the government with respect to it. He contended that the money paid under the Dawes plan by Germany- mark you, by Germany!-to this government

Reparations Claims-Mr. Bennett
to satisfy claims of the civil population, be-oause that- is what her obligation is, cannot by an action brought by individuals be taken away from the government. We will admit that at once. No subject may maintain an action against his sovereign, against the state itself unless he obtains a fiat granted as requested by a petition of right. In this instance we have what I shall presently show is a legal claim of every individual affected, but a claim not enforceable in law. Let me take the case referred to by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), namely, the Alabama claims because they bear a striking analogy to this particular case. England denied liability; the matter was referred to arbitration and in consequence of the arbitration a finding was made against England to the extent of some $15,000,000. That amount of $15,000,000 was paid by Great Britain to the United States of America and all individuals, shipowners and others, who were affected, were paid their proportion of the money that was paid by Great Britain to the United States after they had established their claim to the satisfaction of the United States.
There are other cases which are doubtless in the minds of many hon. members where governments have received large sums of money which were available for the purpose of satisfying claims of their nationals or citizens against that fund. It does not of course follow that the citizen can maintain an action to recover any part of that money, or to obtain a judgment against his country in satisfaction of his claim; but there is a claim there, a claim which may not be enforced in the courts of law but which, as I shall presently point out to the house, has been conclusively admitted by the high court of parliament and which waits but one thing, the placing in the estimates of sufficient sums to satisfy the claims of those who have justly established their right to those moneys that were paid to Canada by Germany for the purpose of satisfying the claims of the civil population.
Now if we bear in mind the fact that it has nothing whatever to do for the moment with the enemy property question, except to the extent to which if we did not have sufficient money we might by an act of this parliament make that money available to satisfy these claims, as they have done in the United States, it would seem to me that the difficulties mentioned by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) would entirely disappear. We have nothing to do for the moment with respect to enemy property, with the custody of alien enemy property; we are not concerned with injuries sustained by the nationals S5103-203
of this country to their property in Germany, nor with any injuries to ships that may have been held by Germany in the Kiel canal, nor with any damages that may have arisen by reason of Germany using them during the war. What we have to deal with are claims made by citizens of this country against Germany for injuries sustained by them as civilians-as civilians-during the war.
Now let us see what our position is, according to the admissions made by the government itself on grounds of high policy. We submit to this house that these moneys are in a sense earmarked for that purpose, that they are available to satisfy these claims, that they came into the hands of this government with a trust imposed upon them, and not as part of the general revenues of the Dominion government. In support of that position, you are not in any sense bound to accept my view, but I do submit that the view of the government, this government, the government of which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. .Lapointe) was then Minister of Justice, the government of which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was then the leader, the government of which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was then a member, is embodied in a statement made by the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, Minister of National Defence, on the 19th of June, 1925. That statement must be taken to be a statement of policy. It is a statement of a member of the government, and according to the well-known principles of cabinet solidarity, there is no question but that that principle enunciated by a responsible minister of the crown as to what the position of this government was in 1925. was accepted, as a matter of fact, by those concerned as being a binding declaration of policy by the government of the country. At page 4522 of Hansard, Mr. Macdonald said this:
I was not in when this resolution was called-
Then he proceeds.
The moneys which come from the Dawes commission, so called, are payable under the terms of the treaty of Versailles for certain definite purposes. They cannot be put into the treasury of the country and appropriated for other purposes than those for which they are paid. The compensation is paid in connection with the following list of cases:
Then follows the list of cases mentioned in the treaty, in what we call the annex, which is similar to a schedule of an act of parliament. There follows this list from the schedule of the treaty of the cases under which compensation will be paid when the money is received from Germany. The Right Hon. Mr. Meighen interrupted Mr. Macdonald at

3202	COMMONS
Reparations Claims-Mr. Bennett
page 4523 and asked him what his authority was for making that statement, whereupon Mr. Macdonald continued:
This is a memorandum from the Undersecretary of State, and it sets out the clause from the treaty of Versailles which provides the lines upon which compensation can be obtained from Germany and the amount of money that is payable to this country as a result of what is known as the Dawes report, on account of damages arising in these various categories.
That I submit is a correct statement of the situation, made by a minister of the crown, speaking, as all ministers do, the view of the government with respect to the matter then under consideration.


Ernest Lapointe: It did not impress the house at the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. The Minister of Justice is entirely in error as to that. The Hon. Mr. Copp, then Secretary of State, withdrew his resolution, but the resolution was withdrawn for reasons which I think any government would regard as good and sufficient. What was the resolution? The resolution was to pay without knowing what the judgments were, to pay before the commission had reported, and to pay without having before them anything of any definiteness at all. Let us look at what the resolution was. At page 4517 of Hansard, you will find that Mr. Copp's resolution was:
(1)	That the report of the commissioner appointed to inquire into and report upon the claims for reparation of Canadian nationals, upon approval by the governor in council, shall be deposited with the Secretary of State of Canada in his capacity as custodian of alien property.
That report had not been made; the commission had not finished its labours; the judgments had not been concluded; but this resolution was to anticipate all that and provide that when the judgments were made they should be lodged with the Secretary of State. Then paragraph (2) provided:
That from time to time, as sums are received-*
This is vital; this is a recognition of policy. This is a statement of high policy by the government of this country:
(2)	That from time to time, as sums are received on account of reparation under the Agreement of London between the allied and associated powers and Germany, bringing into force what is commonly known as the Dawes plan, the amount thereof shall be paid by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to the Secretary of State as custodian, until such time as the aggregate of such payments is equal to the total amount of the claims for reparation as determined by the report of the said commissioner and approved by the governor in counoil.
rMr. Bennett.]
If that is not a recognition of obligation and a promise to pay, I would like to know what would constitute a recognition of obligation and a promise to pay. That is so clear that there can be no getting away from it. Then follows the third submission:
(3)	That the Secretary of State shall, on receipt of such payments, from time to time distribute the same to persons found entitled to claims for reparation in the commissioner's report, by way of pro rata dividend.
And then he must lay before parliament his report. In other words, there was a recognition by this government of the fact that the moneys were received with a trust imposed upon them, that they were earmarked to meet certain obligations and liabilities, and that the commissioner was so highly thought of, having been selected by the government itself, that when he made his report, then without any appeal, without any effort at changing it being made, these sums would be paid on the strength of his judgments. That was the position on June 19, 1925, three years ago, within a few weeks. There was a promise made by the government of this country, speaking through two of its ministers, the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Defence, that these obligations would not only be recognized but paid.
But this House of Commons objected to making a promise to pay before judgments were delivered. Sir Henry Drayton objected that the matter was too serious to be considered in the closing days of the session. It is true the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen made observations with respect to payment of property claims before the payment of claims with respect to personal injuries, and other members did the same, but their basis of objection to this resolution was that it put into the hands of the government the power to pay out moneys before the judgments had been delivered, which was in itself a serious departure from principle. In other words, the contention was that the judgments must be delivered, the cases made out before the commissioner, and his report presented to parliament before parliament voted the money, and I shall presently show that upon the application of the very principles that were presented to this house by the opposition at that time, and accepted by the government, these moneys should now be paid.
Let us proceed. That was in 1925. The resolution was withdrawn, and it is a matter of passing interest to know that when the resolution was withdrawn by the Secretary of State he recognized the fact that it was properly withdrawn, for after Mr. Macdonald

Reparations Claims-Mr. Bennett
had made his statement, and after various speakers had presented their views, the resolution was withdrawn by the Secretary of State because, he said, the leader of the opposition and others in their righteous indignation had expressed their views in respect to it. So he clearly recognized that they were right in the contention they made. His words were:
I regret very much that my hon. friends, particularly the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) have risen in righteous indignation because this bit of legislation is brought down in the interest of those who have suffered during the war. If they had the full information that I have and knew the very large numbers of poor people, fishermen particularly, on the different coasts of this Dominion who have suffered-
Sir Henry Drayton: It is a pity the minister would not give us the information.
Mr. Copp: I asked that the resolution be allowed to go into committee, when I would give the information to hon. gentlemen opposite.
Those were the statements of the government, speaking through the Secretary of State, about the suffering that would be imposed upon poor people, particularly fishermen, by this resolution not being passed three years ago.
Now we come to the next year, 1926. There were questions asked in an endeavour to find out what were the facts, but for reasons, which need not be discussed here, nothing was done. But in 1927 the matter was again brought to the attention of this house. I find at page 2218 of Hansard of that year questions were asked by Mr. Stevens with respect to this matter and answered by Mr. Rinfret, in the course of which he reviewed the whole of the circumstances much as he did Saturday. Question 19 asked:
What is the intention of the government with regard to payment of the awards made by the reparations commissioner?
This is the answer:
The policy of the government will be decided when the reparations commissioner has completed his report.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The report is being considered now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; and he completed it some months ago. I shall show presently it is more than that. This session again questions were asked by Mr. Manion, and they will foe found at (pages 687 to 688 of Hansard of February 22. 1928. One or two of these questions and the answers thereto I should like the house to consider. This is question 15:
Has the reparations commissioner's report been printed?
5fi! 03-203i
The answer is:
It is in the hands of the printer.
That is on February 22, 1928. Then comes the next question:
16.	When will it be brought before the
house for consideration?
To which the answer is:
Under consideration.
Then question 17:
How much has Canada received to date on account of reparations?
This is the answer:

Then I desire to direct attention to question 9:
Have not Canadian claimants under other articles of the treaty of Versailles been already compensated ?
The answer is:
Yes.
To question 10:
If so, what were the total number of claims and the total amounts paid under and by virtue of such articles, and can any reason be given for such preferential treatment?
The following answer was given:
1,009 claims were filed of which S86 were paid amounting to $7,848,824.81. Special provisions were made in the treaty for the payment of claims under articles 296 and 297.
The final question relates to the distribution of the moneys. Now, Mr. Speaker, on February 22, the minister said the report was in the hands of the printer; this is now May 21-three months later. I am credibly informed the report has long since been printed and advance copies of it, in anticipation that it would be tabled, placed in the hands of the pres for release when the moment came. But further than that, sir, I have under my hand the letters written by the Under Secretary of State in February last and of the secretary to the commission presided over by Mr. Friel in which, in answer to questions by claimants as to when the claims would be paid, it is said that the report would be submitted to parliament in a few days. It was fully expected by the Under Secretary of State that it would be so submitted. The minister says the report was in the hands of the printer. I say to the Prime Minister and his cabinet: When a public inquiry has been instituted by the government by order in council under the authority of the governor general in council and the Inquiries Act, and a report is made thereon, that report belongs to this House of Commons, and not to the government. And what is more, Mr. Speaker, we propose to insist that
3204	COMMONS
Reparations Claims-Mr. Bennett
that report be brought down in. this house. The government may say: You are helpless in the matter; we have our majority behind us, and we will not give the report to you. Well, since the institution of British representative government supply is granted only when grievances are remedied. In- fact governments came into being under British parliamentary institutions for one reason, and one only, that there might be a body of men who would present to the sovereign the grievances of the people as expressed in the House of Commons in order that those grievances might be redressed.
Now, what has happened? I submit we have a condition which this house probably has never seen before. The government, by order in council, appointed a commissioner to investigate claims under a treaty, which treaty was a contract between, among other nations, Germany and Canada. The commissioner has made inquiry and has delivered his report. He is through, he has nothing more to do, he is functus officio. Now parliament is told by the government that it cannot have this report which the country is paying for. Surely the government realizes that that position cannot be maintained.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I thought I made it very plain on Saturday that there was no objection at all to tabling the report, except that the list of names with the amounts opposite might lead a number of persons to conclude that those amounts would be paid to them, when in fact they might not be. Under those circumstances we thought it would not be advisable to lay the report on the table.


An hon. MEMBER:: You promised to.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I say again there is nothing in the report that we do not wish the opposition to know of. We rather want the opposition to agree with us that it would be inadvisable to lay the report on the table under such circumstances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. Secretary of
State has made just one mistake in the use of words when he says there is no objection to the opposition having the report. I am not speaking for the opposition, I am speaking for the people of this country who are affected by this report. It is not a question of the opposition seeing the report. It is a question of the rights of this parliament to have before it a document which the people are paying for. It is a judgment delivered by the commissioner, and it should be laid
fMr. Bennett.]
on the table of this house and so be available for the people. What is more, the report was printed by the government for that purpose.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, for what purpose?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: So that a certain number of copies would be available for members of the cabinet privately to consider the report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman did not put that limitation in the answers he gave early in the session, three months ago. This is an afterthought. I can only say this, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the house, in view of the situation which has developed, must insist as a condition of supply being granted that we have the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend just for a moment? He said it was an afterthought on the part of the Secretary of State to say that the report had been printed privately for the consideration of the cabinet as a whole. I have in my hand a copy that was printed for the cabinet. It is marked " Confidential ", and it is headed " Memorandum for sub-committee of council " It is dated March 13, 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the report.
That is a memorandum. Of course, that is confidential. It is a memorandum from the minister to the cabinet. What has that got to do with the report? That is not even a preface to the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has everything to do with the report. Apart from the report this document is meaningless; and without this memorandum it would be difficult to' consider the report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is incomprehensible
that the Prime Minster would endeavour to impose on the house by making the statement that he has just made. The Prime Minister knew when he rose to interrupt me that that was not the report of the commissioner.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING. My hon. friend's remark was that what the Secretary of State said was an afterthought. I got up to correct my hon. friend in that regard, and to say that the Secretary of State was perfectly right when he said that the report was not brought down because the cabinet wished to have it considered confidentially in the first instance. I have in my hand the memorandum relating to the report, which is marked ''Confidential" as relating to this question.

Reparations Claims-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has as much to do with the report as a confidential memorandum with respect to naturalization. Ministers prepare confidential reports for council, in order that council may be apprised of that which they have to consider. When that statement was made to induce this house to think that the right hon. Prime Minister held in his hand the report, I say it was all wrong. He had before him a confidential memorandum, prepared probably by the Under Secretary of State, indicating to his minister, and through him to the cabinet, what should be done [DOT] with respect to the report on reparations.
Now let us get down to what is involved in this matter. Here is a report submitted by a commissioner appointed by this house- because the governor in council represents this house, it is the administrative side of government, when parliament is not in session. The cabinet of the country, I say, appoint a commissioner, who is paid to conduct a certain inquiry. That commissioner has submitted his report and, his duties having been performed, he has ceased to function. He has delivered several judgments and submitted a final report, and that report we want. That is all; we have a right to it. And, what is more, it has been promised from time to time. The question has been asked on various occasions by different members as to when the report would be delivered and the government have replied, " In a few days ". But those few days have become weeks and the weeks months, and nothing has yet been done in the matter. There is no necessity for such a delay, and I am sure that if my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) were on this side he would be most insistent that a document, prepared by a commissioner appointed to consider and report upon a matter of such great importance, and upon which the country has a right to know his conclusions, should be presented to parliament in order that it might be dealt with.
Mr. Friel, the commissioner, made his report. Now, it well may be that there are those who consider that these judgments should be reviewed, although no suggestion was made to that effect when the commissioner was appointed. The claims filed amounted to over $50,000,000 and, with interest, to over $75,000,000. In answer to what the Secretary of State has said with respect to the difficulties that might arise from people being led to believe that they would get a larger sum than they might afterwards receive, it is only neoessary to point out that the commission granted only $4,000,000 without interest, instead of $50,000,000 with interest, or a total including interest of less than $7,000,000-$7,000,000 as against $75,000,000. Obviously therefore he was not overgenerous.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Does my hon. friend take the stand that the report should be considered as final?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: The amendment moved by the hon.
member for Queens-Lunenburg reads as follows:
"This house regrets the refusal of the government to introduce legislation at the present session of parliament providing for the payment in full or in part of the various sums fixed by James Friel, Esquire, K.C., a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, as losses sustained by the civilian population of Canada during the great war."
In support of that amendment, if I understand him correctly the leader of the opposition advanced the following argument: First, there is no legal liability on the part of the government, or there is no legal claim on behalf of any citizen of Canada in connection with any of these claims.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said there was no enforceable claim.


Lucien Cannon: It is not enforceable because it is not legal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is like a petition
of right. You cannot sue the crown.


Lucien Cannon: I would not like to misquote my hon. friend. Does he contend that these people have any claim at all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. I read what
Mr. Macdonald said, that the receipt of this money imposed a trust upon the government to pay the claims, but inasmuch as no claim may be made against the crown it is not enforceable. That is the whole point.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Macdonald's statement covered altogether different grounds. If the leader of the opposition takes the position that there is a legal claim, his argument is quite different from that made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Calian) on Saturday afternoon, when he declared in the most positive manner that he admitted there was no legal claim. The contention of the leader of the opposition is 
altogether different from the argument brought forward in the British House of Commons by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Right Hon. Austen Chamberlain, who maintained that there was no legal claim in connection with these matters. The argument of the leader of the opposition is also different from and foreign to the stand taken by every one of the governments concerned with these claims, and I do not think my hon. friend seriously contends that any of these claimants have what we call a legal claim against the government in connection with these matters. The hon. gentleman went on to say that the moneys received under the Dawes plan were received by this government for one purpose, the purpose being to pay the civilian claims in connection with war losses; that in consequence these moneys, so to speak, were earmarked; that the government had only one thing to do, and that was to use those moneys for the purpose for which they were paid by Germany and to compensate these Canadians for the losses sustained.
Where does the hon. gentleman get his authority? After all, behind any assertion in this house, no matter how positive it may be, must lie some authority to support that assertion. Where is it? Where is the support for my hon. friend's assertion that this is a trust? Where does he find it? I am very much surprised when I hear that the hon. gentleman does not rely on outside sources, and says that the whole of his claim rests on the authority of Mr. Macdonald, who was Minister of National Defence for some time in the Liberal government.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is not article 232 sufficient authority? May I read it to you?


Ernest Lapointe: We all know that.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
permit me, I will discuss that in a minute.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is authority, without question.


Lucien Cannon: I am dealing with the
leader of the opposition, who says that his authority is Mr. Macdonald.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is his construction.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Macdonald may have made an assertion, but, without any hesitation whatever, I will take the same liberty with Mr. Macdonald as the leader of the opposition has taken with his former leader, Mr. Meighen; I disagree with him. I am not 'bound any more by what Mr. Macdonald

Reparations Claims-Mr. Cannon
might have said in 1925, than my hon. friend is restrained by wihat his then leader may have said in this house. This is not a matter that can be decided by an isolated statement made by Mr. Macdonald.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was a statement by the government.


Lucien Cannon: How can there be
ministerial solidarity, as far as a legal opinion is concerned?


Ernest Lapointe: On a question of law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a legal opinion, it is a construction.


Lucien Cannon: How can my hon. friend
talk about solidarity when it comes to an interpretation of texts? Solidarity exists im matters of policy, and the statement made by Mr. Macdonald was not a statement of policy; it was an interpretation of a text. That is a distinction which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition will appreciate and admit, I have no doubt.
My hon. friend's second argument is that we are trustees. When I ask where is the authority of the hon. gentleman to establish that trust, to make it a trust towards the people of Canada, my hon. friend has no other authority than the isolated statement of a former member of this government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And article 232 of the
treaty, and the annex.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is shifting
his ground.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Lucien Cannon: I do not blame him for
doing that for he is getting on firmer ground when he talks about the treaty.
In connection with this, I may say that my hon. friend from Queems-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), when he presented his case on Saturday afternoon, in my humble opinion made a much stronger claim and a much firmer argument than his leader did this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree with that.


Lucien Cannon: I admired the horn gentleman's speech. His reputation had preceded him to this house, and on Saturday afternoon he lived up to the very highest expectations that the friendliest member in this house could have for him.
The leader of the opposition opened his argument by saying that there was very little difference between the two parties on this important matter. When you carefully read the speech of the leader of the opposition
this afternoon, I think you will come to the conclusion that there is really very little difference. If his speech is summed up in the closing sentences, I do not think there is any reason for the amendment brought forward by one of his supporters in this house. If the question has been clarified to such an extent that there is very little difference between the two parties, I may say that on the one hand we owe it to the presentation of the member for Queens-Lunenburg, and on the other hand to the most remarkable speech on this question made by the Secretary of State. I will repeat, as the Secretary of State said on Saturday afternoon, that this is not a political matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is becoming one.


Lucien Cannon: It is simply a question
of law, and the parties in this house certainly should not make a political issue of it, and ask the members of the house to express their want of confidence in the government, because the government has not brought in legislation at this session to implement the reports made by Mr. Fri.el since the house met. As the leader of the opposition has just said, it would be only fair and just that the law officers of the crown look into the matter. How can the leader of the opposition conclude his remarks by saying that no policy on this subject should be adopted by the government until, and only until, the Minister of Justice has had time to examine into thie claims, and, on the other hand, support am amendment brought forward by one of the members on his side of the house? This amendment would mean the defeat of the government for not doing immediately what the leader of the opppsition has said should not be done now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what he said.


Lucien Cannon: That is what the leader
of the opposition said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he'did not.


Lucien Cannon: I listened to the leader
of the opposition very carefully, and he concluded his speech by saying that he did not expect the large claims to be paid, although awards were made by the commissioner, until and unless the Minister of Justice would1 have an opportunity to examine into these claims and decide whether or not payments should be made. What does the amendment say? The amendment says that this government should be condemned for not having brought in legislation in order to make those payments. Is there any logic in that?
3210	COMMONS
Reparations Claims-Mr. Cannon


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three months is long
enough.


Lucien Cannon: Is there any logic in the
attitude of the leader of the opposition?


An hon. MEMBER:: Absolutely.


Lucien Cannon: I am pleased to see that the hon. gentleman is so easily satisfied. But can the leader of the opposition on the one hand conclude his remarks by saying that the matter is of such importance that action should be delayed and on the other say that the house should vote non-confidence in the government because we have not immediately introduced legislation to do exactly what he says should not be done now? The leader of the opposition interjected a minute ago: "Is not three months enough?" Three months enough for the Minister of Justice during the session, because the report was made while the session was on, when the Minister of Justice has to examine into every piece of legislation and also to follow the debates in the house! The leader of the opposition thinks 'it would fee fair for the house to say that the Minister of Justice, notwithstanding all his pressing parliamentary work,, should have had the time, within the last three months, to examine into 1,600 different claims in order that legislation might be brought down immediately. This is the position. These are the facts.
I say, first, there is no legal claim, notwithstanding what the leader of the opposition may have stated. I share the opinion expressed by every other government concerned and by the Right Hon. Austen Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British government. Second, I say there is no trust and the moneys received under the Dawes plan are not, as the leader of the opposition has stated to the house, earmarked for a certain purpose.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Although my hon. friend says that there is no trust, does he also say that there is no duty &nd obligation on the government?


Lucien Cannon: I will come to that later In order to understand the treaty of Versailles, and in order to give to the different clauses of that treaty a proper interpretation the house must revert to the time when the treaty was made. What was the situation then? When news of the signing of the armistice was received, the idea prevailed in every allied and associated country in the world throughout the military and the civilian population, that Germany would be made to pay every cent of expenditure for war pur-

poses and every dollar of damage caused by the war. That was the feeling which prevailed in November, 1918. To my ears are present to-day the words pronounced by the leaders of France, England, Italy and all the other large countries which fought during the war; not only were full indemnities to be exacted from Germany, but even moral responsibilities were to be met and crimes under international laws were to be punished. Every man in the house recalls speeches delivered at that time by no less a personage than the Right Hon. Lloyd George, Prime Minister of England, who claimed that in Paris not only a permanent basis for peace was to be established but an example would be set for unborn generations and the executions of those responsible for the outbreak of the war would be decided upon and would be carried out. Those were the contentions which prevailed when the plenipotentiaries were making their way to Paris.
After the conference met, when the different delegates from the various countries had to face conditions as they were and had to be awakened from the dream which they had dreamed during the war; when they realized that on account of the conditions which prevailed throughout the world, a hurt inflicted on Germany or on Austria or on any other country in Europe, would react in a very harmful way against every other country, a new attitude was taken. The allies recognized that Germany could not pay everything and at the Peace conference and the other conferences which took place later the principle was laid down that Germany would be asked to pay, in recognition of her liability for the war, only a certain fixed amount. That amount which was to be paid was fixed at 132,000,000,000 gold marks. After further negotiations the method under which those payments were to be made was indicated in the Dawes plan and the moneys that Canada has received so far, amounting to 110,000,000, were paid by Germany under the Dawes plan. But every cent which Germany has paid, not only to Canada but to France and England, is in payment of all damages caused by the. war-


Mr. ERNST:: Oh, no.


Lucien Cannon: -and the basis for the payment or for the part payment has been the civilian losses sustained. That is a distinction that has to be drawn, that has to be borne in mind when we are discussing the matter. Germany at first was called upon to pay all damages caused by the war. Germany recognized her liability; but when the

Reparations Claims-Mr. Cannon
financial experts went into the situation in Germany they realized that Germany could not be called upon to pay such a huge amount, and they also realized and appreciated the fact that the total bankruptcy of Germany would react against every other country throughout the world. Although the liability of Germany for the losses sustained by war was asserted and acknowledged, she was called upon to pay only part of those losses and the part payment of those losses was established upon the basis of civilian losses, but the amounts to be paid were in part payment of all damages and not only of losses sustained by civilians themselves.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. member give his authority for that statement, which is somewhat sweeping.


Lucien Cannon: I am coming to that.


Mr. McGIBBON:: You will never reach it.


Lucien Cannon: We have first of all the
Versailles treaty in two sections, one acknowledging liability and the other mentioning civilian losses. This treaty was afterwards changed to a certain extent by further conferences, and as I said before, plans were established. But if the contention brought forward by the leader of the opposition were true, if we were trustees for the Canadian people, if we had received those moneys for one purpose and one purpose only, how is it that the British government, which received moneys under the same plan-


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is not
going to divert me from my argument. The British government received 22 per cent of the total moneys paid by Germany under the Dawes plan. The moneys which Canada received represent 4| per cent of that 22 per cent. Therefore, I have thus proved beyond peradventure, as my hon. friend would say, that the source of the payments is the same; secondly, that the process under which the payments are made is the same, and thirdly, that the object for which the payments are made is also the same, alike in England, alike in Canada. But what did the British government do? Would my hon. friend as the responsible leader of the Conservative party in this house, rise in his place and say for one moment that the British government has acknowledged a trust towards the British nation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Because they have settled all the claims.


Lucien Cannon: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: In anticipation of it.


Lucien Cannon: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Against the British
government


Mr CANNON:: "This government," Sir
Austen Chamberlain said, "is not collecting these moneys as trustees for claimants,"-notwithstanding what my hon friend may have said this afternoon-"but the moneys are paid as an act of grace" Will my hon friend as leader of the opposition, and as a lawyer of prominence in Canada, deny tht the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England could not have made that statement that the payments were made as an act of grace if my hon friend's legal argument this afternoon had any basis at all? Either the Chancellor
3212	COMMONS
Reparations Claims-Mr. Cannon
of the Exchequer was wrong, and nobody ever contended that he was, or my hon. friend was right, which I doubt very much
First, then, no legal claim. Second, no trust. Thirdly, I come to the main point touched on by the leader of the opposition-moral obligation. In dealing with this matter, Mr. Speaker, in order to understand the position which might have been taken by the several governments towards the civilian population in their respective countries, there is one great underlying principle which must not be lost sight of. War is the enemy of individual claims. When war is declared, it is the call of collective interest crushing individual privileges; that is war. War is a state of things where under the old Roman law the dictator used to call out the Roman legions by saying. Salus populi suprema lex." "The salvation of the nation is the supreme law." In war individuals vanish; their claims disappear; personalities have no existence; the law is beyond morality towards the individual; collectivity is supreme. My hon. friend says that this is pointed out in books-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I
said.


Lucien Cannon: -I know it is, but it is good to read those books when discussing these matters. That is the standing of the individual in face of the state when war prevails.
Moral obligations the government may have towards the individual; that may be so, and the Secretary of State has not denied that the government intended to look into the question and to acknowledge such moral obligations in cases where moral obligation might rightly, without prejudice to the general interests of the country, be acknowledged; but in matters of this kind the only claim that the individual may have, if it is a moral claim, is the weakest kind of claim possible because, as I said before, the sufferings of the individual are the necessary consequence of a state of war The civilian population of the devastated regions of France have a moral claim against Germany. Their houses were destroyed, their families separated, their children killed. But the moral claims of those people against Germany were not recognized-


William Gordon Ernst: Oh yes, they were.


Lucien Cannon: -and France herself had to spend millions to rebuild those sections.


William Gordon Ernst: She is getting it back.


Lucien Cannon: In connection with this
discussion, Mr. Speaker, I think it will do us all good to contemplate the dire consequences of the late war.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: I do not know what the
hon. gentleman is laughing at. This is no laughing matter. Millions went to war. We all knew that war was a terrible thing; history had taught us so. When peace was declared and the nations went back to their everyday work, humanity discovered that not only was . war a terrible thing, it was a useless thing. Germany vanquished is in a better position to-day than victorious France, notwithstanding the moral claims that the millions of Frenchmen who died on the battlefield or the hundreds of thousands of French soldiers who were maimed have against Germany. We have received from Germany ten million dollars. As the hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out, some of the claims are small, claims probably that should be met. But these claims under $5,000 number over 1,400. Speaking for myself, I think the government should take a very favourable attitude towards these small claims. But why should we as a government, why should we as a nation, when we have to bear the tremendous burden of a national debt of 2,000 million dollars entertain the claims of large corporations? When the Canadian people as a whole have such a tremendous moral claim, is this house going to say that the government is derelict in its duty towards the public weal by not bringing in legislation in order to satisfy the large claims which were made before the commissioner? Two kinds of claims have been filed, small and large. As a minister of the crown,
I may say that I have not been bothered by any of the small claimants. They have faith in the sense of justice of this country, I have no doubt. But I have been worried by the large claimants, and I have no sympathy for any of them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to sum up. The commissioner's report was put in the hands of the Secretary of State while this session was in progress. A matter of policy of the gravest moment must be decided by the government. Is this house going to say that we should decide it right away in the last weeks of the session? Or are we to be given an opportunity of examining into these claims which, as the leader of the opposition said, it is fair and just that we should be.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. minister permit a question? Had the government gone into supply five weeks ago this matter could have been taken up. The report was in the hands of the government at that time.

Reparations Claims-Mr. Duff


Lucien Cannon: That is a matter of detail rather than principle.


William Gordon Ernst: But it would not have been in the last weeks of the session.


Lucien Cannon: This, as I have said, is
a matter of policy of the gravest moment, because the government will have to decide whether there should be a priority of claim recognized. Should the nation have priority over the individual, notwithstanding how favourably his case may be considered? And is the house ready, without having that report before it, without having the information, without having the detail-not of the judgment, as the leader of the opposition has stated erroneously, but of the awards-is the house willing to decide now on that priority that the country should stand second to the individual in the payment of war claims.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the house ready for
the question?


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to
delay the house, but I want to make my position clear before you put the question. This being a motion of want of confidence, and I being a Liberal, I am going to vote for the government. But I say that in my humble opinion these claims should be paid at the earliest possible moment. The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) said that since he became a member of the government he has heard only from the large claimants. I want t,o say, sir, that during the last six years I have knocked at the door of the government, both by letters and personally, in an endeavour to have these claims paid even earlier than at the present time, but in vain.


Mr. CLARK:: You have opened the door
now.


William Duff: I hope they will pay them.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Desaul-niers). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KAISER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavigueur). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for East. Essex (Mr. Odette). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. THOMPSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PECK:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Morin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
[Mr Duff.]


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Benoit). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HODGINS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Bowman). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. COWAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Allan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. TUMMON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Langlois). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BLATOHFORD:: I was paired with
the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. FAFARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mc-Quarrie). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BOCK:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Peter John Veniot: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
M>r. CAYLEY: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Otto Baird Price: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SIMPSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Sup-ply-Post Office


Mr. GOODISON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, Out. (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PRESTON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Post Office-salaries, including amount required to pay allowance to office appliance operators, grade 2, operating Hollerith card punching machines in accordance with provisions of order in council P.C. 156/2521, dated 24th December, 1923-$1,345,379.
Mr GARDINER:: Before we proceed
further I wonder if the Postmaster General would move down towards the centre of the chamber in order that we might hear him better.


Peter John Veniot: I can assure my hon. friend that I will speak loud enough so that he will hear me. I prefer to retain my seat.
I might explain to .the committee that this amount shows an increase of $40 230, of which $18,450 is due to statutory increases approved by the Civil Service Commission and the balance to staff requirements due to growth of service and new postal developments. In the reorganization and carrying on of the inside service there have been increases amounting to $132,330 gross and decreases amounting to $92,100, making a net increase during the year of $40,230. I have all the details here; for instance, the increase of $40,230 in salaries is made up as follows: 281 statutory increases, totalling $18,450; 28 increases at $120, 250 increases at $60 and 3 increases at $30. There have been 19 new appointments to the inside service during the year amounting to $19,920 in salaries. These appointments include one map draftsman, one clerk grade 4, one clerk grade 3, 7 clerks grade 2, 2 stenographers grade 2, 3 typists grade 1, one truckman and one office boy. To provide for increases to employees now in one of the grade 3 classes who were formerly in one of the senior grades, whose cases are under review by the Civil Service Commission, $9 360; to provide for staff requirements due to growth of service and new postal developments, $3,360, making a total of $51,090. The decrease in the difference between the salaries of employees promoted or who have left the service and the salaries of those who replace them, amounts to $10,860, leaving a net increase of $40,230.
Mr.	EDWARDS	(Frontenac):	I would
like a little information from the minister. He has indicated some causes for the increase in the vote, and I presume one of the causes is the additional appointments which have been made.


Peter John Veniot: Yes; there were nineteen
additional appointments.
Mr.	EDWARDS	(Frontenac):	Then I
would ask my hon. friend if these 19 additional appointments were made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: Each of these 19 appointments to the inside service was made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, or at least by the Civil Service Commission, which issued the certificates.
Mr.	EDWARDS	(Frontenac):	Will the
same answer apply in the case of promotions?


Peter John Veniot: I might explain that under the rules governing promotions	within the
inside service, these are made by the merit system through a rating board, whose report is submitted to the Civil Service Commission for final decision.


Mr. GARDINER:: Who appoints the rating board? Is it within the service?


Peter John Veniot: That depends on the position that is being considered. Generally the rating board is appointed from the immediate superiors in the class where the promotion is to be made.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Then I
would refer to a certain position here in Ottawa, to which attention was called in the columns of a local paper a short time ago. I refer to a man named Hall, who I understand has worked in the Ottawa post office for some twenty years. The minister will correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the case. This man was found to be perfectly efficient in the position which he occupied, and because of his efficiency and length of service he was entitled to promotion. The Civil Service Commission asked for applications for this position, and in their advertisement they restricted the applicants to members of the permanent service. Mr. Hall, who had been filling the position for about eighteen months, was the logical man to be appointed; he was recommended for
Supply-Post Office

appointment and the Civil Service Commission announced his appointment on March 31 of this year. Then I understand that the Civil Service Commission were instructed through the minister to issue another advertisement in which the wording was changed, apparently with the view of shutting out Mr. Hall, who had been fulfilling the duties of this office, and enabling another person, favoured by the minister, to get the appointment.


Peter John Veniot: I wish the hon. gentleman
would not use a term like "favoured".


John Wesley Edwards: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot withdraw the word. I should like to do so if I could do it conscientiously, but having had .some experience with the minister in my own county, and his activities there, I am afraid I am unable at the present moment to withdraw it. If the minister can convince me by any reasonable argument to withdraw that or any other expression which may reflect upon his merits, I shall be happy to do so. I am most anxious to give him all possible credit in the administration of his department, for I think he stands in need of the most generous consideration that can possibly be given to him. I will be the first to accord him that generous consideration when, as I hope he will be able to do, he proves himself in any degree worthy of it. At present I cannot accord it to him, and I will give him my reasons a little later. I cannot, therefore, withdraw anything I have sa-idl
There were two advertisements issued. On the strength of the first this man Hall, who had been officially conducting this branch, was recommended by the commission, and his appointment was announced on March 31. That was later changed because, as I say, another advertisement was sent out which practically eliminated him. For the time being I will accede the floor to the minister and see what he has to say up to date.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
thank the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) for having brought this question before the committee. On May 8 there appeared in an Ottawa newspaper an article, under the caption of "The Activities of Mr. Veniot", from which he has been quoting.
First of all, I want it to be distinctly understood that I intend to have efficiency in the Post Office department in all sections of Canada. When I find it is necessary to have people who can speak both languages, I am going to see that those people are appointed, irrespective of the comments or
I Mr. J. W. Edwards..]
criticism of my hon. friend. That applies to all sections of Canada. I will give you an instance right in the city of Montreal, which is essentially French. In certain branches it is necessary that English also should be known, and applications received from those who can speak only the French language have been refused. Why? Because efficiency is necessary.
Let me explain that this case here in Ottawa was purely a matter of departmental administration. When the vacancy in question occurred the officials of my department, who are not French-the deputy minister is, but he is guided by the superintendents of the branches-advised that it was necessary that a person of bilingual qualifications be appointed to this position. That report was made to me, and I accepted it. I then instructed that an advertisement should be issued calling for the promotion of persons of bilingual attainments. In some unaccountable way the advertisement did not call for what had been ordered. When this was discovered the Civil Service Commission were notified that they should call for bilingual qualifications, and they did so. The matter is now before the Civil Service Commission for its decision.
The position became vacant through Mr. Cherry's promotion from the registration department to a promotion formerly held by Mr. Larue, a bilingual official who was in charge of the letter carriers. Mr. Cherry's promotion was made, notwithstanding the fact that a bilingual employee had been Mr. Larue's assistant during a long period of years. I raised no objection to that, because it was thought necessary that it should be done at the time. When it came to the point where it was necessary to have a bilingual appointee replace the gentleman who had received the promotion over the head of a bilingual man, on the recommendations made by my officials, I issued the order. These are the facts just as they will be submitted to the house when all the documents that have been asked for are laid on the table.
The newspaper that brought this question up makes the following statement:
Mr. Veniot, judging from some of his past utterances, looks pretty much as though he were more concerned with patronage and with matters of race and language than with the efficiency of his department.
This newspaper is printed here in Ottawa, and has the opportunity of ascertaining whether or not the present Postmaster General is efficiently operating his department. It is singular that a newspaper

Supply-Post Office
situated as the Ottawa Journal is, with every opportunity of ascertaining whether the present Postmaster General is capably and efficiently administering his department, is so unfair in its criticism that it has not, during the time I have been at the head of the department, attempted to find out how the business of that department was carried on.
Other newspapers have attempted to do so, and I hold in my hand an article which I am sure the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington will accept as being true and genuine, an editorial from the Montreal Star.


John Wesley Edwards: May I
interrupt just for a moment and tell the Postmaster General that at the present moment I do not feel inclined to accept the statement of any paper published in the Dominion of Canada? Or if I do so, it will be with reservations.
Mr. VENiIOT:	I see it would be useless
on my part to try to convince the hon. gentleman.


John Wesley Edwards: You cannot
do it with newspapers. I have not said all I intend to say.


Peter John Veniot: Neither have I, and you
will find it out before I get through with the estimates.


John Wesley Edwards: Lay on,
Macduff.


Peter John Veniot: I am not reading this article from the Montreal Star for the purpose of praising myself, but when I find an outstanding newspaper like the Montreal Star, in an editorial article entitled "Our Postal Service", saying the things it does, I think this house should be made aware of it. I quote:
Mr. Veniot, the present Postmaster General, came into office with a reputation for executive ability and the record of a hard worker. He has plunged into the multifarious phases of his official duties with determination, working long hours to acquaint himself with every activity of his department. While he has been handicapped, like his predecessors, by political traditions that are a heritage in his department, he has shown initiative and a capacity for organization. Much remains yet to be done, for there are many barnacles to be cut away before a certificate of first class efficiency can be given to the post office. Yet Mr. Veniot has made a commendable start and the postal service is already reacting to his example and encouragement.
I am surprised that the Ottawa Journal has written and published such a scurrilous article in an attempt to raise racial prejudice in the community. The publication of this article reminds me-and this is the first opportunity I have had to deal with it in it.
public-of another article published by the same newspaper in connection with myself.
I refer to a report that it published, and that it implemented by an editorial, of a speech which I delivered in Montreal and in which I referred to the present leader of the opposition. There was absolutely no foundation for the report or the editorial. I took the matter up with the Ottawa Journal; I took the French report word for word of the speech that I delivered in French at that banquet;
I called the attention of the Ottawa Journal to its unfair treatment of the case, and I offered to give them the newspaper that contained the verbatim report. They sent for it; they promised to publish it in order to correct what they had done before, but from that day to this-and it is nearly a year-they have not published one word. Therefore I cannot and do not expect any fair treatment at the hands of a newspaper of that stamp.


John Wesley Edwards: I have personal reasons for agreeing in part with what the Postmaster General has said regarding the Ottawa Journal. I am not going so far as to agree with him in his accusation that the Ottawa Journal was endeavouring, in reference to this matter, to raise racial cries. In fact I will say that when the question is one of trying to put race against race in this country, the record of the Postmaster General, since he became a cabinet minister, occupies a very prominent place in such records. Mr. Hall, to whom I have referred, worked in the Post Office department for approximately twenty years and for ten years of that time he was in charge of the registered mail division as assistant clerk.


Peter John Veniot: He was not in charge as
assistant clerk. He was an assistant clerk.


John Wesley Edwards: He was
assistant clerk in charge of the registered mail division. Does that wording satisfy the minister?


Peter John Veniot: No, it does not.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, I will say that Mr. Hall was for ten years assistant clerk in charge of the registered mail division.


Peter John Veniot: No, he was not.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, he was assistant clerk in the registered mail division. Will that do?


Peter John Veniot: Now the hon. member has

Supply-Post Office


John Wesley Edwards: Am I correct in saying this, that he was acting as clerk in charge of the registered mail division for some sixteen or eighteen months?


Peter John Veniot: If he was doing that he
never had the sanction of his superiors for it.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, he
was acting with or without the sanction of his superiors. It does not reflect to the credit of the department if he dominated the department and acted without their sanction. The minister can get all the comfort out of that he likes, but I cannot see much credit in it for him.
On December 28, 1926, the Civil Service Commission called for applications to fill a vacancy for clerk in charge of the registered mail division. Mr. Hall, who had been serving for some time, forwarded his application in December, 1926, and the Civil Service Commission announced his appointment in March, 1928. He was gazetted and his name published in the Ottawa Citizen, I believe, a certificate of promotion being duly signed and issued to him by the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Hall's certificate was forwarded to the Post Office Department by the Civil Service Commission and it was rejected by the Postmaster General on the ground that the position should be filled by a bilingual employee. This man had been acting apparently efficiently in that position for a matter of some sixteen months, so I take that as very strong ground for the attitude assumed by the Ottawa Journal in supporting the-claim of this man to the position to which he was appointed by the commission. In addition to that, after the Civil Service Commission sent forward his appointment to the Post Office Department and it was rejected by the Postmaster General on the ground which I have stated and in which he concurs, the commission sent an investigator to ascertain whether or not the position which had been filled efficiently by Mr Hall for some eighteen months really required a man who could speak both languages. The minister, I venture to say, will not claim that while Mr. Hall was acting in this capacity, his services were not satisfactory. Mr. Hall had been in the position for a year and a half, which was long enough for anyone to ascertain whether or not he could fill the position efficiently. The Civil Service Commission had doubtless taken that into consideration, because they appointed a man to investigate the matter and he reported that the position did not require a bilinguist.

Mr. ST.-PERE:	Why would the position
not require a bil'inguist when there are 40,000 French-speaking people in Ottawa?


John Wesley Edwards: My hon.
friend can have his own opinion on that. I have none to offer. I am offering what the Civil Service Commission thought, the reason why they came to the conclusion they did, as backing up the fact that their conclusion was right, namely, that the man had filled the position satisfactorily for a year and a half and that after the Civil Service Commission had sent a man to investigate whether or not the position really required a man who possessed both languages, he reported that the position did not require a man with those attainments.


Peter John Veniot: No.


John Wesley Edwards: My information is that the Civil Service Commission investigated whether the position required a bilinguist and the report was that a bilinguist was unnecessary. If that was the only case where the civil service commission has been overridden by the Postmaster General, I would not take up the editorial in the Ottawa Journal, but it is not the only case, not by any means. The Postmaster General in my own constituency has absolutely disregarded the law of the land and the regulations which should govern his as well as others, has disregarded the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission and made his own appointment over and above the recommendation of the commission. Does my hon. friend deny that?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: Well then, I will refer my hon. friend to the case of Enterprise-


Peter John Veniot: I want my hon. friend-


John Wesley Edwards: You sit
down.


Peter John Veniot: I gave my hon. friend the
privilege of asking a question, and I want my hon. friend to state his case clearly. He said that I had refused the certificate of the Civil Service Commission and made my own appointment. I want him to stick to that, and then we will know where we are.


John Wesley Edwards: I said that the hon. minister had disregarded the law and the regulations in regard to making appointments. That is what I said, and I repeat it. Now I will state the case. I state the case of Enterprise post office in my own constituency, where applications were invited for

Supply-Post Office
the position of postmaster to be received up to January 29, 1927. There were seven applications for the office of postmaster in that village, and I believe that every one of the seven was competent. Only one applicant of the seven was a returned soldier. His name was Cooper. The inspector reported on February 22 in regard to these several applicants, and in regard to Cooper-


Peter John Veniot: What year, please?


John Wesley Edwards: February 22, 1928. Here is the question which was put to the inspector in regard to Cooper:
Do you consider this candidate sufficiently qualified as to education, experience, personality. character and integrity to meet the needs of the office in question?
I grant at once that a returned soldier, who, under the act, is supposed to have the preference-that is what the act says; not that he may, but that he shall-must possess the necessary qualifications, and the answer of the inspector in regard to Cooper was that from the standpoint of education, experience, personality, character and- integrity Mr. Cooper, the only returned soldier applying for the position, was qualified to fill the position of postmaster at Enterprise. I may say that Cooper has served for two and a half years in France, and was gassed over there. He came well recommended. His application was backed up by a petition signed by 229 of the residents of that district who knew him and his qualifications very well. He provided a site which was perfectly satisfactory in the opinion of the inspector, and which was somewhat nearer the station, and consequently there would be a tendency to reduce to some slight extent the cost of transferring the mail to that office. The Civil Service Commission, acting on the inspector's report, notified Cooper of his appointment to the position of postmaster at Enterprise. They also notified the other six applicants that Cooper was the one who had been selected. On the strength of that, Cooper went ahead and got a carpenter to make certain changes and fix up the building which he was going to use for the post office. He went to some expense in that regard. He also disposed of the tools of his trade-he was a tinsmith by trade-and was awaiting word to take over the office.
Now in justification of my statement a moment ago that the Postmaster General disregarded not only the Civil Service Commission but the law, I say that notwithstanding all these facts, the Postmaster General threw to one side the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, disregarded the law giving the preference to a returned soldier who was qualified, and insisted that another man 56103-2041
be appointed to the position. The Civil Service Act, referring to those who served in the war, says, in section 29, I think it is, that they shall receive the preference irrespective of the marks obtained. The Postmaster General in this matter, in the correspondence which passed between him and others, referred to Cooper as a man in debt. That was evidently one of the reasons which influenced the Postmaster General to turn down Cooper. Cooper's debt amounted to about $200. I would like to ask the Postmaster General if he thought that that was sufficient reason, or that that of itself was one good reason why he should turn down the application of Cooper- because he owed some money. That is the position which the Postmaster General took, and that is one of the reasons he gave as the final say for rejecting Cooper's application.
But the minister says, oh this position was vacant before on one occasion right after the war, in 1920. Cooper was an applicant then but was not accepted at that time. The position was given to a man by the name of Fenwick. That I know is what the minister has in his mind, or part of what he has in his mind. So in that connection I should like to quote to him from a statement of the Civil Service Commission on that particular point. They say:
In this connection it might be pointed out that the material under consideration at the time of Mr. Fenwick's selection-
That would be in 1920, I think:
[DOT]-was entirely of a different nature to that in the present competition. The circumstances surrounding Mr. Cooper's candidature in 1920 were also different inasmuch as he had no place to keep the post office at that time, and was competing against an applicant who lost a son overseas.


Peter John Veniot: That did not give him any preference.


John Wesley Edwards: This son had won the D.C.M. and prior to enlistment was his father's chief help on the farm. The father, as a consequence, and on account of poor health being unable to get along without his son, was obliged to sell his farm and move to the village.
Those were the circumstances in 1920. The commission continue:
In the present instance, Mr. Cooper offers a suitable accommodation and location for the post office, and is certified by the inspector as being qualified in all respects. The examining branch, therefore, has no alternative but to recommend his appointment.
That is dated March 23, 1927. In 1920 when Cooper applied for the position, Mr. Fenwick, who had lost a son in the war and was obliged to abandon his farm on that account, applied for the position of postmaster, and
Supply-Post Office

the sympathy of the community went out to Mr. Fenwick. Because of that fact, and of the further fact that Cooper at that time had no place for the post office, a decision was given in favour of Mr. Fenwick. Now the Postmaster Generali seeks to excuse his action by referring to the report of the Civil Service Commission in 1920 as indicating Cooper's lack of qualifications for the position. It does not indioate anything of the kind. The inspector certified that Cooper had the qualifications. The Postmaster General may say that he is not a very good writer. Well, I had a note from the Postmaster General the other day, and a letter from Cooper some time ago, and having taught school for some years, and therefore being somewhat of a judge of handwriting, I would give Cooper more marks than I would the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: What would you do about your own handwriting?


John Wesley Edwards: Well, I can write better than you; you may bet your life on that. But the Postmaster General gave another reason for turning against Cooper. He said:	Oh, this man Cooper is
in debt. Now, I ask him if he really thinks he should have put that in? Does the Postmaster General really think that because this returned soldier owed a couple of hundred dollars, this should be advanced as one reason why he should not have the position? Will he answer yes or no?


Peter John Veniot: You will get your answer at the right time.


John Wesley Edwards: All right, I shall wait for the answer with interest. I refer to that now as one of the reasons advanced by the Postmaster Generali why this man, who had served his country in the war, the only one of the seven applicants-


Peter John Veniot: Does the hon. gentleman
state there were seven applicants?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, and I vill give you their names. They were: P. J. Murphy, W. S. Fenwick, 0. B. Jackson, Geo.
Cooper, Miss Wiseman, W. P. Covert and Mrs. Lockwood.


Peter John Veniot: Where did you get the information?


John Wesley Edwards: From your own department. That ought to be good enough.


Peter John Veniot: No.
I.Mr. J. W. Edwards. I


John Wesley Edwards: Yes. If you will look over your files you will see that is correct. Apparently the minister wanted to see only one name in this connection. He had made up his mind that he was going to have efficiency, according to his ideas. Efficiency was the only thing that counted with him. He declared: I am determined, though the heavens fall-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: I am determined, says the Postmaster General; no matter what happens, law or no law, Civil Service Commission or no Civil Service Commission, I will have my way in running this department; I will dismiss postmasters by the hundred for the efficiency of the service, because Liberal members of parliament say it will be more efficient to put out a man who voted on the Conservative side and give the position to one who voted Grit. That is his estimate of what constitutes efficiency. He estimates efficiency in the public service by the way a man votes at elections. He may be the biggest numskull on earth, but if he votes Grit, then according to the standard of the Postmaster General he is efficient. Now, I should like to get an answer to that question.


Peter John Veniot: You will get it after you are through.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, it is said the pleasures of anticipation are greater than those of realization. I do not subscribe to that theory. However, we will have to wait. I have another case, but I will leave it in cold storage for a little while.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, come on.


John Wesley Edwards: I know the hon. gentleman-


Charles Avery Dunning: You are not going to let him answer before six.


John Wesley Edwards: I think it is better to keep everything in chronological order. The other is the Odessa case. Probably the minister will remeber Odessa. I wrote a letter about it.


Peter John Veniot: I remember it quite well. That is where you certainly did all you could to support the returned soldier.


John Wesley Edwards: We shall see when we come to it. Apparently the hon. gentleman has made up his mind, but we will

Supply-Post Office
see if we cannot change it. It is a pretty difficult thing to do. Now I come 'back to this Enterprise case. Don't forget, Mr. Postmaster General-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: -you can answer me in any order you wish, but don't forget that I asked you if you thought you were playing the game square by putting up the excuse against this man Cooper that he was slightly in debt.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say slightly.


John Wesley Edwards: You said he was in debt. If you have the information as to the amount of the debt perhaps you will give it.


Peter John Veniot: Even if I had I would not give it to the hon. member.


John Wesley Edwards: Did I understand my hon. friend to say he would not give it to me?
Some hon. MEMBEiRS: Sit down.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
believe my hon, friend has the information as to the amount.


Peter John Veniot: You may be quite correct,-


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, and in other things too.


Peter John Veniot: -and you may not.


John Wesley Edwards: I hope my
hon. friend does not go so far as to say that ho will not give an answer to my question whether or not it was proper for him to mention the fact against Cooper that he was in debt as one reason why he should not have the position. The Postmaster General will not deny that he made use of that argument. Now I ask him if he thinks that is just square.


Peter John Veniot: Go on till six.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Wesley Edwards: Go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Chairman, the item is
not going to carry yet awhile; we have a few other questions we wish to ask the minister. As a matter of fact I think he should answer the question that has just been put to him. Possibly he thinks five minutes to six does not give him sufficient time.


Peter John Veniot: It is four minutes to six.
Had the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) stopped at ten minutes to six he would have given me an opportunity.


Robert James Manion: Call it six o'clock?


Peter John Veniot: I should like to have it
called six o'clock, but I wish to assure my hon. friend I do not need that time to collect my thoughts and reply to him. I have the goods right here.


John Wesley Edwards: If the Postmaster General is not prepared to go on presumably he wants further time to consider this matter.


Peter John Veniot: No.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the Postmaster General can sidestep as much as he likes, but there is no doubt he wants a little time to look over things and prepare himself before he speaks.


Peter John Veniot: If the house will give unanimous consent to sit until five minutes after six, I will handle the hon. gentleman. I have called your bluff.


John Wesley Edwards: I am rather surprised-


Peter John Veniot: You are.


John Wesley Edwards: I am rather surprised-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: Wait a moment. I am rather surprised at the Postmaster General's tactics. It is not in my power to change the rules, but so far as I am personally concerned I am ready to sit here until eight o'clock to give an opportunity to answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Peter John Veniot: Call it six o'clock.


John Wesley Edwards: No.	I
thought the hon. gentleman was going to proceed. I intimated that so far as I am concerned he could go ahead. I am ready to sit here until five minutes after six or five minutes after seven.


Peter John Veniot: Call it six o'clock.


John Wesley Edwards: No, we are
not going to close until six o'clock.


Peter John Veniot: Go ahead.


John Wesley Edwards: The other
day in the house when another matter was under consideration I referred to the fact that
Supply-Post Office

the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) had given the preference, in the case of an appointment, not to a returned Canadian soldier but to a returned British soldier. The hon. gentleman passed a note across the floor to me asking to what office I referred when I made that statement. I wrote on the bottom of his note, which I passed back, the word "Odessa". The matter that was being discussed then was preference to soldiers. The man who was appointed postmaster of Odessa is, I believe, well qualified for his position; there were several others well qualified also. But the fact is that this man who was appointed to the post office there did not become a resident of Canada until after the war. He came here from the old country after the war, having served in the British army, though not at the front. However, he performed in the British army such service as they thought him best qualified to discharge. Under our interpretation of the law-and I have no fault to find with it personally-he ranks as a returned soldier. There were however returned soldiers, Canadian-born, among the applicants.


An hon. MEMBER:: Six o'clock.


John Wesley Edwards: Not quite; it lacks about a quarter of a minute. Now, while I would draw no hard and fast line between returned soldiers born and brought up in England and returned soldiers born and brought up in Canada, at the same time, other things being equal, I am free to say that I should be disposed to give the preference to a Canadian soldier who was born and raised in this country. I shall be glad to receive the information I asked for when the minister has had time to prepare it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering vote No. 20 on page 9 of the estimates.


Peter John Veniot: When the committee rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington had been discussing the question of the appointment of a postmaster at Enterprise. He and I had previously discussed the Ottawa promotion, and I think perhaps sufficient has been said in that connection unless further information is required by the committee, which I shall be glad to give.
In connection with the postmaster at Enterprise let me point out that the hon. mem-

ber for Frontenac-Addington got a little ahead of the blows which he expected to deliver in connection with that appointment in 1921. This office became vacant in that year through the resignation or death of the postmaster, at the moment I forget which. Three applications were received for the appointment. I interrupted the hon. member this afternoon and asked him if he were not mistaken as to the number of applicants, thinking he was referring to the appointment in 1921. He was right when he said there were six or seven applicants for the position in 1927. In 1921 the report of the inspector touching upon these three men, of which I have both a copy and the original, was as follows:
Cooper has no place to keep the office, and no means to purchase a building, but his foster father states he will buy one for him. Fenwick on the other hand, owns the premises where the office now is, which is well adapted for the purpose, so no change in site would be necessary if he were appointed.
Both are highly spoken of and there does not appear to be anything against the character of either, but I am bound to say that Fenwick is much the better appearing man of the two, and more fitted for the position. In fact, were it not that Cooper had been overseas, he should not be considered, because he lacks the attributes which the former possesses.
That was the report submitted by the qualifying inspector sent to rate the different applicants. Later on this office became vacant again through the death of Mir. Fenwick, who received the appointment in 1921 through a certificate issued by the Civil Service Commission. That was a case of a civilian being appointed as against a returned soldier, but I have yet to learn that the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, who to-day stands up as the champion of returned soldiers and who at that time was a member of the government, if I am not mistaken, never raised his voice on behalf of Cooper. In fact, I know he did not.


John Wesley Edwards: When was
that?


Peter John Veniot: That was in 1921, when my hon. friend was a member of the government.


John Wesley Edwards: What time
in 1921?


Peter John Veniot: I have not the exact date.
I see I was mistaken; it was in 1920 that the vacancy occurred through the resignation of Mr. Wagar. My hon. friend may not have been a member of the government, but he was a leading member of his party at that time. I do not know that he ever raised his voice on behalf of that returned soldier, and he never had anything to say about it until Mr. Fenwick died in 1926. I was then in

Supply-Post Office
charge of the Post Office department and applications were asked for, six or seven being received. Among the applicants was this returned soldier, George A. Cooper, the only returned soldier who applied. The inspector who acted in 1920 was again called upon to qualify these applicants for the position, and his report reads as follows:
George A. Cooper is a returned soldier, and on this account has a lot of sympathy from many residents. He does not appear to be very bright and states he is barely able to make a living at his work. He is a tinsmith and does odd plumbing jobs. His education is lacking. ... It was also ascertained that he was in debt. Mr. Cooper was an unsuccessful applicant for this position six years ago.
When this report was placed before me I went back over the record of Mr. Cooper, and I felt that if he were lacking in education, as is stated in both reports, and in the attributes necessary for such a position as the first report states-


John Wesley Edwards: That is not what the report said.


Peter John Veniot: It stated he lacked the
attributes possessed by the other gentleman.


John Wesley Edwards: That is very different.


Mr. YENIOT:: The other gentleman possessed the attributes which qualified him for the position, and if Mr. Cooper did not possess the attributes which the other gentleman had certainly he did not possess the attributes necessary for the position. That is a roundabout way of saying it, but that is the fact.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon.
friend's logic is very bad.


Peter John Veniot: It is bad for my hon. friend; no logic presented from this side of the house can rind favour with him. We know that, so we do not try to impress our logic upon him. May I further add that in addition the inspector reported that if this man had not been a returned soldier he would not have been in the running at all, and this official, working under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, whose duty it was to state all the facts in his possession, further said that this man was in debt. Under those circumstances I felt it my duty to refuse the certificate from the Civil Service Commission, and I did so.


Peter McGibbon: Might I ask a question? Did the man who made that report serve in the war?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know; I cannot tell my hon. friend that.


Mr. CAHILL:: He served in the Tory
party, did he not?


Peter John Veniot: He was appointed by the Tory party. I do not know that being a returned soldier would help him in making a report of this kind. However that might be, the hon. member for Frontenac-Adding-ton stated that I had appointed or named another individual to take the place of this man. That statement is not correct. While the minister has the power to direct his deputy to refuse a certificate-it can only be done through his deputy

the minister has not the power to name a person in the place of the one whose certificate was refused. The refusal of the certificate goes back to the commission and they make their choice from among the other applicants. In this case there were six applicants, and when the commission received the refusal by the department of their certificate they chose the next one who should receive the certificate. That certificate was issued and it was accepted, and that is the whole story.
While I am on my feet I will refer to the case brought up by the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) regarding the appointment to the position of postmaster at Odessa. I might just mention that there are two post offices of this name in the Dominion, one out west and one in the hon. gentleman's riding. The postmaster died and, if I am not mistaken, his son continued to act until the commission could appoint a permanent official.


John Wesley Edwards: It was not his son, but a man of the same name.


Peter John Veniot: In looking over the records I find that the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington was not so anxious to stand up for the returned soldier as he is standing up for him now. There were four returned soldiers applying for the position at Odessa, one of whom was a disability man. If my hon. friend were as honest then in his advocacy of the rights of the returned man as he pretends to be now, he certainly would never have written the letter he did on August 4, 1926, when the shadow government was in power. What do I find in the official records of the department? I find this letter dated at Kingston, August 4, 1926, addressed to L. J. Gaboury, deputy minister of the department:
My dear sir:
I understand that several persons have applied for the vacant postmastership at Odessa.
He knew there were several applying.
I visited Odessa yesterday and made most careful inquiries into the situation there and after mature consideration beg to recommend the appointment of Mr. S. W. Clark for the position. Mr. Clark's son, Percy, has been in the office for the last year and a half and

Supply-Post Office
during the past six months has had full charge of this important office. He is competent, courteous and popular with all. If he was 21, I think there would be no question as to this appointment which I feel sure would please the public. He is only 18-[DOT]
I want you to listen to this, and see what my hon. friend wanted to do with this important office.
He is only 18 and I ask for the appointment of his father, who is well qualified to discharge the duties of the office, and who would be the responsible one. He would no doubt retain the services of his son, who has discharged the work so satisfactorily, as your inspector will testify. ' This is a very important office-
And yet he wanted to put a boy of 18 in charge of it !
This is a very important office, and I am anxious to have it properly filled.
If you please!
I beg to request that you will give my representations your favourable consideration and that you will show this letter to the Hon. Dr. Manion.
I do not know whether he did that or not.
I remain,
Yours truly,
J. W. Edwards.


Charles Avery Dunning: Was that a civil service job?


Peter John Veniot: His party was in power and they did not care about the Civi'l Service Commission. Now that they are in opposition they are very solicitous for the rights of the Civil Service Commission.
But what do I find? I find that Melville G, Lee was an applicant, a returned soldier. D. O. Frink was an applicant, a civilian. Stanley J. Smith was an applicant., a returned man. W. C. Snider, civilian; R. A. Hamon, civilian; Roes D. Schermeshorn, a returned soldier with disability, and S. F. Hillier, a returned soldier, were also applicants.
_ When the present government came back into power, and after these advertisements were put out, it was reported to the department that there were two other returned soldiers who desired to have the opportunity of applying. The report of the inspector on the qualifications of those who had already applied had not been received, and I wrote the Civil Service Commission that it would please the department if they would consider the two additional applicants and allow them to apply, and have the inspector look into their qualifications. This was done, and among others who applied was the returned soldier whom the hon. gentleman referred to this afternoon as being an imperial soldier, having been only four or five years in Canada. On the report of the inspector as to his quali-

fioations, approved by the commission, this soldier received the appointment certificate of the commission. When the certificate came to me, feeling that preference should be given in all cases to Canadian soldiers I took the matter up with the commission. There were Canadian soldiers applying, and my hon. friend knew that when he recommended that a young boy eighteen years of age be put in charge of this office. I received a reply from the commission that I had misinterpreted the act. They said that under the act any soldier who had served in any of the commands of the British colonies, and who afterwards came to Canada, would have the same preference as a Canadian soldier. They told me that that was the interpretation of the act. My feeling is that if that is the interpretation, then the act should be changed. Preference should be given to Canadian soldiers in all cases, and not to soldiers belonging to the allied British colonies; it is a privilege that should belong to Canadian soldiers and Canadian soldiers alone. The Civil Service Commission, however, ruled against me, and I had nothing to do but accept their ruling. I will frankly confess that if I could have found a good reason which would have justified my refusing the certificate of that soldier, which was given to him in preference to a Canadian soldier, I would have done so. But I could find no reason, because the law was against me.


Peter McGibbon: We thought you were more resourceful.


Peter John Veniot: I am resourceful, in so far as it is necessary to be resourceful to do what I consider to be fair and just.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Why did you not make it a bilingual position?


Peter John Veniot: Because I knew my hon.
friend opposite would raise the race cry. My hon. friend is too good a sport not to take his medicine. He will have his turn and then I shall have mine, which I will take advantage of, to come back at him. Let me go one step further. I should like the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington to explain this to the committee:	How is it that when his
party are in power, they do not care a snap, as this letter proves, for the returned soldier; but when they are in opposition my hon. friend is the champion of the returned soldier? We hear him to-day fighting in parliament the battles of the returned soldier, but when the occasion arose when he could have done something for the returned soldier, he was as dumb as an oyster and he did not do any-

Supply-Post Office
thing. Where is the consistency of my hon. friend? I do not think I have anything more to say on those two points; I think I have said enough just now to give my hon. friend reason to think over the position in which he has placed himself, and if any more questions come up I shall be only too glad to deal with them.


Mr. EDWARDS (Erontenac):: I can assure the committee and the Postmaster General that I shall not require two hours to get my thoughts into some kind of order. In regard to the Enterprise post office, to which the Postmaster General has alluded, I took up the cudgels, if I might use that word, on behalf of Cooper. The Postmaster General has corroborated what I said this afternoon in regard to Cooper. He has added to what I said. He said that the inspector, who was the same man in 1920 as in 1927, spoke of Cooper as being highly regarded in the community, but he laid considerable stress on the fact that the inspector said that Cooper did not possess the attributes possessed by Fenwick. By a peculiar line of reasoning, or logic, if I might dignify it by that term, the Postmaster General says that the inspector, by saying that Cooper does not possess the attributes which Fenwick possesses, has thereby said that Cooper does not possess the attributes necessary to fill the office. That does not follow at all. I will concede at once that Fenwick was a better qualified man than Cooper, but the records and statements of the inspector in 1920 and 1927 in regard to Cooper indicate positively that Cooper did possess all the requirements necessary to fill the position efficiently.


Peter John Veniot: Why was he not selected?


John Wesley Edwards: I gave the
reason and my hon. friend also gave the reason. I will give this illustration to show the Postmaster General how absolutely ridiculous what he would dignify with the name of logic is. The position of postmaster is vacant. Two men apply for the position. The inspector reports that both men are qualified. One man, however, is a university graduate; he certainly has qualifications, and his attributes are superior to those of the other man, but the other man possesses all the qualifications required to fill the position.


Charles Avery Dunning: And he was a returned
soldier.


John Wesley Edwards: Very well,
take it that way if you like. The returned soldier in this case was Mr. Cooper. The
inspector reports that Mr. Cooper possesses all the qualifications that are required to fill the position efficiently. Mr. Cooper's educa-tonal standing is not as high as that of Mr. Fenwick. Therefore the Postmaster General reasons that he does not possess the necessary attributes at all. That is contrary to the report of the inspector. The reason why Cooper was not selected in 1920 was given by the commission and I read it this afternoon. There is no need to read it again. The reason was mainly that he did not have any place in which to hold the office and consequently the preference was given to Fenwick-not because of Fenwick's superior qualifications, because both were qualified, but because Fenwick owned the place where the post office had been for twenty years and furthermore because of the fact that he had lost a son in the war and was obliged to give up farming on that account. Those were the reasons which influenced the commission in 1920.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: But does the act not state that the preference shall be given only to a returned soldier and not a civilian who may have lost a son in the war?


John Wesley Edwards: It is quite true that the act does not take into consideration the fact that a civilian applicant for a position may have lost a son in the war, but that is what influenced the commission in 1920. I submit to the judgment of the committee whether or not the Civil Service Commission was doing its duty at that time. The minister says that I did not in 1920 appeal on behalf of Cooper. If I understood the minister aright, in 1920 there were three applicants for the position, namely, Fenwick, Cooper and some other person.
Mr. VENIOT. A woman, Mrs. Lockwood.


John Wesley Edwards: I may say
very frankly that no letter was written to me in regard to the matter and I know why the request was not made. I know that by visiting the place since, in 1926 and 1927. The reason was that the general opinion of Grit, Tory and everybody else in that community was that the position should go to Fenwick because of the sympathy, rightly placed or not, which they had for him on account of his having lost a son overseas. That is the explanation in regard to that.
I take up the other matter, the matter of the Odessa appointment. The minister says that I wrote a letter asking that young Clark be appointed to the position. That is very true. I did write a letter. The minister said
Supply-Post Office

that I was not at all concerned at that time about relieving a returned soldier, a well-qualified man who was born in Canada and who went overseas with the Canadian forces. I want to inform the minister-and his files will show that I am correct-that the point he is endeavouring to make falls to the ground because at that time neither Frink nor Lee had applied.


Peter John Veniot: Frink is not a returned
soldier.


John Wesley Edwards: No, he is
not. But Lee is a returned soldier and I will mention how the thing happened.


Peter John Veniot: What about the other returned soldiers who had applied?


John Wesley Edwards: The other returned soldiers, as the minister will know by looking at his files, were reported by the inspector as not being qualified, with the exception of Pooke. That is that. I want to say just why I interfered on behalf of Clark. The minister spoke about this letter requesting efficiency and then he threw his arms up in the air and said that I was willing to allow this important office to be filled by a boy of eighteen. If that applies to me, what about the minister himself? He apparently was willing to let the boy fill the office and the boy did fill the office until September 15, 1927, when Pooke took charge. Though the minister holds up his hands in holy horror at the very thought of this boy of eighteen carrying on in this office, trying to make a point out of the fact that I recommended the boy, nevertheless he is so perfectly satisfied with the boy's efficiency that he allows him to carry on in the office for months and months afterwards.
Why did I write my letter on behalf of Clark? I will give the reason. The Civil Service Commission were notified of the vacancy on July 9, 1926. Let me say that the postmaster in Odessa had for nearly a year before that date been a sick man, and this young fellow of the same name, though not his son-I do not know whether they aie related in any way-had carried on and been fully responsible for the duties of the office during that year in which the postmaster was sick. After the postmaster died, young Clark still carried on. and carried on apparently with perfect satisfaction to the Post Office department and to everybody else concerned for about a year and a half.
As I said, the Civil Service Commission were notified of the vacancy on July 9, 1926, and applications were asked for in the early part

of July to fill the vacancy. Quite a number of .persons applied, and a date was fixed when these applications would be considered and an appointment made. Here is a list of those who applied, given in order of merit:
W. C. Snider, not a soldier.
R.	A. Hamm, not a soldier.
S.	W. Clark, not a soldier.
That is one, two, three, in order of merit, as reported by the district superintendent. The fourth in the list was W. J. Pooke, the man who was later appointed, an overseas man. Then came Smith, then another man by the name of Snider, then Schermeshom and Hillier. Hillier, by the way, being from Peterborough, was shut out because they said that they were going to give the office to somebody in the locality. Up until that time, August 6-my letter was written on August 4 -neither Lee nor Frink were applicants for the position. As a matter of fact, Frink was a very active politician, and pressure was brought to bear on the minister that Frink should be given a chance to apply for the position. I will remind the minister that on November 24th, which was quite a long time after my letter was sent in, the Postmaster General asked the Civil Service Commission to reopen the case and call for new applications in order to give D. O. Frink the opportunity to apply. I said at that time that if the opportunity was to be open for Mr. Frink, who was not a returned soldier, it should also be open for Melville Lee, a Canadian and a returned soldier, whose application had not gone in in the first place. When the government failed to make the appointment after the expiry of the time when the applications were to be considered, as nothing was done I went up to Odessa, which is only a few miles from my home, and made inquiries from the people there, irrespective of party-some of them applicants themselves-about the filling of the position. I venture to say that two-thirds of them said this: "Can't you let this young fellow Clark keep on? Everybody is satisfied with him. He is popular, very courteous and obliging."


Mr. FOSTER:: Would the hon. member
please tell us whether this Clark family were Liberals or Conservatives?


John Wesley Edwards: I realize, of course, that from the hon. gentleman's standpoint, if I said they were Conservatives that would condemn them, but if I said they7 were Liberals they would be in the proper category, m his estimation. I perfectly appreciate the fact that so far as the hon. gentleman is con-

Supply-Post Office
terned there is only one way, as I said this afternoon, which he and others have for measuring- the efficiency of a man for any position, and that is by his politics.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Now answer the iuestion.


John Wesley Edwards: Having obtained the views of the community, having learned that they wanted young Clark to remain on if the government would allow him to do so, I wrote my letter to the department, which had failed to make any decision on the applications they had received


Peter John Veniot: I must correct my hon.
friend. The department does not make the decision; it is the Civil Service Commission.


John Wesley Edwards: Well then, the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission had not made any decision up to that time. I believed that it was in the interests of that community, and that it was what the people of that community wanted, that this young man should carry on. There was only one way in which that could be done, and that was through the appointment of his father until the young man should reach the age of twenty-one. His lather had had considerable experience as assistant in the post office, and was a thoroughly competent and thoroughly responsible man. That is the reason I made the recommendation. But let me point out that at that time as the file of the minister will show some of those who applied for the position and others I could mention said that this man Pooke should not be given the appointment because he was not a Canadian.


Peter John Veniot: That is right.


John Wesley Edwards: That is the attitude which they took. I am net taking that attitude, but I do say that when the vacancy was reopened at the request of the minister for Frink, Lee should also have been given the opportunity to apply at the same time. I say that Lee was just as competent ?n every respect as Pooke. He was born in Canada, and was a returned soldier with an honourable record overseas, and I do say that in my humble judgment Melville Lee should have the preference over Pooke, whom I also believe to be a good mon. But the minister is absolutely wrong when he tries to lead the committee to believe that I turned my back on Melville Lee, who was qualified, in favour of Clark or anybody else. At the time I wrote my letter, Lee was not an applicant, neither was Frink an applicant.


Peter John Veniot: Frink was an applicant, but his application did not appear.
,Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac): I know just what is in the mind of the hon. gentleman, and the fact that he did not regard h:m as an applicant is shown by his own letter of November 24, in which he asked the commission to reopen the matter so that Frink could be an applicant. Of course, I know what was said about Frink, that he sent an application in, and that the then Postmaster General, the Hon. Charles Murphy, had overlooked it or something of that sort, but that -did not occur to him until after there was a change of government. It did not occur to Frink to put in an application before the government changed. I do not believe that he put in an application up to that time, but afterwards there was a change of government, and Frink says: "I want to apply for that job. I have been doing your dirty work around here for a long while, and I want some reward." The Postmaster General, recognizing that as a strong qualification for any applicant for a position, sent word to the Civil Service Commission, ordering them to ask for further applications so as to open the way for Mr. Frink. However, the pressure was too strong for even Mr. Frink to get the position. I am not saying that Pooke is not qualified; he is qualified. But so far as that is concerned, I say that Lee is equally well qualified. The two men were returned soldiers, the one having been bom in Canada and having enlisted in Canada, the other having enlisted in England:	the one
having served at the front, the other having served in a clerical capacity and having never seen the front. I do feel that when the matter was open consideration should have been given to Lee as a Canadian-born returned soldier rather than to Pooke.


Peter John Veniot: Surely my hon. friend does not want to blame the Postmaster General. He should blame the commission. He always claims the commission should make appointments; they made this appointment.
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac:	They made
certain appointments after the minister refused to accept the appointments which they had made and intimated that he wanted someone else appointed.


Peter John Veniot: I never intimated anything of the kind.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
correct that right now. In no case have I ever intimated to the commission whom they should appoint.
Supply-Post Office


John Wesley Edwards: I state, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. minister that the file will show he did mention Mr. Murphy, for instance, for Enterprise.


Peter John Veniot: No, sir, I did not.


John Wesley Edwards: You had
better look the file over again.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I have it 'before me.


John Wesley Edwards: It will also be well for the hon. gentleman to look over the file in connection with the Ottawa post office. There is another point I wish to refer to and with respect to which I ask the hon. Postmaster General to speak this afternoon. In seeking an excuse against Cooper being given the position, he did bring up against him that he was in debt.


Peter John Veniot: I did not; the inspector
did.


John Wesley Edwards: I assert,
Mr. Chairman, that the file will show-I copied it-that the Postmaster General himself did call attention to the fact that Cooper was in debt.


Peter John Veniot: He called attention to the
inspector's report.


John Wesley Edwards: It cannot
be twisted around.


Peter John Veniot: There is no quibbling over the facts.	,


John Wesley Edwards: Anyway
the Postmaster General this afternoon indicated by what he said that that was one thing, along with others, that did influence him.


Peter John Veniot: Certainly it did.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask
the hon. gentleman if he thinks the Postmaster General should be influenced by the fact that an applicant for the position of postmaster is in debt? What does he think, ,we will say, about a member of parliament being in debt?


Peter John Veniot: They are all in debt.


An hon. MEMBER:: Impossible!


John Wesley Edwards: What does he think about a cabinet minister being in debt?


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: I should
like the minister to ponder over his references in regard to Cooper being in debt. I would presume that anyone who used it as an argument

against a returned man that he was a couple of hundred dollars in debt, would need to be very sure of his own position. If cabinet ministers are to bring it up against respectable citizens who apply for positions in the civil service that their applications must not be considered because of the fact that they owe a little money, then I hope all cabinet ministers are not themselves in the position of owing money. I wonder if the Postmaster General ever heard tell of a Lowndes Company in Toronto?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: Or a widow down in the maritime provinces by the name of Peters?


Peter John Veniot: Yes. If, Mr. Chairman,
the hon. gentleman wishes to discuss those two points I am ready to wash his dirty linen. If he wants to discuss them, let him go a step further.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I never had any education-


Peter John Veniot: We are well aware of that.


John Wesley Edwards: -from a
Chinaman, not being accustomed to washing dirty linen. But since the hon. minister has referred to dirty linen, why, there must be something in his mind connected with himself. My query was this: Is it quite consistent for a cabinet minister, in his anxiety to get the man of his choice into a position, to bring up against a man who served in the war, a returned soldier, the fact that he was in debt to the paltry amount of $200? Does that come consistently from a cabinet minister unless his own skirts are clear in that regard? That is my question, and the minister is at liberty to go into the washtub. But it will not be my dirty linen that he will have to wash; it will be the linen he has worn on his own back, let me tell him that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: Let him go on.


John Wesley Edwards: All right, he invites this. When I was a boy-a good many years ago now-my father took me to see a circus-something different from this.


Peter John Veniot: Something like the one
on exhibition now.


John Wesley Edwards: In some
particulars. In going through the menagerie before entering the circus tent we saw a cage

Supply-Post Office
with apparently a very ferocious lion in it. He growled and howled, his mane bristled, and he pawed the bottom of the cage. I asked the keeper with trembling voice if the animal was dangerous. "No," replied the keeper, "he is not dangerous. He is an old fellow and has no teeth. He was accustomed in his more vigorous days to raising Cain, but this is only a bluff he is putting up." Now I am willing to discuss the Postmaster General's estimates with him.


Mr. POWER:: There was a mistake made
that day.


John Wesley Edwards: I might say, since my hon. friend invites it, that next to the lion's cage, by way of contrast, there was a cage of monkeys, and I saw some there looking awfully like the hon. member.


Charles Gavan Power: Was that in the lion's cage?


John Wesley Edwards: I am perfectly willing, Mr. Chairman, to discuss these questions on their merits.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: No, you are not.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, I am,
absolutely. I have made my points. I want to assure the Postmaster General that I am ready to discuss these with him point by point, but he cannot roar and scare or bluff me.


Peter John Veniot: Nobody would stoop that
low.


John Wesley Edwards: But if he
thinks it will give him a little exercise I am quite content; it will afford the rest of us amusement. But I want him to understand that members on this side of the house do not propose to be shunted from discussing the Postmaster General's estimates by his-


Clarence Joseph Veniot: By reading your letters.


John Wesley Edwards: -by his
vigorous voice, his energetic action, and so on, which are nothing more nor less than bluff. I do not use that term in any offensive sense, but simply because it expresses his attitude so aptly.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is enough.


John Wesley Edwards: It is not
for the little boy over there to tell me when I have said all I want to say. I am sorry if his supper did not agree with him. I want to make this further charge against the Postmaster General, and it can be substantiated from one end of the country to the other: he is the man who in the house this afternoon raised the racial cry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


John Wesley Edwards: No, I wont sit down. Although I am a lot older than is my hon. friend over there, may I say with all due respect that he cannot make me sit down. Since the Postmaster General assumed the office which he now holds he has degraded the Post Office department of the Dominion to a level never reached before.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: I rise to a point of
order. No gentleman has the right to use that language in parliament.


John Wesley Edwards: On the
point of order I submit that the word "degraded" is used in the proper sense.


Ernest Lapointe: It is very improper to
use it in this way.


John Wesley Edwards: With all
deference, observing my hon. friend in the past, I do not think he is a competent judge. He is Minister of Justice, but-


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to have my
point of order decided.


John Frederick Johnston: I really think the hon. gentleman should define the sense in which he used the word "degraded".


John Wesley Edwards: I proceed
to do so and I commend you, Mr. Chairman, on your wisdom. I used the word "degraded" advisedly. I repeat that the Postmaster General, since he took office, has degraded the postal service of the country, or the Post Office department,-well, the service-to a level it has never reached before in the history of the country. How?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


John Wesley Edwards: If the chairman tells me to withdraw the word, after I have made my explanation, I shall at once conform and withdraw it. I used the word "degraded" in this sense: that in conforming to the demands of Liberals and Liberal Progressive members of parliament and defeated candidates, in dismissing competent men by the hundred in Canada and in many cases putting less competent men -in their places, he has lowered the grade-if you like it that way, although "degraded" is properly used- he has lowered the grade of efficiency of the Post Office Department in this country. Have I used the word properly, Mr. Chairman?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.
Supply-Post Office


John Wesley Edwards: Very well.
That is once that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is wrong in his point of order. I hope he will get a lesson from it and in time come to realize that after all he is not omnipotent and that even he may make mistakes the same as others. But what have we seen in Canada since the Postmaster General's return? Look at the record on the table of the house brought down by way of returns in answer to questions. Hundreds of postmasters throughout the country dismissed. Why? Frankly stated by the hon. gentleman, because Liberal members and defeated Liberal candidates asked for their dismissal. That is his attitude, and the records will prove the correctness of my statement, that it is the first time in the history of this Dominion that we have had a Postmaster General who went to the length the hon. gentleman has gone in that regard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, hoi


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, I
make that statement and I believe it is correct. I say that in that respect he has degraded the service, or put it on a lower grade than it was before, if that makes it any clearer. Now I suppose the next thing we shall hear is the Postmaster General getting up and saying, with all the fervour at his command, that his one desire since he entered the department and assumed the duties of minister, his sole desire, has been to increase the efficiency of the Post Office department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: I expect the Postmaster General will repeat that assertion.


Peter John Veniot: It is known.


John Wesley Edwards: Wei', there is a difference of opinion on that point; we will leave it at that. But I do not know that the hon. gentleman will be quite safe in taking the applause which emanates from behind him as an indication of what is really in the hearts of hon. gentlemen who sit on those benches. I do not think he has played the game squarely. I do not think he played it squarely in the case of the Enterprise post office, nor do I think that he gave the consideration which he should have given to the matter-although he took lots of time over it *-so far as Odessa is concerned.


Peter John Veniot: I do not like to be on my feet all the time but I have a right to be on my feet just as often as my hon. friend opposite. I am not surprised at the temper shown

by the hon. gentleman when he found himself driven to personalities for want of an argument. It ill becomes a member of this house, no matter who he may be, to use as an argument, in defence of himself, personalities regarding the member who has contended against him. Let me say to the hon. gentleman, for his information and the information of this committee, that the reference he made to a certain widow in New Brunswick touches one of the worst cases of blackmail on the part of the husband of that widow, when he was alive, against a man in public life that Canada ever knew. And I resented it and won out. I would not be browbeaten or blackmailed. And as regards the other case to which he has referred, let me say to him that, while it was an honest debt, the attempt to collect it in the manner adopted was resented by me, and when they came down to where they should be and acted decently in the matter the debt was paid. That is what I meant when I said that if the hon. gentleman wanted to wash dirty linen I could wash it for him or, at least, for those who gave him the information.
I am not going to attempt to answer the laboured arguments made 'by my hon. friend in defence of the Odessa case, and that now notorious letter written by him. The letter is before the public and before the committee. The committee has heard his argument and the public no doubt will read it in the press, and they can judge for themselves whether or not this is the champion of the returned soldiers.
The hon. gentleman said that never in the history of Canada had there been a postmaster general who had degraded the office so much as I did in the matter of dismissals. My hon. friend reminds me of something I read in the press the other day about a professor going into a house of detention for poor people. He asked one of the inmates, "What do you do to put in your time?" The inmate replied, "We sit and think and sometime we only sit". If the hon. gentleman had thought for a moment on the record of his own party he never would have made the argument he has made to-night. Degrading the public service by means of the dismissal of officials! Why, it is enough to make one laugh to think that any Conservative could stand on the floor of this house and accuse any head of a department of degrading the public service any more than they degraded it when they were in power. What is the record? Let me give the record from 1911 to 1917 and may I say to my hon. friend that I did not take any time during the dinner hour to prepare this; I had it already pre-

Supply-Post Office
323!
pared. What do we find? We find that from the first of October, 1911, to the 31st December, 1912, they dismissed 908 postmasters. That is not degrading the service. We find that from the first January, 1913, to the 30th September, 1917, they dismissed 696 postmasters. These are the gentlemen who now say that the Postmaster General has degraded the Post Office department because, forsooth, in the last two years there have been 421 changes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: -in the Post Office department. I use the word "changes" because I wish to place the record of these changes before the committee; I wish to dissect what our friends call wholesale political dismissals by your humble servant. I find there were 56 dismissals for shortages in accounts, abandonment of office, arrest of postmasters for stealing, for farming out post offices and so on. Some postmasters who were appointed under the Tory regime started farming out their post offices, and when I discovered that I dismissed them. Then there were 91 dismissals and changes in sites and in the interests of the service. There were 25 dismissals for political partisanship, so proved after investigation. There you have 243 out of 421 dismissals for stealing, for inefficiency, for irregularities, for absence from the Dominion and for other reasons, and in none of those dismissals is there the slightest taint of political reasons.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask a question
just there? How does my hon. friend get that total? As I understand it, he said there were 56 dismissals for shortages, 91 for inefficiency and 25 for political partisanship.


Peter John Veniot: I will give you the correct
figures. There were 56 dismissals for shortages and so on, 49 for change in site.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend said 91
before.


Peter John Veniot: No; the 91 dismissals were
in the interests of the service. Then there were 47 dismissals for unsatisfactory management, which makes the total of 243.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is giving
different figures now.


Peter John Veniot: Then I added 25 who were dismissed for poltical partisanship after investigation. I was keeping the dismissals under the first four groups separate from the others, leaving the difference between 243 and 421 which I was satisfied to allow my hon. friends to parade throughout the country as political dismissals.
The reason I have so closely dissected these figures is that the Conservative press and our friends opposite do not miss an opportunity to point out that the Postmaster General lopped off the heads of 421 postmasters for political reasons. It will be remembered that on one occasion this charge was made across the floor of the house and I interjected the remark that the hon. member was not taking into account those postmasters who had been dismissed for stealing and for other irregularities. In reply to that the hon. member stated that having made that remark I should furnish the details to the house. Now I am in a position to do so; if anyone wishes to know when, why or how a particular postmaster was dismissed for stealing the public funds of the Dominion, I am prepared to give the names if the hon. gentlemen are prepared to take the responsibility.
Let me go further. There have been dismissals from the service other than among postmasters. I regret to have to say this, but I feel that I should do so in order to justify my position. I would rather keep this information secret in the files of the department, but in self-defence I must tell the committee that no less than from 90 to 100 other officials occupying high positions in the Post Office department, have been put in jail or arrested for stealing the public funds. I do not make it public when I dismiss men of that kind; I do not expose their crimes because I feel that perhaps that knowledge should be kept away from the public. But when I do that my friends opposite shout throughout the length and breadth of the country that I am lopping off the heads of these men because they are political opponents. In that respect the record of the Post Office department is very dark, so much so that when I took charge and ascertained these facts we had to institute a secret service in order to protect the revenues of the Dominion, and also to protect these men who are placed in the way of temptation. Everyone knows that there is a great temptation in the handling of public money, and there is not a department of the government which handles a greater amount of public money passing through so many hands. The money handled by the Post Office department amounts to about $37,000,000 a year. This secret service had to be inaugurated in order to eliminate this evil if possible, and it is because of the work we have done in this direction-because of the fact that we try not to be too hard on those who have fallen by the way in order to give them an opportunity of retracing their steps and doing better in the future, without exposing them to public scorn, and instead
Supply-Post Office

of putting them in prison where perhaps they deserve to be-that within the last year or two we have been able to cut down the number of thefts and irregularities in the postal service.
As I said a few moments ago, I feel that it might have been better not to have made this statement, but in justice to myself and to the department over which I have the honour to preside I felt I should lay the case before the members of this house in order that they might know exactly what these changes and these dismissals mean.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask a question?
I do not make this suggestion in a critical sense, but does not the minister think he is really reflecting on all those people who have been dismissed, since all of them could not have been dismissed for stealing?


Peter John Veniot: I gave the figures. Certainly it was not my intention to reflect on all those who have been dismissed, as will be readily understood from the fact that I gave the number of dismissals for those causes.


Peter McGibbon: But my point is that
the public will not be able to distinguish, and every man who has been dismissed will be under suspicion.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot help that, but if
it would help matters at all I will give the names of the persons dismissed for other reasons. That might help out, because certainly it is not my intention to reflect on those people at all.


William Earl Rowe: Just in connection with the
point raised a moment ago, and in view of the fact that the Postmaster General has invited questions regarding any particular postmasters and why they were dismissed, I would ask if the postmaster of the town of Orangeville was included in the list of those dismissed for irregularities of any description, or whether his dismissal was included in that larger number in connection with which the minister has made no explanation at all?


Robert James Manion: Before that question is
answered, might I offer a suggestion? A few weeks ago the minister made a statement to the house to the effect that a great many of these postmasters were dismissed because of shortages in their accounts, and I made the suggestion that a further statement should be made to clear the names of those who were not dismissed for that cause. Since the direct question has been asked, and the Postmaster General has suggested that he might go further with his list, I say that I do not think he should do that. I do not think he has

justified the remark he made some weeks ago, a remark which drew from me the request of further explanation. I cannot give the page in Hansard, as I do not remember the date, but some weeks ago he gave the impression to the house that a much larger proportion than 56 out of 421 had been dismissed for shortages. That was the impression one would naturally draw from his remarks at that time. I suggested then that he should clear those who had their names impugned by that remark. If fifty-six men or women did get in the unfortunate position of being short in their cash, I do not believe it is the duty of the Postmaster General or any of us in this house to name those people and put upon them the brand of a thief. If a man has made a mistake-I doubt if there is any man in this house who 'has not made a mistake in some way-then it is not the duty of this house to put him down in such position that he cannot get up. Therefore, though I suggest that the minister has not justified the remark that he made, I think he has gone quite far enough with his list.
I took the figures down when he gave them first, but for some reason the minister read a different list the second time. I took the figure as 172, taking the minister's own figure of 243 who were dismissed for shortages, inefficiency, political partisanship after investigation, or for some other reason, it still leaves 200 who were dismissed for unknown reasons, which I assume would be entirely political reasons.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was that in 1911?


Robert James Manion: I was not here in 1911; I think I was over there then.


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister did not include those dismissed for political partisanship after investigation.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me to answer the question I was asked, and then I will answer his?


Robert James Manion: I was suggesting that the question should not be answered any more than the other one should.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman asked me about the Orangeville postmaster.


William Earl Rowe: I was merely asking if the Orangeville dismissal was included in those dismissed on account of irregularities.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps you would like to know why the dismissal took place?


William Earl Rowe: Yes.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Come over here and look at it yourself. It is not included among those dismissed for irregularities, but I want you to look at it.


William Earl Rowe: I would be glad to hear the minister give the reason.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Reported by the inspector as being inefficient.


John Wesley Edwards: When the
minister was speaking in regard to Cooper of the Enterprise post office, it did not occur to me that at that time the Enterprise post office was not in the constituency which I represent. The minister asked me why I did not bestir myself on behalf of Cooper at that time.


Robert James Manion: I should like to bring up a case with which I think the Postmaster General will be familiar. I put some questions on the order paper some time ago regarding this case, which appears to be an unjust discrimination. The Postmaster General may have an explanation to offer-there are always two sides to every story-and I should like to hear his explanation. The questions were answered on April 30th, and I will give the questions and answers, and then base my case upon that. The first question I asked was, "What is the name of the postmaster at the village of Brigden, Ontario," and the answer was, "William Howard MacDonald." The second question was, "When was he appointed?" and the answer, "15th September, 1927." "Is he a returned soldier?" Answer, "No." "If not, did any returned soldiers app-ly for this position?" Answer, "Yes." "Was the appointee recommended by the Civil Service Commission as their first Choice?" Answer, "No." There is a straight question and a straight answer. On May 3rd I asked two more questions, which I shall read. The first question was:
Regarding the appointment of William MacDonald to the postmastership of Bridgen, Ontario, why was the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission not favoured?
The answer given by Mr. Yeniot at that time was:
Because it was considered that the appointment of the applicant first selected by the Civil Service Commission would not be in the best interest of the public service.
The second question was, "Who did the Civil Service Commission recommend for this position?" and the answer was, "First, John William Such; second, William Howard MacDonald." William Howard MacDonald was the appointee, although he was the second recommendation of the Civil Service Corn-56103-205
mission. According to my information-I am subject to correction, although I do not think my facts are incorrect; the reasons may be different from those which I shall give, but I think the facts are correct-this post office became vacant through the death of the previous holder of the position. Applications were called for, and among the applicants were Mr. Such and Mr. MacDonald.
Mr. J. W. Such was a returned soldier who had been wounded overseas. I think he had a wife and three children, but at least three if not four people were dependent upon him. It is true that he was associated with a creamery business, and was, on the surface, earning good money. He gave reasons in his application why he required this position. He was recommended by the Civil Service Commission as their first choice, and MacDonald, who got the position, was recommended as their second choice. According to my information, MacDonald had not served in the forces. He had a good financial association with his father-all the facts do not come absolutely home to me-or with some company. He had a good position and in every way was pretty much on the same financial basis as was Such. But Such, although recommended by the Civil Service Commission, was thrown aside; the Postmaster General refused to accept him, and the second choice of the Civil Service Commission was then appointed. This is certainly a case for explanation, and I should like to have the minister give his reasons.


Peter John Veniot: Regarding the Brigden
matter, I may say that the statements made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat are about correct. This position was vacant and Such and MacDonald were the applicants. When the matter came before the Civil Service Commission inspectors were sent out to investigate the qualifications of these applicants and they made their report, which was submitted to the department. On examining the report I found that Mr. Such had come to Canada four or five years ago, having served in the British forces overseas. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington would, I suppose, have agreed with me if for that reason I had turned Mr. Such down. But that was not the reason. Investigation proved that Mr. Such, on arriving in Canada, was sufficiently well-fixed financially to purchase a one-third interest in a cheese and butter factor}'; that he became manager of it, and that he was drawing a salary of $2,500 and one-third of the dividends. The office that was vacant carried a salary of $960 a year and neither Mr. Such nor anybody else could

Supply-Post Office

make me believe that he would give up a salary of $2,500 a year to take up a position that paid only $960 a year.
I inquired into the matter and I sent for Mr. Such, I had Mr. Such come to my office and in the presence of the president of the soldiers' legion I fully discussed the matter with Mr. Such. Mr. Such asked me whether he would be allowed to carry on the cheese and butter business and at the same time run the post office, and I said no. I asked Mr. Such whether it was not true that he intended to farm out this office and he admitted to me that in anticipation of getting the office he had engaged a young lady at $500 a year and that he would pocket the $460. I then told Mr. Such that under those circumstances he could not get the office and that I would refuse to accept the certificate of the commission. In the presence of the president of the soldiers' legion, who is resident in Ottawa, we discussed the matter fully. I said to Mr. Such: If you leave the business altogether and give up your interest in it as manager and the salary of $2,500, you may retain your interest in the business so far as your capital is concerned, but you will have to give your full time to the post office. Mr. Such told me then that he would do that, and after further consideration and investigation I received a letter from the president of the soldiers' legion asking me how it was that I still refused to accept the certificate on behalf of Mr. Such. I accordingly wrote him this letter dated October 14, 1927:
J. C. G. Hebwio, Esq.,
Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
I am in receipt of yours of the 30th ultimo re the postmastership at Brigden and note your inquiry touching the refusal by me to accept the Civil Service Commission certificate in favour of Mr. Such.
If I am not mistaken, you were present in my office when this matter was discussed between Mr. Such and myself, and I distinctly told him I would not consent to any certificate in favour of a returned soldier who, in my opinion, was applying for a post office position in order to farm it out to someone else, and make a profit on the same. It is true that Mr. Such stated that he would retire from the position he now holds and which brings him about $2,500 and give his attention to the postmastership which -would only bring him $960, and for which he admitted he had to employ an assistant which would cost him $500. It is also true that Mr. Such set forth in a letter which he forwarded to me later that he is prepared to do this. Mr. Such's letter as well as his interview with me did not convince me that he was acting in good faith. It was impossible for me to believe that Mr. Such was in earnest in applying for this position -which would only bring him in after he had farmed it out, the meagre sum of some $400. If I mistake not, I have already

discussed -with you that I consider it to be an abuse of the preference given to returned soldiers and if ever there was an indication of abuse of this preference, I am convinced that it is to be found in the case of Mr. Such.
Those are the facts. That is the reason why I refused to accept the certificate.


Robert James Manion: I have a copy of the letter which the Postmaster General wrote and which he just quoted. The letter is as he read it. I did not think of course that he would do this, but he might have read and I am going to read some of the letters which preceded it. The letter which he read was to Mr. Herwig, of the war veterans, and it was dated October 14, 1927. The letter from which I am going to read is one written to the Postmaster General by Mr. Such, and in that he disposes of all the arguments which the Postmaster General raised against his getting the position. I do -not wish t-o read the whole letter although I could easily do so, because it would only be cluttering up Hansard. Let me read a couple of paragraphs. The letter states:
May I say that, in the event of my appointment, I would sever active connection with the creamery as soon as it is possible to break in a new man to take over my work. I should give personal supervision to the post office devoting sufficient time to the duties. By this I mean such time as might be required by your department.
The reason for applying for this position is that my disability (spinal) has interfered with my present rather strenuous occupation of butter maker to such an extent that I must give it up as soon as conveniently possible and establish myself in some other.


Peter John Veniot: The report on Mr. Such
does not show that he is a disability man, except that he claims himself that he is a disability man, but he has no medical certificate to show that.


Robert James Manion: I have not any evidence on that, although I rather understood from the correspondence that he was a pensioner and, if he is a pensioner, he is a disability man. At any rate the Postmaster General does not dispute the fact that he is a returned man. That is the letter of Mr. Such and it absolutely disposes of the arguments later put forward by the Postmaster General in the letter which he wrote. Some hon. gentlemen over there shake their heads. The objection which the Postmaster General made to Mr. Such in his letter to Mr. Herwig, which he read a moment ago, was that Mr. Such had a position and therefore he should not get this one. But Mr. Such says that he can-

Supply-Post Office
not carry out the duties of that position and he is ready to give it up and to devote as much time to the post office as the department demands.


John Wesley Edwards: What is the date of Mr. Such's letter?


Robert James Manion: July 13, 1927, or three
months before the letter written by the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: My letter was written after that.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but I am showing by Mr. Such's letter, which was written previously, that he disposes of the arguments advanced by the Postmaster General in his letter to Mr. Herwig.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend forgets that on the occasion of the interview with the Postmaster General, the man expressed his intention of farming out the work of the post office.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Such absolutely denies that, and Mr. Herwig, who was present at the interview, does not agree with the minister. Mr. Herwig writes on September 30, 1927, about two months and a half after the letter which I have just quoted. He signs himself "For Acting Superintendent, Service Bureau, Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L.", and he writes to the Postmaster General. Perhaps I had better read the whole of this letter, although there is only one fairly long paragraph that deals with the matter. He says:
We have just been informed that a Mr. H. MacDonald has been appointed postmaster at Brigden, Ont., and that the ex-service applicant, J. W. Such, the selection of the Civil Service Commission, has been rejected.
You may remember that Mr. Such and an officer of this organization interviewed you some time ago. when you indicated that you were contemplating his rejection. It was explained to you that Mr. Such was a disabled ex-service man who found it necessary to change his occupation on account of his war disability.
This is not Mr. Such's statement, but Mr. Herwig's statement. '
From your demeanour, it was gathered that your objection to his appointment as one already employed and receiving a salary had been satisfactorily met. At your request a letter was sent you indicating what Mr. Such was prepared to do in the event of receiving the appointment.


Peter John Veniot: That is the letter which he wrote to the Postmaster General and from which I have just quoted.


Robert James Manion: It goes on:
It was believed that every requirement and objection raised by you had been fully covered therein. It is with surprise, therefore, that we learn of the appointment of Mr. MacDonald, non O.A.S.

I suppose that means overseas service, but I am not sure:
-who is in charge of his father's flourishing general store-
This is Mr. MacDonald who got the appointment :
-and is certainly in receipt of a good income. In view of what has taken place, we are forced to conclude that the objections which you previously raised regarding Mr. Such no longer apply, and that the reason for his rejection must be entirely new. May we be favoured with the precise reason for the rejection of Mr. *Such.
Yours truly,
J. C. G. Herwig.
The Postmaster General was out of the city at the time the letter was received, but a reply was sent through his secretary, and on October 14, two weeks later, the Postmaster General wrote, repeating the reasons why he did not accept from the civil service commission their recommendation of Mr. Such. Another letter which I have here, written by Mr. Herwig to Mr. Such, and dated January 21, 1928, demonstrates conclusively that Mr. Herwig was not satisfied with the reasons given by the Postmaster General for the rejection of the recommendation of Mr. Such by the Civil Service Commission. He says: Dear Comrade Such:
I have your letter of the 2nd, regarding your rejection to the Postmastership at Brigden.
I am enclosing letters which I think may be of importance to you, and if you believe there arc others, I should be glad to forward you copies. It is a pity that you did not advise me before that you had disposed of your business. because it made it very difficult for me to carry the matter any further with the P.M.G. However, it is hoped that we may be able to . refer the matter of rejections to a parliamentary committee, which is to be appointed this year and your case will be brought forward as evidence.
That is the last letter of the correspondence which I have. What I have read shows the pity of this case. Mr. Such had actually disposed of his business in the creamery.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Robert James Manion: I do not know the facts myself, but I do not see how the Postmaster General knows them any better than I do.


Peter John Veniot: I made inquiries.


Robert James Manion: The minister says he made inquiries. The statement of Mr. Herwig. which I have just quoted, is that Mr. Such
Supply-Post Office

had disposed of his business. Mr. Such also makes some statement to the effect that he had disposed of his business. He still retained some interest in it, but he had disposed of it as his occupation, which he says he was not fit to carry on, and he had become prepared to become postmaster. Not only that, but according to his own statement to me he had gone further and rented a building for the purpose of the post office, and he was very much perturbed about it afterwards. Here is the case of a man who was in no better financial position, according to these letters which I have read, than the man who was given the position. One was a returned soldier, with a wife and children. It says three dependents; I said four; I thought it was the wife and three children, but evidently the three includes the wife. An hon. member suggests that the wife counts for two; I am not sure if that is not correct. He has three dependents at any rate to support, while the other man has none. One is a returned soldier, having fought with the British army, and the other is not a returned soldier at all. One is fairly on in years, getting into middle life, possibly, and the other is a young man with no responsibilities, and good connections, as is stated by Mr. Herwig. Certainly I do not find any justification so far for the action of the Postmaster General for refusing this man the position. When the Postmaster General was replying to the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington he stated positively that he preferred to favour the returned soldieT. I am one of those, I do not mind Saying so frankly, who believe that other people in this country besides returned soldiers have some rights. I believe that the boys -who were too young to go to the war have some rights. I believe that the boys who were too young to go to the war have some rights in our country. A young man of twenty-nine to-day could not ordinarily have gone to the front, nor could any young man who is now between eighteen and twenty-nine years of age, and I say frankly that these young men have some rights in our country. At the same time here is a case where a young man did go to the front, and where the other man could have gone and did not-I do not know that I should state that; possibly he was too young to go. but at all events there is one reference here to the fact that he could have gone and did not. I do not know whait his age is. Does the Postmaster General know how old he is?
IMr Manion.l


Peter John Veniot: I know that MacDonald
enlisted and was put in class C, and was retained in Canada.


Robert James Manion: The other man did go
overseas?


Peter John Veniot: He was there. He was not a Canadian soldier.


Robert James Manion: There were plenty of men overseas who were not Canadian soldiers. But if a young man had served even in the French army, had come back wounded and had been honourably discharged, and another man who was old enough to go had not gone; and if the soldier in the French army had dependents and the other had none, I say that the soldier in the French army should get the preference, in spite of what I said a moment ago. This young man had served in the British army, and been wounded, and he had a family to support. True, he had a position, but so had the other. But this man who had served overseas and was recommended as first choice by the commission was sidetracked, and the other man was given the position. I cannot see that there was any justification for such action, and I am placing such action entirely on political grounds, if you will. Though I do not know, this young man states that he took no part in the last election, that nobody knew how he voted, so I do not think in his case there was politics. I admit that some of the letters in this file were written by Conservatives, but that should not make any difference in a case of this sort. I do not wish to delay the committee any longer, but I repeat that in the statement given so far by the Postmaster General he has not justified the action which he took, and unless he can give some better justification than he has, I do not think he would be supported by any fairminded person in the action which he took in regard to this man Such.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: As' to what
the Postmaster General said before recess with regard to Mr. Hall in the Ottawa post office-


Peter John Veniot: May I draw the attention
of the committee to this fact? I do not want to stop discussion, but the item we are now considering is the inside service of the Post Office department. We have been discussing the outside service all along, and I suggest that there will be plenty of time to discuss the outside service when we reach that item.


William Foster Garland: Mr. Hall is in
the inside service.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: He is in the outside service.


William Foster Garland: This discussion was proper before recess, and it should be proper now. Mr. Hall has been twenty years in the registration branch of the Ottawa post officei All of a sudden it occurs to someone that a bilinguist is necessary in that position. I have made some inquiries with regard to the length of time this office has been open, and I find that Mr. Wills was principal clerk in that department for fifteen years. He was followed by Mr. Cherry, as principal clerk, for ten years, and then by Mr. Hall, principal clerk, for some nineteen months. In other words, for twenty-six years and seven months that position did not require a bilinguist, and I claim that there is no more need for a bilinguist now than there has been at any time during the last twenty-five years. Mr. Hall is well qualified to hold this position. He got this position in March, 1928, as per Gazette. He has had twenty years service in the registration branch. He was assistant chief clerk to Mr. Cherry for ten years, and has acted for nineteen months as principal clerk. Something was said before recess with regard to a Mr. Larue who should have been appointed to that position. He had no right whatever to it. He was in charge of the letter carriers' branch, and was appointed superintendent over the letter carriers of the city of Ottawa; then he got another promotion as superintendent over incoming mail. His position as superintendent of letter carriers was filled by Mt. Valiquette, who acted as his assistant. My contention is that Mr. Hall was efficient and quite capable of doing the work. He acted as assistant for five years, and as principal clerk for nineteen months. He tried the departmental examination last fall and got 99 per cent, and at another examination in April he got 97 per cent. There is no reason why Mr. Hall should not be left in that position. He has under him an assistant, a French-Canadian by the name of LeBlanc, to whom I have already referred, who was there when he left. There is no justification whatever for Mr. Hall being removed. I want to know from the Postmaster General if Mr. Hall is going to get remuneration as principal clerk for the nineteen months he so acted?


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Hall will get exactly
the salary he is entitled to.


William Foster Garland: For the
months he was acting?


Peter John Veniot: He cannot be kept out of
anything that the law provides for in his case.


William Foster Garland: Was there any complaint as to his efficiency in those nineteen months?


Peter John Veniot: No. But since the hon.
gentleman has brought the matter up, I may tell him that the Civil Service Commission were asked to make a ruling in December 192G, and they did nothing until March 1928. That is how Mr. Hall reached the position of acting assistant, or acting clerk, whatever it may be, not because he was appointed or kept there by the department, but because we were awaiting the decision of the commission in making the appointment. It was said this afternoon that they had made a thorough investigation. If so, it never was reported to the officials of the Post Office department, where the report should have gone, and for eighteen months the commission delayed action in this matter.


William Foster Garland: Is there an
employee in the registration branch, a bilinguist, who is able to qualify in the departmental examinations as Mr. Hall was?


Peter John Veniot: Any official now employed in the service has a right to apply for any promotion, and if he can qualify under the terms of the rating board he is entitled to it. An ordinary postal clerk can apply for that promotion.


William Foster Garland: Are the departmental examinations no good?


Peter John Veniot: They are carried out by the rating board.


William Foster Garland: Twice Hall
had 99 and 97 per cent.


Peter John Veniot: There are case examinations every year, and when a promotion is open the rating board examines the case examinations for a period of years and rate their men accordingly, and also give them a verbal examination. At times when the rating is very, very close, and it is difficult to distinguish which is the superior candidate, a rating examination is sometimes held.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the Postmaster General sent me over the report to which he referred. I have perused it, and it is clear that there was nothing corrupt in the post office at Orangeville; the substance of the report may be stated in the one word, "inefficiency." The deputy was then appointed postmaster. Is not that right?


Peter John Veniot: I will get the information
for my hon. friend.


William Earl Rowe: He was the deputy I believe The late postmaster at Orangeville had filled the position since 1912, and for sixteen years
Supply-Post Office

there was not one word of criticism from any of the post office inspectors. Indeed, on each and every occasion that his office was inspected he had been complimented until he felt that he had the most up-to-date establishment in the province. Nor was there any criticism from the patrons. Then after these long years of service he was given six hours' warning and dismissed. Even the inspector himself expressed regret at Mr. Harshaw's dismissal. To my mind the so-called inefficiency is really another term for "Conservative inclinations." In that district it is very hard to find a Liberal, and I feel satisfied that after this it will be still harder to find any.


Peter John Veniot: You should not complain
if that is the case.


William Earl Rowe: I do not. I thank the Postmaster General for keeping up the good work. So far as the new appointee is concerned, 1 have reason to believe that he will try to maintain the prestige of the postal department and of the government, but he will find it very difficult work in that district. I may say that the late postmaster had served the town very well; in addition to being postmaster he had rural route No. 1, he had also the work of looking after the letter boxes in Orangeville under separate contracts. These contracts were immediately discontinued when he was relieved of the postmastership. I think he must have been a reasonably good servant, for there was never the slightest dissatisfaction from his patrons or from the department's inspector. I may add that the late postmaster in the 1925 election was alert enought, notwithstanding his age, to assume the duties of his deputy in order to permit him to act as returning officer. He did practically all the work of the returning officer, Mr. Parks. Mr. Hay's father-in-law, in addition to his duties as postmaster. So that if there is any question about political sevices rendered, I think that Mr. Harshaw will probably stand on equal ground with the new appointee. Mr. Harshaw had held three responsible contracts for sixteen years without a word of criticism until he was dimissed, without any explanation, on the ground of inefficiency.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I suggest that the chair
bring the discussion down to the question at issue. The details in regard to the various post offices are found on page 65, while the details of the vote under discussion appear on page 96. I think it would be well for the committee to confine itself to the particular vote before the chair.


Charles Gavan Power: The
point is well taken. The hon. member would carry out well the duties of chairman.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I wish to direct the
attention of the Postmaster General to page 96, with reference to minimum salaries, which I think are altogether too low. We find an office boy-who I assume must be over sixteen, because the government would not employ anyone who could not work in factories -getting only $40 a month. We find truckmen, doing manual labour, and probably married, receiving $80 a month. Further down we find messengers, most of whom I suppose are married, getting $65 as a minimum, and further on typists, and clerks of grade one drawing the same pay, $65. While I am perfectly satisfied with the salaries that are paid the higher officials-I suppose we must call $40 a month wages-it seems to me that these amounts paid to the class of workers I have mentioned are too small. In view of the fact that the Post Office department has had a surplus, I suggest that the Postmaster General increase these minimum wages by five or ten dollars a month. These employees cannot exist on the wages they receive.


Peter John Veniot: The Postmaster General
is guided entirely by the Civil Service Commission in the matter of salaries.


Mr ADSHEAD:: What are they guided
by?


Peter John Veniot: "Office boy" is a new creation; the position is for boys up to eighteen. When they pass their civil service examination they are graded and made permanent, entering another class and getting a higher salary.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the minister think
that even a boy of eighteen can maintain himself on $1.50 a day?


Peter John Veniot: It is not what I think; it is what they allow me to do. I agree that it is not enough, but the commission classify them and they have a right under the law to fix the salaries under these classifications.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Cannot you recommend
that the salaries be raised?


Peter John Veniot: I have this year recommended that salaries in the Post Office department be raised, and my recommendations have been turned down by the commission.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Can the minister not
recommend that the minimum salaries anyway be raised?


Peter John Veniot: It is hardly worth my while doing so if they turn me down all the time.

Supply-Post Office


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Better turn them down,
then.


Peter McGibbon: In view of the Postmaster General's last remarks, which drew sympathy and almost tears from some on this side of the house, there is one thing we must admit: the Postmaster General has brought a new atmosphere into that side of the house, and while I personally do not agree with his methods I recognize his frankness and courage. In that way he differs in a respectable degree from the rest of the cabinet. As the discussion of the afternoon and evening has been proceeding along the lines of the outside service, possibly we might continue until we can get some more information. I want to ask the Postmaster General for the particulars of the dismissal of the postmaster at Rathburn, Ontario.


Charles Gavan Power: I must
call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the discussion of the outside service was allowed only until such time as the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) raised a point of order. I then ruled the discussion out of order. I must ask the hon. member to defer consideration of the Rath-burn post office until we reach an item under which it may be discussed.


Peter McGibbon: I may be technically
out of order, but every speaker, both this afternoon and this evening, has done the same. I think the ruling is rather arbitrary. You will not get anywhere with it,. I am not blaming the minister-


Peter John Veniot: I have not the information here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Outside service-salaries and allowances, including amount required to provide for salaries, reclassification, revision, promotions and increases which may be authorized by the Civil Service Commission, $16,955,934.40.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $15,080,000.
Miscellaneous, including Lucien Pacaud. Secretary of the High Commissioner's office, as the representative of the Canadian government on the Pacific Cable Board, at $1,500; and $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties,- or to dependents of employees killed while on duty, such payment to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,126,175.
Yukon Territory, $150,000.
Robert James Manion: This is a rather large
item and perhaps the minister will explain it. The first vote calls for salaries and allowances including amount required to provide for salaries, reclassification, revision, promotions
I Mr. Veniot.l
and increases which may be authorized by the Civil Service Commission. According to the information which I have received, as to one such reclassification at any rate-the reclassification of carriers, I believe-the Civil Service Commission has refused the increase. May I have an explanation as to what reclassifications there have been and what suggestions are accepted?


Peter John Veniot: There are four principal
items included in this vote. The item for salaries shows an increase of $428,940, of which $187,620 is due to statutory increases, approved by the Civil Service Commission, and the balance, $241,320, to additional assistance, chiefly letter carriers and postal clerks, required to handle an increased volume of mail and to provide for improved postal facilities afforded the public. The increased vote will be offset by a corresponding increase in postal revenue. The other item for mail service, under the first vote, shows an increase of $425,000, of which $100,000 is for mail service by railway and $325,000 for mail service by air and land conveyance, including rural mail delivery. The miscellaneous item is the same as last year, as is also that of the Yukon.


Robert James Manion: I did not hear the minister explain what reclassification has been accepted by the Civil Service Commission. This item provides for an increase and I would like to know what reclassification has been accepted by the commission?


Peter John Veniot: For instance, we are asked at different times to inaugurate carrier delivery in different towns and cities, and we usually accede to such requests. We have done so on several occasions this year, which necessitates the employment of a considerable number of new letter carriers who, of course, come under the regular classification of the Civil Service Commission and are appointed by the commission.


Robert James Manion: But has any entire class been given a reclassification?


Peter John Veniot: No.


Mr. HEAPS:: Under this item I should like to make a plea on behalf of the mail carriers and the other men who handle the mails. At present they receive approximately from $1,000 to $1,500 per year, and I understand that the Civil Service Commission have refused to grant the reclassification which the Postmaster General requested. To-night we heard the Postmaster General say that several employees of the government have been imprisoned for theft and similar crimes, and
Supply-Post Office

while he was making that statement I wondered whether it was not a fact that some of these men were compelled to steal because of the low wages they were receiving. In the postal service we expect men to be of good character, able to meet and handle the public, and we offer such people the magnificent sum of about $90 a month as an incentive to enter the service. It may be all right for the minister to say that the Civil Service Commission have not acceeded to his request, but I think that parliament should in some way express its opinion on this question. I think we all desire to give the men employed in the postal service a salary which will at least guarantee them a decent standard of living. Surely if the Civil Service Commission are not anxious to give these men that to which they are entitled it would be a simple matter to amend the Civil Service Act in order to guarantee them a decent minimum wage. There is nothing to prevent the Postmaster General from doing that, and I think he would have the support of members on all sides of the house. No member of this house, remembering the responsibility which rests on employees of the postal department, can say that they receive adequate remuneration for the services they render. I think even the Civil Service Commission would take cognizance of the opinion of this house if it were supported by all parties. I maintain that these men are entitled to a decent standard of living, but I believe the labourers employed in many of the large cities in Canada receive higher wages than the postal workers employed by the government. I do not see why that should be the case, and I wish the Postmaster General would take this opportunity of expressing his opinion on this question so that the Civil Service Commission might know his feelings in the matter. Then, if the Civil Service Commission will not give these men that which ensure to them the standard of living to which they are entitled, I hope parliament will take such action as is necessary to amend the Civil Service Act by including in it a minimum wage which shall be paid these men who enter the service.


Peter John Veniot: Would the hon. gentleman give us an idea of what he considers a minimum wage?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I woull give them the minimum wage which the city of Winnipeg give its permanent labourers, approximately $120 a month.


Milton Neil Campbell: I should like to ask the Postmaster General if this has anything to do

with the Civil Service Act at all. Under that act have the Civil Service Commission the power to set these salaries? Surely that rests with the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: Parliament delegated that
power to the Civil Service Commission, and they are exercising it. If it is desired to alter that provision it will be necessary to change the act.


Milton Neil Campbell: But the Postmaster
Genera! must bring down his estimates to provide the necessary money.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the Postmaster General if it is true that he did recommend an increase in salaries to the Civil Service Commission, who refused his recommendation? The Postmaster General nods his head. Then I would like to endorse the statements made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, because largely these are trustworthy men, who must do a good deal of confidential work; they carry registered mail and parcels of all kinds and are expected to be honest men. While it is no particular compliment that a man should remain honest, at the same time we should not make that more difficult than is necessary. A man working for $90 a month, with a wife and family to support, has a difficult time. The Postmaster General has stated that he recommended an increase in these salaries; might I ask what increase he recommended?


Peter John Veniot: I just forget, but I will try to give the answer in this way: The present minimum for letter carriers is $1,080 and the maximum $1,500. In addition to that they are given t.wo uniforms a year,


Richard Bedford Bennett: And boots and hats.


Peter John Veniot: Yes. That means about
another $100.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the Postmaster General also tell us what is taken off?


Peter John Veniot: Taken off for what?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Superannuation.


Peter John Veniot: Surely they are entitled to pay something for "superannuation if they want the benefit of it. I believe 5 per cent of their salary is taken off for that purpose. If I remember correctly we recommended that the maximum be $1,680 and the minimum $1,080. My deputy informs me that we recommended that the minimum of $1,080 be increased by $120, but that request was refused. The minimum for postal clerks is

Supply-Post Office
$1,080 and the maximum $1,680, while the minimum for railway mail clerks is $1,080 and the maximum $1,740. We also recommended
that the railway mail clerks be reclassified, increasing their minimum and maximum, but that was not done.


Robert James Manion: The Postmaster General
having stated to this house that after proper consideration he has recommended that the salaries of all classes be increased, certainly it would appear to me that it is about time parliament had something to say in the matter. I think parliament would be justified,' under the circumstances as pointed out by the Postmaster General, in taking it upon itself to pass some sort of act whereby the government in power, supported by the parliament of Canada, could increase the wages of these men.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: -The right of governor in council.


Robert James Manion: Yes, probably the right of governor in council; I have not thought that out. At any rate some means should be taken, subject of course to the approval of parliament, whereby the men who are getting the minimum should be given a better wage. One thousand and eighty dollars is $90 a month, and $90 a month is not sufficient for these men to live decently on and support their families. I know practically every postal carrier in my city. They are a very fine group of young men, many of them returned soldiers, and I know they are above reproach. They are decent, clean chaps who are anxious to make a decent, clean living. The cost of living in the north country is much higher than it is in the east, and for that reason I should like to speak strongly on their behalf. I would ask the minister whether there is any difference between the wages paid in the western country and those paid in the east, such as in Toronto or Ottawa?


Peter John Veniot: It is the same all over.


Robert James Manion: While I believe that they
should all get increases, I submit that living is higher in northern Ontario-I cannot speak with equal knowledge regarding the western prairie provinces, but I believe the same applies-the difference running anywhere from ten to twenty-five and in some cases fifty per cent above the cost of living in the cities of eastern Ontario. In some sections of the east rents are lower, and various other expenses are much less than in our part of the country. I believe all these men should get an
increase, and I think the Postmaster General would be well advised, and would get the support of the whole house, if he brought in supplementary estimates to provide for increased salaries for these men.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I want to congratulate the Postmaster General on making the recommendation for an increased salary to these officials about whom he has spoken. I have had occasion to learn something of the work done at one point in this country, and I do not think there is a finer class of men working for the government than those in our postal service. In saying that I am not saying one word against those who work in other services. I have been convinced for a long time that the salaries paid to the postal clerks are not sufficient for the work they do. I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this house, that if on the suggestion of the Postmaster General, which carries with it the authority of the government, there was a recommendation for an increase in salary to this class of worthy servants and the Civil Service Commission turned it down, something is wrong with our system. The sooner we recognize that fact and change the system, the better for all concerned. Something should be done as soon as possible to remedy that condition of affairs, and to see that these men and women are paid adequate salaries for the services they perform.


Peter McGibbon: In the case of employees of the department who have been paying into the superannuation fund for years, and who for one cause or another resign to enter some other business where possibly the prospective remuneration is greater, do they then receive the amount they have paid in?


Peter John Veniot: If they withdraw voluntarily from the service after being in a certain number of years, they would be entitled to the amount they paid in, but they could not expect to get any more than that.


Peter McGibbon: I did not know that was the case.


John Anderson Fraser: The Postmaster General has stated definitely that the Civil Service Commission refused his recommendation for an increase in salary. Could he tell us what grounds they submitted for that refusal?


Peter John Veniot: No reasons were givensimply a notice that they had taken the matter into consideration and had reached that conclusion. I have not the letter here now, but I placed it on the table a week ago.

Supply-Post Office


Mr. LADNER:: I happened to be the one
who asked the Postmaster General to make a return of the recommendation and the correspondence. I have sent for the correspondence, but I have an idea in my mind- it may be incorrect-that the Postmaster General did make a recommendation for an increase, but that in some way or another in asking for an increase in one way he was pulling it back in another.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, no.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the Postmaster General say that he unqualifiedly and definitely made a specific recommendation to the Civil Service Commission and received a negative reply without any explanation whatsoever?


Peter John Veniot: I made the recommendation in the only way it could be made, namely, for a reclassification, and the reclassification would bring about the increases that were required.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is altogether different.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have the correspondence now, but I will allow some other member to ask questions while I examine this file.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I should like to ask the
minister the weight each letter carrier should have to carry. I have seen postmen in my own city carrying 100 and 120 pounds, and they should not have to carry a weight of that sort. I have taken this matter up with the postmaster in the city and have applied to the department to set some maximum weight above which the postmen should not be asked to carry. I do not know why, but the department seems to be very hesitant about setting a maximum weight. The postmaster m the city told me that he believed that 35 pounds was a very fair weight, beyond which he would not go. In discussing it further, he qualified that remark by saying, "35 pounds on an average." That is a very different thing because a man may carry 5 pounds one day and 100 pounds the next. I submit to the Postmaster General's consideration the setting of a maximum weight beyond which the letter carrier would not have to carry, so that the postal authorities can be absolutely opposed to sending out any man with more than the maximum load. I think you ought to set the weight at 50 pounds.


Peter John Veniot: The letter distributors are not required to carry anything above 35 or 40 pounds. We have depots and relays in the cities where mail is divided. It is carried

by teams to these places, and the carriers can take their proportion for the section in which they are working. It is very difficult to regulate the matter in any other way. I can assure the hon. member that we do not want to overburden our carriers and we make it in every case as easy as possible for them. Where any overburdening is brought to the attention of our officials I know they are always prompt to see that the matter is remedied and additional help provided. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we shall not overload our carriers.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: On one occasion I stopped a postman and by actual weight I found that the load he was carrying weighed 120 pounds, and on several occasions where I have stopped postmen I have found the weights they have been carrying to be over 50 pounds.


Peter John Veniot: A letter carrier has only himself to blame if he is doing that. He is not required to do it, because the very moment the weight would reach anything like that his route would be divided and he would not have to carry any such weight. Any letter carrier who overburdens himself with more than 40 pounds of mail matter has himself to blame for doing it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why?


Peter John Veniot: Because he has no right to carry it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Supposing it is given to him.


Peter John Veniot: Let him refuse to carry it, and if the official over him does not treat him aright, all he has to do is to report the matter to the department and we will make the official treat him aright.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Last year the Postmaster General stated on the floor of the house that if a mail contract price was right and if the mail carrier was doing the work satisfactorily to the department, it was the custom of the department to renew the contract without calling for tenders. I should like to know if that is still the practice of the department?


Peter John Veniot: We do it in some cases.


Alfred Burke Thompson: I should like to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the case of Mr. Hermenegilde Picotte of the town of Penetanguishene, who for thirty years carried the mail to and from the station. The contract price was very low and during the whole thirty years of his service he gave

Supply-Post Office
every satisfaction both to the public and to the department. But being a free citizen he is supposed to have voted for me at the last election.


Peter John Veniot: That is a sin.


Alfred Burke Thompson: That is a sin, yes, and a punishable sin too. When his contract was about to expire this spring, the Liberal executive of the town called a meeting in the office of the defeated candidate, and said that because this man had voted for Thompson, Thompson would have to find him a job. So the defeated candidate called upon the Postmaster General not to renew the contract but to call for tenders. This was done and another man was given the contract at a lower price. I want to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that Picotte, who for thirty years had been a faithful servant, is incapacitated by certain disabilities from doing any other work. I have a medical certificate from his doctor under date of March 12, 1928, which states:
This is to certify that I have this day examined Mr. Herman Picotte, and find him ill from the following: Chronic bronchial asthma; high blood pressure, from hardening of arteries; chronic (marked) varicose veins of both legs.
The Postmaster General smiles, I may say for his further amusement that this man suffers so badly from asthma that he has not been able to sleep in bed for the last twenty years. He cannot do any other work, but with his horse he was able to carry on this service to the satisfaction of the public and of the department. Because, however, in the exercise of his right as a free citizen he voted for me, he must be punished and in his old age thrown out of employment. His condition might not be so pitiable were it not for this fact. When war broke out he had two sons both of whom enlisted voluntarily. One son was rejected as being physically unfit, but the second son, Napoleon, enlisted as a private in the 157th Battalion, giving up a good position in the Grand Trunk or the Canadian National service. He was successively promoted from private to corporal and from corporal to sergeant. He received the meritorious conduct medal for bravery on the field of action, but unfortunately one day he was killed in France. He did not come back to support his aged father and now a grateful country turns this man out into the cold.


Mr. SPENCE:: The same discussion took place in the house last year that is taking place to-night. I remember taking part in it and advocating the increasing of the salaries of postal clerks and railway mail carriers by $120. It was stated by the Postmaster
General that certain classes of the civil service had previously received increases and he could not see why he should grant them to all. In view of the fact that such an increase would mean a satisfied department in face of the increased cost of living I advocated that the increase of $120 be made general, but at that time the Postmaster General refused to grant or to recommend any increase. He said that he would recommend a reclassification. What difference does it make what classification they are in? What could you call a railway mail clerk, except a railway mail clerk? I could not for the life of me see what other name you could give them; they would still be railway mail clerks. I do not think the Postmaster General is very anxious in the matter, but the government should certainly take some action.


Peter John Veniot: The fact that there can be a reclassification of railway mail clerks is evidenced by the fact that the Civil Service Commission is mow considering, on the recommendation of the Postmaster General, a readjustment and reclassification of railway mail clerks by grading them so as to put them in a class where they will get a greater salary than they are receiving to-day.


James Houston Spence: It is not a difficult job to regrade them, but you cannot call them anything except railway mail clerks.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, you can.


James Houston Spence: You cannot call them
butchers. You are just passing the buck.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Would the Postmaster General be good enough to inform me why the practice of his department was not followed out in the case which I have cited?


Peter John Veniot: If the non. gentleman had called my attention to this matter before I would have been in a position to give him the information, but he cannot expect me to carry in my head the reasons for everything that takes place in the post office. I will get the information and give it to him to-morrow.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have perused the recommendations and correspondence relative to this question of increased salaries for railway mail clerks. The letter of the 2nd May from the secretary of the Civil Service Commission to Mr. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General, sums up the situation, but it does not convey the idea which the Postmaster Genera! conveyed to the committee a moment ago. The letter states:
I am directed to advise you that at a meeting of the commissioners this morning the recommendation for increased compensation for
Supply-Post Office

the classes letter carriers, mail porters, postal clerks and railway mail clerks, was given very careful consideration by the commission, and that their decision is that there should be no increase granted in the basic rate for those classes.
I want to ask the Postmaster General two things. Legally and according to the act, is the method of getting an increase that of effecting a reclassification, that is, changing the terminology of the employment, or is it by a straight increase in compensation of the different classes specified here?


Peter John Veniot: An increase in the minimum and maximum, and therefore carrying with it a yearly increase greater than in the past until they reach that greater maximum.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That would be a reclassification.


Peter John Veniot: It is both; that is the way I look at it, but perhaps I may not be using the right term. If the hon. gentleman will just read the first part of that letter-


Leon Johnson Ladner: I quote:
I am directed to advise you that at a meeting of the commissioners this morning the recommendation for increased compensation


Peter John Veniot: Increased compensation.
There is the direct recommendation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Quite so, but I would judge from that paragraph that there is no authority to grant it, and that you have to do it in some other way. I am asking if there is any other way by which the same result can be achieved.


Peter John Veniot: No, because if there had been, they would have pointed it out.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They did so.


Peter John Veniot: Where?


Leon Johnson Ladner: In the next paragraph.


Peter John Veniot: Read it, please.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I want the Postmaster
General to mark carefully the distinction between these paragraphs. The one I have read says that there should be no increase granted in the basic rate for these classes. The next paragraph says:
The commissioners, however, believe there is ood reason for considering the suggestion made y your department some time ago that some change should be made in the class of railway mail clerk to provide for increased compensation for the clerks in charge of railway post offices, and would be pleased to receive from the department their views regarding how this provision could best be effected.
That paragraph really indicates that the responsbility is passed back to the minister. What has he done to effect an increase?


Peter John Veniot: Let us get the record right. The first paragraph refers to mail clerks, postal helpers and letter carriers-


Leon Johnson Ladner: And railway mail clerks.


Peter John Veniot: One moment, please. They deal specifically with the first three classes, leaving out the railway mail clerks.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They do not. I have read it. I will read it again. It says:
Letter carriers, mail porters, postal clerks, and railway mail clerks.
They are all mentioned in the first paragraph, so how does the ministers' explanation work out?


Peter John Veniot: It would work out, because they specifically in the next paragraph pick out mail porters, mail clerks, and so forth, and they drop the railway mail clerks and later deal with them specifically and say, "In the oase of railway mail clerks, we may reconsider it, because we believe so-and-so, and we would ask you to suggest how it could be done." We have submitted to the Civil Service Commission a proposition of regrading, or grading, if you will, the railway mail clerks. They dismissed the first three entirely.


Leon Johnson Ladner: So far as basic rates are concerned.


Peter John Veniot: I got in touch with the Civil Service Commission, or my deputy did, and we discussed the interpretation of that clause. The result agrees with what I say now.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What did they say?


Peter John Veniot: They say they will not
recommend any increase.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In what?


Peter John Veniot: For the mail clerks, mail porters and the other class, just as it is in that letter. The hon. gentleman has the advantage of me; he has the document.


Leon Johnson Ladner: More than that, they say the basic rates.


Peter John Veniot: A delegation of railway
mail clerks went to the Civil Service Commission and discussed the whole matter with them. They came to me and asked my permission, as Postmaster General, to allow them to discuss the matter with the Civil Service Commission. I granted that; there could be no objection. They went. They returned to me, and they told me that the Commission had told them that they were there as the watchdog of the treasury.

Supply-Post Office


Leon Johnson Ladner: When did this take place7


Peter John Veniot: After the 3rd of May, and they did not care what my recommendations were in that respect, they could not grant the recommendations for increases.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Postmaster General will note that his suggestion is quite inconsistent with paragraph 2, where they invite him to make recommendations.


Peter John Veniot: Only in regard to railway mail clerks.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Certainly; that is the
subject matter of my comment.


Peter John Veniot: They refused to consider the first three classes, but in the case of the railway mail clerks they asked us to make a suggestion to them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister knows that they did not refuse increases for the first three classes. They only refused the basic rate.


Peter John Veniot: The basic rate is the whole thing. The moment you increase the basic rate and raise the maximum, you are giving to the service the right to annual increases greater than they receive to-dav. If you do not touch the basic rate it is no use touching anything at all. I am perfectly safe on the ground I am taking. I want the committee to understand that I am not trying to crawl out of anything. I am not trying to make any capital out of the fact that I did make a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission and they did not accept it. I merely wish to state the facts as they are. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I feel I am not; I have had experience in dealing with this matter for a few years.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would like to test the bona fides of the minister right here and now With respect to paragraph 2, where the commission invite the minister to make a recommendation for increases in salaries to the railway mail clerks, will the minister make that recommendation as requested?


Peter John Veniot: That question is very easily answered. I made it eight days ago. Will that satisfy the hon. gentleman? My deputy can give the exact date, but on my instructions he went to the Civil Service Commission and discussed the matter with them. There was a delegation of the railway mail clerks present in my own office; we discussed the matter with them and agreed with the railway mail clerks what their increase or readjustment should be, and we brought that to the attention of the civil service commission. It is now in their hands to act upon it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As we have gone so
exhaustively into the question, will the minister not produce the letter and put it on the record?


Peter John Veniot: My deputy tells me that he will produce the document. I have not got it here. We have nothing to hide. I will produce anything that I can get in the department.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do I understand that this letter is a recommendation from the Postmaster General to the Civil Service Commission?


Peter John Veniot: Not from the Postmaster General-from the deputy under my instructions. It is practically the same.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It is virtually from the Postmaster General recommending to the Civil Service Commission an increase in salaries with respect to the railway mail clerks as indicated in the second paragraph of this letter of the 2nd of May?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Where do the watchdogs of the treasury come in? How are they going to bark?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know. So far as the watchdogs are concerned, I am simply-reporting to you what the delegation reported to me.


Abraham Albert Heaps: From what the minister has stated, I believe that he is quite anxious that all these postal employees, as w^ell as the railway mail clerks, should get $120 per annum more than they are getting at the present time. There has been a fairly unanimous expression of opinion in this house on that matter this evening, and all parties have indicated a desire that that increase should be given. In view of that expression of opinion, I wouid ask the Postmaster General again to make this request of the Civil Service Commission for an increase. If he does that, and the Civil Service Commission again turn it down, we will know exactly where we stand. If the Postmaster General does that, I am sure the members of the house will be obliged tc him.


Peter John Veniot: I may say for the information of the committee that the government desires to get another department into supply this evening in order to take up an item or two, and when I have finished answering my hon friends I shall move that the committee rise and report progress.
In answer to the hon. gentleman, as an evidence of good faith of what the department desires to do, I may State that I brought
Supply-Post Office

the matter before council, and after consideration of the increases of the salaries of these classes an item of $350,000 was slated for the supplementary estimates; but when the Civil Service Commission replied as they did on May 2, that item was withdrawn. It will not now appear in the supplementary estimates unless the commission reconsider their decision and accept our recommendation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will you ask the Civil Service Commission to reconsider their decision?


Mr. ARTHURS:: The hon. minister has stated in his last few remarks what purports to have occurred in council, We have on many occasions, and probably this afternoon, inquired as to certain facts or alleged facts, and the answer invariably was that anything that occurred in council could not be divulged. How does the hon. gentleman square himself with that position? As a matter of fact he is giving this information ostensibly for the benefit of the suffering public but really for political purposes.


Peter John Veniot: My parliamentary experience in the commons has not been as lengthy as my hon. friend's, and I may have forgotten myself in that respect. I admit that perhaps it was a breach on my part, but I think I was doing nothing but right in laying the facts before the committee.


James Arthurs: I have an idea that the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well what he was doing. He was doing it for the purpose of affecting votes in the country.


Thomas Langton Church: The Postmaster General is quite frank. He believes in the spoils system, and makes no pretence about it whatever. The Post Office department is supposed to be operated for the benefit of the country, not for the benefit of this or. any other political party, but there has been politics in the department since confederation. I know that in the Toronto post office a man cannot get a temporary position at Christmas unless he joins the Liberal party. I have Seen the list. Who is in control regarding appointments; is it the Civil Service Commission? No, the Civil Service Commission has no more to do with it than the man in the moon. The list is presented to the postmaster, and he must act on it. If the returned soldiers do not vote Liberal they are dismissed, and their places are taken by others who will vote Liberal. The whole thing is ridiculous. That is not the way to operate a public utility. I do not say the present Postmaster General is entirely to blame; I think he stood by the men. I wish to put in a word for the low-paid men in the Toronto post office, the post-

men and others. Some of these men were in France for four and a half years. Day after day they have hard beats to walk. They give the maximum of efficiency at the minimum of pay, and there is no public utility using its men in the larger cities the way the low paid men of the Post Office department are used to-day. The Post Office department would have a large surplus were it not for the Special rates given to the newspapers, which is equivalent to a cash bonus of seven million dollars. This is given at the expense of the rank and file of the Post Office department, who are getting a miserable pittance of a salary to-day. Some of these men drawing only $700 or $800 are delivering registered mail containing hundreds of thousands of dollars in value. Are we to wait until there is another strike in the post offices throughout the country? The men are long-suffering and patient, and they have put up with a lot from the Civil Service Commission. Last year we had to wait three or four months before we could get this return. I never heard of so much red tape as exists in the Civil Service Commission over the classification of these men. They are a splendid body of men giving excellent service to the public at very low remuneration. I say from the top down they are underpaid. Take the Toronto post office; Mr. Lemon, the very capable head, is paid only about $5,800 a year, although the revenue from that office is six million dollars a year. The rank and file work long hours and are underpaid, and we should do something to relieve the conditions under which they labour to-day.
Item stands.
Mr.* MACKENZIE KING:	Item number
10.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is immigration and
colonization. I do not think it is in order to call another department without reporting progress on these estimates, when there would be a motion to go into committee again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are in
committee of supply now and the government is free to call any item.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion was made for the Speaker to leave the chair and the house to go into committee of supply. In supply the government can say what department it desires to take up.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Has that procedure ever been followed before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Always.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With consent.

Supply-Immigration


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is any objection we can take up some other item, but we wish to get the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) into supply to-night.


IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION
[Stage Direction]
Immigration and Colonization - salaries, $305,570; contingencies, $45,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Before proceeding with a discussion of the vote I want to offer a word of explanation. Some time ago, discussing the question of immigration, the leader of the opposition requested that we give the estimates in a more detailed form than we have them on page 22. This has been done, and a more detailed statement will be distributed to-morrow. On page 22 of the estimates it will be found that the whole vote is contained in six different items. We have divided it up into a great many items to make it more easily understood by hon. members, and to-morrow the details will be distributed. As regards the vote now before the house, my deputy is not here, but I may say that the total vote this year for civil government, salaries, is 8305,570 in comparison with $279,920 for 1927-28. This makes a total increase in the vote of $25,650. The explanation of this increase is the number of employees for the present year. This increase in numbers is accounted for as follows: 1 chief of records; 1 head clerk; 1 principal clerk; 16 clerks, grade four, promoted from grade three. This makes a total of 19, less 4 of a net decrease in lower grades due to adjustments and promotions. The estimated amount for 1928-29 is $305,570 as compared with $265,850, the amount voted for 1927-28, plus a flat increase of $120, which was granted under vote 535, which brought last year's total up to $279,920. This means that the increase for 1928-29 amounts to $25,650.


Robert Gardiner: What are the duties of a commissioner of immigration?


Robert Forke: There are three commissioners. as explained to the committee the other day. There is one in Vancouver, there is one in Winnipeg and another resident in Ottawa. These are called division commissioners. The Commissioner of Immigration is superior to these, having control of the whole Dominion from sea to sea.


Robert Gardiner: I do not see the three
commissioners mentioned this item. What are the duties of a commissioner of immigration? What does he do to earn his money?


Robert Forke: He has the whole question
of immigration under his care. Perhaps one of his most important duties is the supervision of the different ports. Any difficulty arising in Quebec or Halifax where immigrants enter the country is immediately attended to by the immigration commissioner. Internal work is under his supervision.


Robert Gardiner: And what are the duties of a commissioner of colonization?


Robert Forke: The Commissioner of Colonization is more particularly associated with the settling of immigrants after landing in Canada. He also has under his control the different agencies in the United States, but as his title implies he is more particularly connected with the settling of immigrants after they have landed in the country, in contradistinction to the' Commissioner of Immigration, who deals with them only in so far as their entry is concerned.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 22, 1928