1929-05-01

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) presented the second report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations as follows:
Wednesday, May 1st, 1929.
The select standing committee on industrial and international relations beg leave to present the following as their second report:
\our committee has had under consideration ,Allon adopted by the house on February 14th, 1929, as follows:
That the committee on industrial and international relations be authorized to investigate and report on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
The following witnesses appeared before your committee to give evidence on the subject matter ot investigation:
A.	Grant Fleming, M.D., Professor of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Montreal: J.
G.	Fitzgerald, Professor of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Toronto; Gerald H. Brown, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, Ottawa; R. A. Rigg, Director of Employment Service of Canada, Ottawa; Andrew
D.	Watson, Dominion Department of Insurance, Ottawa; W. Stewart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice, Ottawa; Robert H. Coats, Dominion Statistician, Ottawa.

Industrial Relations Committee
Dr. Grant Fleming and Dr. Fitzgerald gave evidence dealing specially with sickness insurance.	.
1.	Your committee would reaffirm the position taken in the final report adopted on June 6th of last session, namely:
That your committee accept and endorse the principle of unemployment insurance, based on compulsory contributions derived from the state, employer and employees.	,
2.	Your committee recognizes that, while it is highly desirable that such legislation should be uniform in all the provinces, and while social insurance has a federal aspect, nevertheless, according to the Department of Justice, under our constitution legislative jurisdiction in relation to the establishment of a compulsory system of unemployment insurance is vested exclusively in the provincial legislatures.
3.	Your committee finds that the provinces, on being consulted by the Department of Labour with regard to their attitude towards the establishment of a general scheme, do not appear to be prepared to take immediate action.
4.	Under these circumstances, your committee submits the following recommendations:
(a)	That with regard to sickness insurance, the Department of Pensions and National Health be requested to initiate a comprehensive survey of the field of public health, with special reference to a national health program. In this, it is believed that it would be possible to secure the cooperation of the provincial and municipal health departments, as well as the organized medical profession.
(b)	That in the forthcoming census, provision should be made for the securing of the fullest possible data regarding the extent of unemployment and sickness, and that this should be compiled and published at as early a date as possible.	.
(c)	That the federal government be requested to bring the subject matter of this reference before the next federal-provincial conference; and your committee suggests, when the agenda for such a conference is being arranged that the provincial governments be invited to send representatives of the employer and employee to discuss the subject matter of this report.
Your committee further recommends that 750 copies in English and 200 copies in French of this report, and the evidence upon which it is based, be printed in blue book form, and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
(Sgd.) Cameron R. McIntosh, Chairman.
Mr. HEAPS:: May I ask a question arising out of the report? When will the chairman of the committee move its adoption?


Mr. McINTOSH:: I intend to ask the house on Friday to adopt the report. Notice of motion will be given to-morrow.



ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: 

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
PAPERS TABLED RESPECTING VARIOUS: POSTMASTERSHIPS
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: I beg to lay on the table the reports asked for by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones) with reference to posbmasterships at Shanklin, Forks, Jemseg, and Jordan Mountain, N.B.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I wish to table copies of documents in possession of the Civil Service Commission relating to the postmastership at Hawkesbury,. Ontario. Concerning this report I may say that it is the last of the files requested by hon.. members on the other side to complete the files already tabled by the Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot) with reference to certain postmasterships. In certain cases the Civil Service Commission have pointed out that the files tabled were already complete and that they had no documents to add thereto.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Parent for concurrence in the second report of the select standing committee on public accounts.
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: On Thursday last a report was presented to this house by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) from the public accounts committee, in which it was asked that the powers of the committee be enlarged in order to include certain items which are not contained in the Auditor General's report for the year 1928. I may say that the only matter before the public accounts committee at the present moment is the Auditor General's report which was referred to it on motion of the Minister of Finance in February of this year.
In the course of the discussion in the public accounts committee it was found desirable to investigate certain items, not in the current Auditor's General's report, and inasmuch as we felt that we did not have the power to grant this request it was thought advisable to refer the matter to this house, which is the creator of the public accounts committee, in order that the house might give us the necessary instructions. There seems to have been a protracted debate on this question, as I note by Hansard, all parties agreeing that
Reports of Committees

these items should be investigated, with some thinking it was unnecessary and others believing it advisable to obtain authority from this house in view of the fact that a precedent was being created. There seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that if an item appearing in the report of this year which related to previous years could be traced back, it could be investigated and discussed, and that being the case we agreed to accept this suggestion of the house, which was very helpful to us and which put an end to our difficulty. However, there appear to be certain items in the Auditor General's report for the year 1927 which I understand are not related to anything in the report of this year; consequently we thought it would be advisable to obtain authority to investigate these particular items. Although only certain items were asked for, the committee, in its desire to give the inquisitors, if I may use the term, the fullest latitude, thought it well to request that the entire report of the Auditor General for last year too be brought down in order that we might have it before us. Hon. gentlemen *opposite asked for only two or three items, but we felt that it would not be fair to those *who are conducting the inquisition to limit them to those items; we felt that that would not be enough. They asked for one little loaf and one little fish but we are willing to multiply that by the five thousand items in the report so that every hungry member on the other side may be satisfied.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the report presented on March 24 by the hon. member for Quebec South be adopted.
Motion (Mr. Parent), agreed to.



STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) for Mr. Morin (Saint Hyacinthe-Rouville) moved:
That the third and fourth reports of the select standing committee on standing orders, which were presented to the house on the 23rd of April, as set forth at page 290 of the votes and proceedings, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many boys under eighteen years of age detained in penitentiaries of Canada are first offenders?
2.	What were the offences for which they were punished by penitentiary confinement?
3.	How many came from institutions of detention under provincial control?

Mr. Lapointe:
1.	40.
2.
Manslaughter	 3
Breaking, entering and	theft	 17
Theft	 5
Indecent assault	 1
False pretences	 1
Forgery and uttering	 1
Robbery with violence	 2
Theft from mails and	burglary.. ..	1
Theft of automobile	 2
Sending letters of threats	 1
Robbery from person	 1
Shopbreaking and theft	 2
Breaking, entering, stealing and burglary	 2
Shopbreaking, theft of auto, garagebreaking and theft	 1
3.	26.
NATIONAL DEFENCE-EXPENDITURE	.


Mr. SPENCER:: What was the estimated expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1914, for national defence?


Mr. RALSTON:: 
MALTING PLANTS IN ONTARIO
Mr. EMBURY:: 1.	How many malting plants are operated in Ontario?
2.	What licenses or fees were paid by malting plants in Ontario for the calendar year 1928?
3.	How many malting plants are operated in Canada?
4.	What licenses or fees were paid by malting plants in Canada for the calendar year 1928?
5.	What customs duties were collected for the calendar year 1928, on barley or other grains to be used for malting purposes?
6.	What was the total amount of excise tax collected from the malting industry for the calendar year 1928?
7.	What was the total amount of sales tax collected from the malting industry for the calendar year 1928?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Two.
2.	$400.
3.	Eight.
4.	$1,450.	_
5.	Figures are not available of duties collected on grains imported for malting purposes as distinguished from grains imported for other purposes.
6.	The excise duty collected on malt entered for consumption by maltsters during the year 1928 = $2,437,329.03.
7.	$8.93.


RUSSELL HOUSE PROPERTY
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Did a fire occur on the property generally known as the Russell house after the government had arranged to purchase the property:
2.	If so, to whom was insurance paid, if any ?
3.	If insurance was paid, what was the amount?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To the Russell Company and by them transferred to Federal District Commission.
3.	$13,498.90.


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	What are the names of the officials of the
Department of Health in the inside service and their respective salaries?	,
2.	Haw many physicians are employed in: (a) the inside service; (b) the outside service?
3.	What is the total number of persons employed by the Department of Health?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.
Dr. J. A. Amyot	$8,000
Dr. J. J. Heagerty	 4,620
F.	H. Brown	
3,480G.	Heidman	
3,480Maurice Morisset	
3,420Henry O'Brien	
1,680Miss M.	I. Hickson	
1,680Miss G.	Drouin	
1,680Miss E.	Slater	
1,680Miss K.	E. Brownrigg	
1,680A.	M. Dare	
1,680Miss Lucille Roy	
1,200Miss M.	M. Smiles	
1,200Miss D.	M. Maginnes	
1,140C.	G. Morgan	
1,500W. J. Reilly	
1.380Miss R. F. Stringer	
1,020E.	A. Parson	
540J.	Gale	
2,400G. L. Morse	
1.620Miss L. O'Brien	
1,380A. E. Bennett	
1,080
Questions
A. H. F. Ross	$1,020
W. J. Tanner	 1,020
H.	M. Lancaster	 5,220
A. LeMoine	 3,540
W. Y. Kitto	 3,300
F.	C. Collier	 2,700
L. E. Johnson	 2,700
R. D. Whitmore	 2,700
James Dick	 2,700
Miss S. E. Wright	 2,700
A. L. Davidson	 2,460
F. E. Artlett	 2,340
A. Wright	 2,160
D.	J. Potter	 1,260
Jos. Ladouceur	 1,480
E.	Pilon	 1,440
Miss M. A. Brouse	 1.140
Miss V. Clement	 1,380
Miss M. F. Lembert	 1,140
L. P. Teevens	 3,420
Miss V. M.	Argue	
1,620Mrs. M. L.	Proulx	
1,380Miss M. B.	Lavell	
1,380Miss A. H.	Gavin	
1,320Miss B. Trepanier	
780C. H. L. Sharman	
3,300K.	C. Hossick	
2,520F.	T. Wall	
1,920W. E. Caswell	
1.680Miss E. M.	Durack	
1.380Miss M. E.	O'Brien	
1,380Miss M. E.	Jamieson	
1,140Miss M. O.	Fitzgerald	
960Miss R. M. Crilly	
720J.	Anderson	
3,600A.	T. Allen	
2,700J. F. Shaw	
2,400J. Y. Noonan	
1.920John Lynch	
1,680W. A. Buchanan	
1,440Miss K. M. Dunbar	
1,680H.	C. Quevillon	
1,380Miss Margaret E. Hill	
1,380Miss Lola BeMiveau	
1,380Dr. J. D. Page	
5,300G.	H. Parry	
2,880Miss Mary E. Hill	
1,680Miss E. E. Washington.. ..	1,500Miss H. A. Kemmis	
1,080Dr. Helen MacMurchy	
4,500Miss W. O'Connor	
1,680Miss M. J. Cassidy	
1,320Miss H. Finley	
1,020Miss E. C. Gourley	
1,380Dr. N. M. Harris	
5,120Dr. F. W. Ward	
4,140Jas. Gibbard	
2,940C. W. Chapman	
2,820B.	W. Culyer	
2,160
Questions

L. Farrell	SI ,200
F. R. Browning	 1,020
E. S. Meston	 780
J. M. Lee	 780
Miss G. Leyden	 600
Miss M. A. Lallier	 1,620
W. J. Henry	 1,320
B.	Evan-Parry	 3,420
Aubrey Fraser	 1,080
C.	E. Campbell	 1,080
Ernest D. Haines	 1,080
C.	A. Skuce	 720
Miss Rose Levitin	 1,080
Miss M. T. D'Aoust	 1,080
Miss M, L. Devlin	 1,080
Miss E. McKay	 1,080
Miss M. I. Stewart	 720
R. Pelland	 720
M.	S. Hunt	 420
J. Naubert	 1,140
Miss G. Racicot	 720
2.	(a) Inside service:
Full time	 5
(b) Outside service:
Full	time	
44Part	time	on	salary....	62
Part time on basis of fees for services rendered .. 45
3.
Full	time	307Part	time	on	salary....	68
Part time on basis of fees for services rendered .. 45
These figures do not include the various collectors of national revenue who act for the department in the collection of sick mariners' dues under the provisions of part V of the Canada Shipping Act, R.S. 1927.


IMPORTATIONS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: What were the importations of butter, cheese, eggs, mutton and beef from:	(a) Australia;
(b) New Zealand, during the first three months of 1929 into Canada?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Canada's Imports of Butter, Cheese, Eggs, Mutton and Beef from (a) Australia; (b) New Zealand (Three months ended March 31, 1929)
Commodity	Unit of Quantity	Imports from Australia	Imports from New Zealand	Quantity	Value	Quantity	ValueButter	Pound Pound Dozen Pound Pound Pound Pound	78,400	$ 33,371	17,518,302 195,886	$ 6,179,980 37,059Cheese	Eggs in the shell	Eggs, n.o.p	Mutton and lamb, fresh, chilled or frozen... Beef, fresh, chilled or frozen	2,304,335 876,425	296,906 72,597	19,469 287,383	2,941 25,909Beef, pickled, in barrels	
Note:-Impossible to segregate imports of mutton from "mutton and Iamb."


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS SUPERVISION COMMITTEE
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1 * In reference to the government contracts supervision committee, in what years were reports issued To the government or to parliament since this committee was set up with a staff under Colonel L. It. LaFleche?
2.	If no reports have been issued by the staff responsible for the work of the government contracts supervision committee, why has this not been done?


Mr. ROBB:: Regular month to month reports of all purchases, sales and transfers are made to the Minister of Finance.
IMr. J. H. King.]


SWAN LAKE RESERVE
Mr. LOVIE:: 1.	Who was medical inspector of Indians on the Swan lake, Manitoba, reserve from 1917 to 1922?
2.	Who was medical inspector on said reserve from 1922 to 1926?
3.	Who has been medical inspector from 1926 to the present date?
4.	When changes of medical inspector of Indians on the Swan lake, Manitoba, reserve took place, what were the reasons for the changes, and upon whose recommendation were they made?

Questions


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Dr. G. Pennefather, Holland, Man., 1917-
Sept. 1922.	,
2.	Dr. G. H. Johnston, Swan Lake, Man., Sept. 1922-Aug. 17, 1926.
3.	August 17th, 1926, to July 12, 1927, Dr.
G.	Pennefather, Holland, Man., July 12th, 1927, to date Dr. G. H. Johnston, Swan Lake, Man.
4.	In 1926 it was decided to change from the call system to salaried medical attendant for the Swan Lake Indians. The position was advertised by the Civil Service Commission and Dr. Pennefather of Holland was appointed. It was found that the Indians could not receive as good service from Holland, a distance of 14 miles from the reserve, as from Swan lake, a distance of 4 miles from the reserve where Dr. Johnston was located, and the call system was reverted to in July, 1927, and Dr. Johnston appointed by the Department of Indian Affairs.


BUSSELL K. ODELL
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: 1 What is the position and salary of Russell
K.	Odell in the Department of the Interior?
2.	Did he have any technical or professional
training before appointment to this position, other than mere office work?	.
3.	Does he hold any degree from a university
or school of science?	.
4.	What is the justification for paying this man such a large salary and placing him over the head of technical and professional men m the same department?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Assistant Director, Natural Resources Intelligence Service, $4,620 per annum.
2.	Yes.
3.	Equivalent qualifications satisfactory to the department and Civil Service Commission.
4.	His ability to perform the duties of the position to the complete satisfaction of the department.


GEORGE P. MACKENZIE
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: 1.	What is the position and salary of George P. Mackenzie in the Department of the Interior?
2.	Did he have any technical or professional training before being appointed to this position. other than mere office work?
3.	Does he hold any degree from a university or school of science?
4.	Has he a seaman's certificate?
5.	What is the justification for paying this man such a large salary and placing him over the head of technical and professional men in the same department?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Exploration and development officer, Canadian Arctic, $5,120, and $3,000 living allowance per annum.
2.	Equivalent qualifications satisfactory to department and Civil Service Commission.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	His ability to perform the duties of the position to the complete satisfaction of the department.


ALFRED PEAT PLANT
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Has the Department of the Interior finished its experimental work at the Alfred peat bogs, and, if so, what conclusion has the department arrived at with regard to the feasibility of producing and marketing peat fuel upon a commercial basis?
2.	Is the plant which has been assembled at Alfred now completely efficient for the recovery of peat fuel and is it an adequate commercial unit for economical operation? If not, what remains to be done, and what alterations or additions does it require, and what will be the cost of necessary additions?
3.	Will the government operate the Alfred peat plant this year?
4.	If so, what tonnage of commercial fuel is
expected to be recovered from the seasons s operations?	.	,
5.	Has the peat bog plant at Alfred been transferred by the Department to Peat Fuels Limited? If so, at what date and under what terms and conditions of lease, sale, operation or otherwise ?
0.	Is it the intention of the government to merchandise and market the production of said plant or *null the same be handled as prior to 1927 or by Peat Fuels Limited?
7. Has the government considered the policy of paying a bounty based upon tonnage to be payable to producers who might embark in the industry?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton.):: 1 and 2. The Department of Mines, and not the Department of the Interior, is responsible for the experimental work done at the Alfred peat bog.
The operations in 1928 indicated that additional power was necessary for operation of the plant at full capacity. A complete commercial demonstration is contingent upon the installation of this power.
The marketing problem has not been specially investigated by the Department of Mines, but is believed to be mainly a question of advertising and salesmanship. _
3 and 4. The government considers it inadvisable to answer these questions at present.
5.	No.	_
6 The government considers it inadvisable to answer this question at present.
7. Consideration has not been given.
Questions


HOUSE OF COMMONS TYPEWRITERS
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many typewriters are in use in the stenographic branch of the House of Commons?
2.	What makes are they?
3.	How many years have they been in use in this branch?
4.	How long were they in use before being taken to this branch, and in what departments?
5.	How many new machines, if any, were bought in each of the last ten years?
6.	What is the longest time any of the machines in this branch have been in use?
7.	Were any of the machines now in use salvaged from the fire?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1. 80.
2.	Underwood, Remington, L. C. Smith, Monarch and Royal.
3.	From 1 to 16 years.
4.	No information.
5.	2.
6.	16 years.
7.	Yes.


INVERNESS COUNTY PREVENTIVE OFFICERS
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	How many preventive officers are there in the county of Inverness?
2.	Who are they?
3.	What is the salary of each?
4.	How much did each receive for wages and for expenses during the year 1928?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	The preventive service is a mobile force and officers are appointed for the whole province and not for any particular county or district.
There are four officers with headquarters at Cheticamp, Inverness, Mabou and Port Hood.
2 and 3.
Salary $1,320
A.	Burns	it '	per annum uA.	J. Campbell	it	aR.	D. MacDonald	(t	aJ.	S. MacLean	tt	aSalary	ExpensesA.	Burns	$1,230	$16.25A.	J. Campbell.	1,290	28.30R.	D. MacDonald	1,230	3.30J.	S. MacLean	1,260	54.901926	1927 1928Not in employ	A.	Burns	in 1926	6 4A.	J. Campbell	it	10 11R.	D. MacDonald	tt	J.	S. MacLean	it	7 1


INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSIONERS
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Who were the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House of Commons for the years 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?
2.	How many meetings of thi9 committee have been held in each of these four years and on what dates were they held?


Mr. SPEAKER:: 1.	1926-Hon. Messrs. J. H. King, W. R Motherwell, E. M. MacDonald and George
H.	Boivin.
1926-27-Hon. Messrs. W. R. Motherwell, J H. King, J. C. Elliott and Fernand Rin-fret.
1928-	Hon. Messrs. W. R. Motherwell, J.
H.	King, J. C. Elliott and Fernand Rinfret.
1929-	Hon. Messrs. W. R. Motherwell, J. H. King, J. C. Elliott and Fernand Rinfret.
2.	(a) 1926-4.
1926-27-2.
1928-	1.
1929-	1.
(b) 1926-1st of February, 1926.
15th of February, 1926.
22nd of February, 1926.
25th of March, 1926.
1926-27-14th of December, 1926.
9th of March, 1927.
1928-	8th of May, 1928.
1929-	16th of April, 1929.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Edward Joseph Garland: What are the names and salaries of members of the civil service in each department who devote full or part time to the duty of public purchases and correlative duties connected therewith, and including the names and salaries of stenographers, typists and other clerical assistance?


SURVEYS AND OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES
Edward Joseph Garland: What are the names of the departments or branches of the public service which support establishments and equipment for:	(a) precise levelling; (b) topographical maps; (c) surveying work; (d) multigraphing, mimeographing and duplicating service; (e) photostat, blue printing, photo-lithographic and photographic service; (f) book bindery work?


TRIPS ABROAD OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	How many civil servants in the past year were deputed by the government to represent it in various foreign countries at conventions or for other purposes, or were sent abroad by the government for research work of a scientific character?

Trade Relations with Russia
2.	What are the names of the said civil servants, in what department are they employed, and were their expenses paid by the government?	,
3.	If the government paid all expenses, what was the total of said same?
4.	What was the specific purpose of such visits to said foreign countries, and did each civil servant make a report to the government?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to discontinue the practice of giving members of the civil service a trip abroad as mentioned above, at the public expense?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In connection with this
question I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that the government should not be asked to reply to the fifth paragraph, which concerns the intentions of the government.
It is not customary to disclose the intentions of the government in advance, and further I submit that the question is more ;n the nature of a demand rather than a request for information. With that reservation this might stand as an order for return.


BRITISH PREFERENCE
Mr. ADSHEAD:: 1.	Items in the customs tariff which are free under British preference?
2.	Items which have British preferential duties.
3.	How many of these have been put on since 1921.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLACK (Halifax, for Mr. Cahanl:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to the dismissal of C. H. Couture of St. Bernard, county of Dorchester, province of Quebec, from his office as inspector of weights and measures, in or about February, 1927, and the appointment of a successor to that office.

Mr. ERNST:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and documents, of whatsoever kind, including therein correspondence of and with the Civil Service Commission, relating to applications for the position of customs officer at Mahone bay, in the county of Lunenburg, and the appointment of Francis Hollaway to that office.


DUNCAN RIVER TRAIL OR ROAD
Mr. ESLING:: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams as between the members of the provincial government of British Columbia, or any resident of that province, and the Department of Public Works, concerning the construction of a trail or road along the Duncan river, as provided for in a vote of $7,500 at the last session of this parliament.


RENATA, B.C. POSTMASTER
William Kemble Esling: For a copy of all correspondence and documents necessary to complete the file as contained in return No. 163 tabled by order of the house at the last session of this parliament, and relating to the appointment and dismissal of the postmaster at Renata, British Columbia.


BRAZIL LAKE, N.S., POSTMISTRESS
William Gordon Ernst: For a copy of all papers, letters, correspondence and other documents relating to the dismissal of Mrs. Tupper as postmistress at Brazil Lake, in the County of Yarmouth, in or about the year 1927.
DISTRIBUTION OF HANSARD Mr. J. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation):	Three weeks ago, I requested
that the French speaking members be placed on the same footing as their English speaking colleagues in regard to the distribution of Hansard, I mean that Hansard should be delivered to us at 11 a.m.
Notwithstanding the assurance given to us, Sir, we do not yet receive it at that hour.
I again request that we be placed on the same footing as the English speaking members, and, if nothing further is done, I shall be forced to demand the dismissal of the official in charge of the distribution of Hansard.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: The French and English versions?


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Both.


Hewitt Bostock: Instructions will be given to that effect.


TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would like to ask the right hon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if the government is willing that trade delegations from Rusia should be established in Canada along similar lines to those already established in England, Australia, South Africa and the United States, and whether the government is willing to vise the passports of the trade delegates?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am sorry that I am not
wholly familiar with the manner in which Russian trade delegations are established in the United States, Great Britain and other parts of the empire, but possibly I can give the hon. member the information which he desires.
Civil Service-Promotions

When the trade agreement between Canada and Russia was terminated it was made plain that the government had no desire to discourage trade between Russia and Canada and that we did not intend to embarrass bona fide trading between the two countries. The agreement terminated certain quasi-diplomatic privileges which the Russian agency in Montreal possessed at the time. I understand that it is customary for buying and selling commissions from Russia, to visit the United States, Great Britain and other parts of the empire and that they have been permitted to come into these different countries freely for the purpose of trading transactions. This country has always been prepared to grant similar privileges to these trading commissions.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And to vise the passports?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order to
get into the country the passports may have to be vised.


CIVIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I
desire to call the attention of the house to a return tabled on April 26 by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) on behalf of the Civil Service Commission. The return had reference to a question which I placed on the order paper early in the month of April and which was passed as an order for return on April 10. The first part of my question read as follows:
In cases of promotion within the departments, is it customary for the Civil Service Commission to hold examinations when a candidate has: (a) received from the department the highest rating; (b) has had the longest term of service; (c) has been recommended for promotion by the commission's own board of examiners?
The answer received from the commission was as follows:
The commission holds written examinations in connection with cases of promotion only when there is sufficient closeness between the rating of the leading candidates to justify such a course being taken, or when it appears necessary to obtain further evidence of the qualifications of the candidates by means of a written test.
The second question is not material. The third question was as follows:

Since June, 1925, in how many eases, when all the elements favourable to an applicant as outlined in question No. 1 appear on the record, has the ordinary procedure been disregarded and examinations ordered?
That appears to me to be a pretty plain question, but it is answered by the Civil Service Commission as follows:
Answered by question No. 1.
I would ask the Secretary of State to instruct the commission that when questions are asked and passed by this house to the commission, proper answers should be given. I would ask the Secretary of State so to instruct the Civil Service Commission in order that I may obtain a proper answer to my question.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will bring the matter to the attention of the commission. In submitting replies from the commission, which is an independent body, I do not, of course, accept responsibility for the replies.


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster):: Would the right hon. the Prime Minister advise whether a new gentleman's agreement has been entered into with Japan regarding the entry of Japanese into Canada, as was suggested by his remarks of last session, and if so, will he give the house the particulars regarding same?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I gave the house last
session particulars of the revision of the agreement which we had restricting and limiting the number of Japanese immigrants entering Canada. The new arrangement contemplates the admission of not more than 150 per year, which includes women and children as well as men. It was contended by Japan that the old agreement contained no limitation with respect to women and children, but the new provision limits the total immigration to 150 per year.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understood that
there were to be further negotiations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The arrangement was fully consummated at the time. Advantage was taken of the arrangement whereby each country was to appoint a minister to the country of the other, by providing that the passports of Japanese immigrants coming to Canada would be vised by the Canadian minister residing in Tokyo, or by some member of his staff, and that the provisions would go into full effect as soon as the Canadian legation was opened in Japan.

Administration of Post Office Department



SUPPLY-ADMINISTRATION OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['The hon. gentleman is taking the year 1926, and he has shown there was a surplus of $524,778.48, and that during the years following, 1927 and 1928, there were deficits ranging from $1,629,000 to $1,S50,000. He should have remembered that in 1926 the reduction from three cents to two cents was made in postage; that with one stroke of the pen the receipts of the Post Office Department, had there been no increase in volume of business, would have been reduced by $6,000,000, but the volume of business has so increased since 1926 that we have almost brought that deficit down to a negligible amount. As to the estimated deficit reported for the fiscal year ended March 31 1929, it is true that deficit is estimated at approximately $2,500,000. I am dealing now with round figures. That is not surprising when it is considered that we have opened many new rural routes during last year and the year before; that we have extended the air mail service; that it cost last year somewhere in the vicinity of $400,000 or $500,000 more than we expended in the past; that under the Civil Service Act there have been statutory increases in the salaries of the employees of the postal department, and many more increases which I can explan as each item is taken up. For instance, in the item under discussion, there is an increase in salaries and allowances of $339,530. The total estimate for salaries and allowances for the fiscal year 1929-1930 is the amount provided for the fiscal year 1928-1929, plus $339,530, which is made up as follows: 1878 statutory increases which could not be avoided, and which are granted after the approval of the Civil Service Commission, amounting to $206,202 ; 235 additional positions required, owing to the increased volume of mail and to provide for the new and improved postal facilities afforded the public, $132,310-\nProgress reported.\nTHE ROYAL AiSSENT']
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago, on a similar motion,
I moved an amendment which was in the nature of a vote of censure upon the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). It was based upon his action in connection with the appointment by the Civil Service Commission of a postmaster at the town of Simcoe and the rejection of that appointment by the Postmaster General. That amendment was defeated. In the debate however many facts which were not known to me when the motion was launched, were brought out, and in the discussion that has taken place during the last few days in committee of the whole on the estimates of the Postmaster General, further information has come to the attention of the house. Had that information been available when I moved the first motion, I would have made it more general in character, and I propose to-day to move another motion. The facts that have been disclosed during the past few days must, I feel sure, have startled the house, the press and the people of Canada. The discussion has not at all been completed; only a comparatively small number of the files that have been brought down have been examined, but sufficient has been disclosed, as I have said, to startle the people of Canada. The background, of course, of all this discussion, is the Civil Service Commission and the attitude of the Postmaster General toward that commission. I do not propose to take up very much time in reviewing the result of the discussion of the past few days, and, indeed, I do not think it is necessary to do so, because the house is thoroughly familiar with what has occurred. As the Postmaster General desires to go to Great Britain as Canada's representative at the postal congress-


Mr. YENIOT:: Please do not let that interfere with the accomplishment of your duties.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and as under the rules of the house there would be no other opportunity of making a motion such as I have been proposing to make for several days, it appears desirable that the opinion of the house should be at this time crystallized. Therefore, I propose to move an amendment. As I have said, the background of all this is the Civil Service Commission and the attitude of the Postmaster General toward it.
Let me review some of the facts that have been disclosed in the last few days. In thirty-two instances the Postmaster General rejected the appointments of the Civil Service Commission. Some of the files have 'been examined, but the examination is not completed. I am told by some hon. gentlemen, who are particularly interested in these files and who have examined them, that in some cases returned soldiers have been rejected in favour of civilians. In at least one case, that of Spruce Lake, there were two rejections in succession. In the case of Picton, the Postmaster General rejected the appointment of the Civil Service Commission although that appointment followed the recommendation of his own inspector. A gentleman who had been assistant postmaster for many years was passed over, and another gentleman who had been instrumental in formulating charges against the postmaster, who was dismissed really on a suspicion, was appointed to the office. We have therefore the example of one man being dismissed for partisanship and another appointed for the same reason. I asked for some information regarding the number of appointments made by the Civil Service Commission where dismissals of postmasters had been made, and I refer to sessional paper No. 211, brought down by the Postmaster General. It reads:
Memorandum
On Friday the nineteenth instant Mr. Stewart (Leeds) referring to the number of postmasters dismissed from the 1st October, 1926, to the 1st February, 1928 (421), asked how many of these were appointees of the Civil Service Commission.
The answer is 98.	,	,,,00
The answer is 98 up to 1st February, 1928, date mentioned by the hon. member for Leeds, but since February, 1928, to April, 1929, there were eight more-making 106 in all to date.
Sixty-three of these were appointed previously to 1922, but these officers were made departmental appointments on recommendation of the commission which exempted all offices beiow $400 annual revenue. This leaves 43 dismissals in offices under Civil Service Commission at time of dismissals.
iSo we have this record of rejections and dismissals which is without a parallel, I think, in the history of Canada-


Mr. DUNNING:: Nonsense.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -under similar circumstances. Since the establishment of the Civil Service Commission with authority over these offices, I challenge the Minister of Railways, who seems to say, "Oh, no," or any other hon. gentleman to point to anything approaching it.
2128	COMMONS
Administration of Post Office Department


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend did not
introduce his qualification until I called attention to the nonsensical nature of his statement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said: Under
similar circumstances.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member did
not say it until after I made my interjection.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to pass on to the action of the Postmaster General in endeavouring to justify the dismissals and in quoting the opinion of the Department of Justice. Let me point out that he quoted only a portion of that opinion, and that when he was asked to lay it upon the table, it was found that it was only a partial opinion. Later on, when the full opinion was brought down, it was perfectly clear that a very relevant and important part had been left out. I wish to point out that in many instances files laid on the table in answer to orders of the house, were found, upon examination to be incomplete, although we had the assurance of the Postmaster General that they were complete, and he has had on different occasions to supplement these files. In some instances the Postmaster General justified the dismissals of postmasters on the ground that there were shortages, and I think he referred to the shortages in those cases as instances of stealing. In some of these cases the amount was very trifling, but notwithstanding that, the unfortunate postmaster or postmistress was dismissed. We had disclosed to us yesterday in connection with the St. John post office an instance in which an inspector had appropriated to his own use moneys that had been paid to him, and had made inaccurate and misleading statements in connection with the receipt of those moneys, all of which came to the knowledge of the Postmaster General, but notwithstanding that knowledge, and against the recommendation of the inspector, he ordered the salary of this man to be increased and appointed him to a position of superior responsibility. Apparently it is a crime for a postmaster in a small office to be a little short in his accounts when an inspector calls, but it is a matter of merit for an inspector himself to withhold and misappropriate public moneys. The one case calls for condemnation, the other calls for commendation.
The Civil Service Commission was established in an honest and serious attempt by the Canadian people to get rid of the undoubted evils of patronage that existed, and 
it has in a large measure accomplished the desired result. The action of the Postmaster General and his record in reference to the Civil Service Commission is one of utter disregard, one of defiance, and I would say one of contempt. He has done a great deal to impair the efficiency of the Civil Service Commission and to render its work impossible. I may say to him that if you leave out the patronage-mongers and the camp-followers, the Civil Service Commission occupies a very high place in the esteem of the Canadian people, and they are determined, Mr. Speaker, that that commission shall have the chance to function. They are determined on that course in the interests of the people at large, for the security of the public service and for the permanence and efficiency of the service as a whole. The Postmaster General is the champion political executioner of Canada, and I want to tell him that the people of Canada are not yet ready to accept the decision of a dictator in any department of the government of Canada. We do not want a Mussolini in this country, and we expect that the Postmaster General shall follow and have regard for the statutes.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, the serious nature of the amendment which I am about to move because under our rules it may be, and I believe is, treated as a motion of want of confidence in the government; but results more serious than the defeat of this government or the defeat of any government may happen in Canada, and I cannot think of anything that could be more detrimental than that ministers of the crown should openly defy and disregard the statutes of this country.
I am reminded of the old maxim, fiat justitia, ruat coelum-let justice be done though the heavens fall. The Postmaster General has brought upon himself any criticism that may have been offered in this house. He has brought that criticism upon himself by his own action and by his attitude in this house and in relation to the criticisms that have been offered. I therefore submit for the approval of this house an amendment which I think will commend itself to the judgment of hon. members, and I hope that notwithstanding political exigencies many of the members on the other side may feel justified in supporting it because it is based upon the facts that have been disclosed here, and it is mild and moderate in its terms. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that if this amendment is rejected here, we must carry it in

Administration oj Post Office Department
appeal to the great jury of the people of this country. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson): That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this house, after consideration in the committee of supply of the estimates of the Post Office Department, it is apparent the administration of that department by the present Postmaster General has been characterized by inefficiency, disregard of the provisions of the Civil Service Act, the Post Office Act and other statutory authority, and merits the disapproval of this house.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, in rising to reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), may I be allowed to point out to the house that while in his amendment he has contented himself with certain general statements with regard to the Postmaster General, his inefficiency, his disregard of the provisions of the Civil Service Act, the Post Office Act and other statutory authority-I wonder if there is any other statute he could have quoted-he states that for the reasons thus given my administration merits the disapproval of the house.
The hon. gentleman has not undertaken to enlighten this house as to the way in which my administration of the department has been inefficient. He has taken very good care not to point out in what particular I have violated the provisions of the Civil Service Act or of the Post Office Act. During the debate that took place while my estimates were before the committee of the whole house, we dealt with certain phases of the amendment which has just been moved, and it is not my intention to repeat or to deal at all with the arguments I then advanced on the points at issue in an attempt to defend my course as Postmaster General.
But there are one or two points which I think I should bring out. I have been told, and it has often been repeated here-in fact, the hon. member for Leeds referred to it in passing this afternoon-that in many cases I disregarded the certificates issued by the Civil Service Commission. I have rejected, Mr. Speaker, for very valid reasons thirty-two certificates issued by the Civil Service Commission since I have been at the head of the Post Office Department of Canada. Being at the head of the department I found that, owing to the unworkable system under which the qualification of applicants was attempted to be ascertained, persons were being appointed to the department over which I had the control and administration who, I became convinced, were not able efficiently to carry
on the duties of the positions to which they had been appointed. Being in possession of that knowledge it was, and is, my duty not only to myself, not only to the department for the administration of which I am responsible to the people of Canada, but also to the mail service throughout the Dominion that I should reject such appointments. I am not disregarding the Civil Service Act when I do that because the government in 1919 when they amended the old Civil Service Act provided distinctly-placing the authority, it is true, in the hands of the deputy minister -that for sufficient reasons the deputy could reject any appointment made by the commission. It goes as a matter of course that the deputy will not reject unless he has consultation with his minister, and it goes also as a matter of course that the minister is not going to take upon himself the responsibility of rejection unless he is in a position to know what he is doing, so that the responsibility can be accepted1 and1 the action defended by him on the floor of parliament. I have authority therefore under the act to exercise the power that was conferred on the Post Office Department-or any other department of the government-to reject a certificate of the Civil Service Commission if I am satisfied, and my deputy is satisfied, that the acceptance of such certificate would not inure to the efficiency of the postal service of the Dominion.
Now, among those thirty-two rejections there were sixteen returned soldiers. And because I had to reject sixteen returned soldiers' certificates I have been accused of being uncharitable. Some of the newspapers said I had a hard heart, others attempted to show that by my actions towards the returned soldiers I have displayed a certain amount of disloyalty to Canada. Mr. Speaker, I need not repeat it, because the other day when I attempted to show what sympathy was in my heart for our returned soldiers, the retort was hurled across the floor of the house that I had spoken only of myself and my family. I considered that retort from the leader of the opposition unworthy of a gentleman occupying the high position that he occupies in this house. I did not refer to personal matters on that occasion for the purpose of lauding my family before the Dominion. There was no need of doing it, Mr. Speaker. The record stands out there before the people of Canada, and they know it, and they know that the Veniot family takes second place to none in its loyalty to British institutions and to the Canadian constitution. Let me say
2130	COMMONS
Administration oj Post Office Department
right here to our friends that the loyalty that is in the breasts of the Acadians is firmer and more firmly grounded than the loyalty that is to-day to be found in and is expounded by our English-speaking people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: Why do I make that statement? It is this.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheap.


Peter John Veniot: No, there is no shame in this.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheap.


Peter John Veniot: No, it is not cheap. You English-speaking people of British descent-


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that got to do with it?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. gentleman please keep silence. I did not interrupt anybody on the opposite side when he was speaking. But a reflection has been cast on my loyalty in connection with the administration of the Post Office Department, and I have a perfect right to defend my record.


William Gordon Ernst: There is no reflection on any Acadian.


Peter John Veniot: I am an Acadian-


William Gordon Ernst: That is only a coincidence.


Peter John Veniot: -and I am proud of it. The loyalty-I was going on to say, sir,- which I claim is in the heart of the Acadian must be stronger than that in the heart of the British-born because of the following fact. You of British descent, you who came from the shadows of the old flag to Canada to make your home, are descended from British people, and are loyal by nature. But we Acadians who had to suffer as history shows were a conquered people. After the years rolled! by we found that under the British flag we were given rights and privileges, and we became loyal by gratitude; we became loyal because we were grateful to the British crown for the way they treated a conquered people; and I say that a naan who becomes loyal through gratitude is firmer in his loyalty than a man who by descent is a British subject.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Will the hon. minister permit me?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it a question of order or of privilege?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: A question of privilege?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Yes. The question of privilege is this. The interpretation placed on the words of the Postmaster General now will be that members of the opposition accuse the Acadian race in this country of disloyalty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I object to that.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I regret very
much to see that the hon. gentleman has put a misinterpretation upon my language.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I have put no misinterpretation on the hon. minister's language.


Peter John Veniot: I certainly did not intend
for a moment to show that hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, or the Tory party, were attempting anything of the kind. I was merely defending my own course, and dealing with certain statements made-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That is not called in question at all.


Peter John Veniot: -that because of my conduct toward the returned soldiers I was not as loyal as I should be to the empire. Why, what does the statement of the Toronto Globe mean? It threw out this taunt: "What has this man Veniot or his family ever done for the British Empire?"
Now, Mr. Speaker, coming down to the cases of the returned soldiers, let me go over a few of them. First, I will take the Hawkes-bury case. When I reached Ottawa at the call of the Prime Minister, he conferred upon me the honour of a seat in his cabinet, that of Postmaster General. After being in office a very few months I was informed by my officials that there were several cases left undecided in connection with post office appointments. One of the first brought to my attention was the Hawkesbury case. That is one of the sixteen cases relating to returned soldiers. I found the Hawkesbury post office had become vacant in 1922 or 1923, that advertisements had been circulated to fill the vacancy, and that the matter had been left in abeyance from 1923 until I took charge in September, 1926. It was really later than that, for it was not until some time in January, 1927, that my attention was drawn to this case. A returned soldier by the name of McAllister and another one by the name of Berthiaume had applied for this position, and McAllister had received a certificate from the

Administration oj Post Office Department
Civil Service Commission. I did not think it was incumbent upon me at once to handle a case that had been standing over for five or six years, that former Postmaster Generals had refused to deal with. I wrote to the commission pointing this out and they informed me-I was not then very well acquainted with the act-that under the act before they could proceed to a new advertisement I should have to refuse the certificate that had already been issued by them. I did so and asked that the office be opened anew. The vacancy was again advertised and in reply to the last advertisement there was only one applicant, a man named Berthiaume. He got the position, and he was a returned soldier. That was the case of Hawkesbury.
Now let us take the case of Alexandria.
I found when I took charge of this case that it had been standing for two years. Certain applications had been submitted and certain representations made to the Civil Service Commission, and there was on the files of the department an opinion or interpretation asked for of the Justice department as to the reestablishment of a certain one of the candidates in the case. The Department of Justice gave an interpretataion that did not agree with the interpretation laid down by the commission and again there was turmoil. I again cancelled the whole thing and asked for new advertisements. I was not going to mix into this trouble, coming new into the department;
I was not going to take upon myself anything left undone by former ministers, things that were not settled in a proper way, especially in this case where there was a dispute touching the interpretation of the act as between the Civil Service Commission, the Post Office Department and the Department of Justice. That place was re-advertised, and it is not yet filled. Other troubles arose in my time-difficulties of bilingualism, difficulties of people demanding that this place, Alexandria, with a large French population, comprising almost if not quite the majority-I am told that the majority of the people are French-should have a bilingual postmaster. During my absence the place was advertised; and from correspondence coming in from different sources in the county wherein Alexandria is situated, as well as from Alexandria itself, the advertisement was issued for bilingual applications. The bilingual advertisement did not run its full course and it was withdrawn, under some protest, during my absence from Ottawa. That case stands today unsettled. And there is the history of the turning-down of a certificate issued in behalf of another returned soldier.
Now let us take New Glasgow, P.Q. It became vacant. A returned soldier named Grattan applied for the position. Grattan was reestablished as a returned soldier, and the widow of the postmaster was also an applicant. She had children to bring up, left in poor circumstances. When the whole situation was reviewed, when I received a certificate from the Civil Service Commission on behalf of Grattan, knowing as I did all the circumstances connected with the case, knowing as was stated in the report that Grattan was reestablished, knowing all this, I refused his certificate. The only other applicant was the widow of the late postmaster and I let the position go to her on choice from the Civil Service Commission, so that she might earn a living for her little family. I felt I was justified, and I feel to-day that I am speaking on behalf of the large body of returned soldiers in Canada when I say that no returned soldier who had gone over to France and fought for liberty and freedom, who had gone and fought for the supremacy of justice, would ever consent, if he were a real returned soldier, to accept the bread from the mouth of that widow and those little children.
Let us come to Enterprise. I am not going to take up much of the time of the house on this case because it was fully discussed on the floor of the house in 1928 while the late lamented member for the county then occupied a seat; I name Dr. Edwards. I went into that case fully. I did refuse a certificate on behalf of Cooper. I pointed out that he had been turned down by the Civil Service Commission in 1921 or 1922 because, on the report of the inspector, he was not considered properly qualified ; and the position was given by the commission to a civilian at that time. When this came up again in 1926 and the same Mr. Cooper was an applicant, the report of the inspector in his favour was no better, if not worse, than what it was in 1921 and I felt I was justified under such circumstances in refusing that certificate.
Let us take Brigden. This is a case where a man by the name of Such applied for the position. Mr. Such had come to this country a few years previously with money in his possession. I find no fault with this; I am proud to know that he had it. He came to this country and located at Brigden and he had sufficient money to buy a one-thirdl interest in a large butter or cheese making factory. He became not only its manager but the operator; and under the operations of the factory, with the assistance of two young boys, he was drawing a salary or fee or revenue of
2132	COMMONS
Administration of Post Office Department
$3,800 a year. Brigden becomes vacant. The salary attached to the office was $960 a year. Mr. Such applied for it and I, having some hesitation about accepting the certificate issued in his favour, looked into the matter. I could not understand how a man drawing a revenue of $3,800 and paying $700 of that for assistance, leaving him a net revenue of $3,100, with one-third of the profit or dividends added to that, should apply for an office that brought in a revenue of only $960. After I had looked into the matter carefully Mr. Such came to my office and interviewed me. It is true he told me that he wanted to give up his position and take this office. I asked him how he expected to make a living out of it. He told me he did not; he could not give all his time to it; and in the report of the inspector he said so at first. But afterwards, when he saw how things were going, he said he would give his time to the office. He intended to engage a young lady by the name of Smith to do the work for him and he would supervise it, paying her $500 a year and putting the balance of $460 in his pocket. Notwithstanding what statements Mr. Such might make to me, I refused to believe that he had any other intention with respect to the office. And the proof of that has lately come out. I was attacked in the press in London-the Free Press especially-in connection with the Brigden case. What did I find? I found, after that attack had appeared, that a reporter of the London Advertiser went down to Brigden and got an interview touching the whole situation. He meets this Miss Smith, who was then married, and she gives a statement over her own signature and published in the London Advertiser, that Mr. Such had made a bargain with her to run the office for him at $500 a year and to take absolute control of it. I refused that certificate and I feel justified in having done so; I have no regret for my action.
Now let me come to the case of St. Boniface; here again we had a mixup.	St.
Boniface was growing and becoming an important centre and was served directly from the office of Winnipeg; the street distribution of mail in St. Boniface was carried m directly from Winnipeg. The people of St. Boniface were loudly proclaiming their rights; they claimed that their street distribution should be carried on from their own office and that they should not be connected at all with Winnipeg. The gentleman who then was postmaster of that place was dismissed for certain irregularities, and he was 
incompetent to carry on an office like the St. Boniface office if it were to be separated from the Winnipeg office. It became necessary to appoint a man; advertisements were published and applications received from two men, one named Pelletier and the other named ermander, the first a returned soldier and the second a civilian. Vennander had six or seven years experience as an assistant postmaster, and at that time was employed in one of the banking institutions in St. Boniface. Pelletier had no post office experience whatever and was not sufficiently qualified with regard to education to undertake the administration of such an important office as St. Boniface.
On my own initiative I collected all the available information in order to satisfy myself that I would be doing no injustice to this man Pelletier, and I found that Vermander could speak four different languages, English, French, German and Swiss, all of which were in use in that district. Knowing that St. Boniface would become a very important office and that it would be necessary to have in charge a man of the highest ability and with the greatest possible experience I refused the certificate which had been issued in favour of Pelletier, the returned soldier. Before doing so, however, and after consultation with the postmaster at Winnipeg, I offered Mr. Pelletier a position in the Winnipeg office which he could fill, to which was attached a good salary, and which carried with it a chance of promotion. Mr. Pelletier refused to accept that position, so I felt that I had no alternative but to ask the Civil Service Commission to make another choice, and their second choice was Mr. Vermander.
Now let us take the case of Brussels, in the province of Ontario. When I assumed control of the Post Office Department I found that Brussels was in an even worse turmoil than Hawkesbury or Alexandria; I found that the office had been vacant for a number of years, with a temporary postmaster in charge, and I found that an investigation had been held by the Post Office Department on the complaint of a good many of the residents of that place, in which they stated that the inspector who had been sent to examine the applicants had not done justice in that he had discriminated against certain applicants. This investigation was carried on before I took charge of the department but no decision was reached; the matter was left in abeyance with the result that late in 1927 I discovered the embroglio, if I might use the term, and undertook to straighten it out. I found that a Mr. Scott, the son of the late postmaster,

Administration of Post Office Department
was in charge of the office, and I found that a returned soldier with a disability, named Kuntz, had received a certificate from the Civil Service Commiision. That certificate never had been acted upon, so I communicated with the Civil Service Commission and as a result decided that the certificate should be refused, advertisements issued, and returned soldiers and civilians given an opportunity to apply for the position.
The office was advertised vacant some four or five months ago, and several applications were received, among them one from a man named Bell, a returned soldier. Strenuous efforts were made, letters were written to me, and influence was used to have me advise the Civil Service Commission to appoint Scott, the assistant postmaster and son of the late postmaster, over the head of a returned soldier. The file will show that I wrote to the different .parties who communicated with me stating that if a returned soldier who was physically fit and able to carry on the duties of the office applied for the position he would get the appointment if he obtained the certificate of the Civil Service Commisison. The examinations were held, and the Civil Service Commissison issued a certificate in favour of Bell, the returned soldier. That certificate was accepted and Bell is now the postmaster at Brussels.
Now let us come to East St. John, in my own province; this is another case which occurred in my own time. There was no mixup at this place; everything was plain Bailing; the vacancy was created when the postmaster East St. John was found dead. I will say no more about, that at the moment. The vacancy was created and a man by the name of Macdonald was appointed temporary postmaster. The vacancy was advertised and two applications were received, one from Macdonald and one from a man named John W. Mackenzie, a returned soldier. After examination and report by 'the Civil Service Commision Mackenzie was given the certificate. I knew the record of this man. who was connected with the Canadian National Railways, and knowing that record I felt that I should ask for a further re,port before accepting the certificate. So the inspector was asked for a further report and it was pointed out to him by myself why that report wa3 requested. I felt that with the record on the files of the Canadian National Railways, and from my personal knowledge of the record of this man, he would not be a fit and proper person to meet the public as a postmaster. The files of the Canadian National Railways
were produced and forwarded to Ottawa, and Mr. Mackenzie took up the matter with Canadian Legion headquarters at Ottawa, through the St. John branch of that organization. Mr. Herwig, secretary of the Canadian Legion, came to see me about the matter and I showed him 'the file and asked him to examine it. I showed him also a letter which bore out what was contained in the file with reference to this man's qualifications for meeting the public. He had written me a letter in which he stated that Inspector Peck had discriminated against him on behalf of Macdonald and he said he had no faith in our inspector. Here is a man, an applicant for a position, writing me a letter in which he says that he has no faith in the very man under whom he has to work and under whom he had to administer that office. I placed this matter before Mr. Herwig and he made the following suggestion: Will you agree to name a man from your own department, have the Civil Service Commission name a man and the legion at East St. John name a third man; let them take the file, let them go to St. John and bring Mackenzie before them and if they decide, after going into this matter, that he is a fit and proper person to administer that important office, will you appoint him?
I said: Yes, I will accept the certificate. Mr. Herwig informed me that the Civil Service Commission had told him that having given their verdict they would not interfere any further in the case. When Mr. Herwig had given me the result of his communication with the commission he made the following suggestion: that I name a man and he would pick a man from the legion in St. John. I agreed to that, and he brought me two names which were recommended by the legion in St. John, one a returned soldier, a colonel in the army, and the other a civilian. I then appointed Mr. Green, superintendent of the Quebec district, to go ,to St. John and meet this returned soldier chosen by the legion and have Mir. Mackenzie appear before them when they could go into the 'case and make a report. They made the following unanimous report: After having interviewed Mr. Mackenzie and having gone into the case fully, they were of the opinion that Mr. Mackenzie was not a fit and proper person, owing to his temperamental conditions, to meet the public in the capacity of .postmaster at East St. John. I, therefore, refused' the certificate.
The next case is that of Oliver, B.C. This is another certificate which I refused. The certificate had been issued to a returned soldier, but the one who got it was also a returned soldier. A vacancy occurred at

2134	COMMONS
Administration of Post Office Department
Oliver, B.C., and James K. Anderson applied for the position. Anderson and another returned soldier both got equal ratings, but information reached my department that Mr. Anderson had since been employed by the telephone company as local manager. I thought that there being another returned soldier in the field who was free and his own master I should not have as postmaster at Oliver a man who would be subject to two masters, and I refused Mr. Anderson's certificate and the other returned soldier got the position.
I know I am taking up a good deal of the time of the house, but I think it is worth while. The next case is that of Nonton in the province of New Brunswick. This position was declared vacant before by time and after an investigation as to political partisanship against the postmaster name Price. When I entered office I found that a returned soldier by the name of Ward had received a certificate from the Civil Service Commission. Considerable turmoil had been created before I took charge. I intended to start with a clean sheet and I declared that this vacancy still existed and asked for new advertisements. Some time elapsed before this was done because the case at Norton was not called to my attention until some time in 1928. In the meantime Mr. Price, who was a very old man, was left in charge of the office. although he had been found guilty of political partisanship. I understand that Mr. Ward was the victim of a very serious automobile accident.


Mr. JONES:: It was another returned
soldier by the name of Harmer.


Peter John Veniot: I am coming to that case.
I declared the office vacant and called for new advertisements. The Civil Service Commission advised me that if I wanted to do that I would have to dispose of the certificate already issued in favour of Ward. I did so, and the vacancy was advertised and I believe Ward is an applicant as well as HarmeT. At the present time a civilian is temporarily in charge of the office with the distinct understanding that it is only temporary and that returned soldiers with qualifications are to have preference. That is the Norton case as it now stands and no decision has been reached as yet in that case.
The next case is Wabamun in Alberta. A certificate was issued in favour of R. W. Thunsfield, which certificate has been refused by me. The report of the inspector shows that this man had only lately arrived in the town and was very little known. The other applicant was a returned soldier by the name
[Mr. Veniot.l
of E. B. Howley who was an eighty per cent disability case. The inspector reported that Howley's personality and mentality were such that he would not be suitable for such a position. A man by the name of AVhite was acting postmaster and was rated very high for efficiency.
The next case is that of Macoun, Saskatchewan. The inspector's report in this case shows that Harry Huntley, a returned soldier, had rather a bad character 'before enlistment and apparently had not mended his ways since his return. I hate to say this, but the report shows that he had a bad character before enlisting. He was the only returned soldier and I did not feel like going to the extent of accepting a returned soldier for the position in the face of a report of that kind.
The next case is that of Woodbridge, Ont. The certificate of James Morgan, soldier, was rejected. The certificate was issued in 1922, four years and some months before I took charge of the department. I found another mix-up here and I refused the certificate so that the case would be reopened to the public. When I came into office in 1926 I found this: There was another man who had been acting since the first vacancy. J. J. Dean was a temporary employee in the office at Toronto, and when the vacancy occurred he, having experience, was brought from Toronto to his home town and placed in temporary charge in the office at Woodlbridge. He was a man with a year or two of experience, a returned soldier who had done his bit at the front and had come back with a good character. My attention was drawn to the matter, and this certificate was refused. I may say that in the Woodbridge case as in the case of Alexandria, a dispute arose between the Civil Service Commission, the Post Office Department-this was before my time-and the Justice department. The Justice department gave a ruling and an interpretation that in their opinion Morgan was properly reestablished and had no preference under the law. I found further that the Civil Service Commission had named Morgan and that one of the reasons they gave before the Justice department for issuing the certificate to Morgan was, as I discovered later, that the building in which Morgan was to have the office was better located. The Justice department rightly pointed out to the Civil Service Commission that they had no right whatever under the act to base the issue of the certificate upon post office location in any section; that belonged to the department. On those grounds I refused to accept Morgan and a returned soldier named J. J. Dean is the

Administration oj Post Office Department
one who has the position. He is a 30 per cent disability man. The certificate was issued to Dean in May, 1928.
I think I have taken up sufficient of the time of the house. I have reviewed fourteen, fifteen or sixteen of these cases to show that I have not disregarded the Civil Service Commission in my conduct of the department; that I was perfectly justified in every case where I refused a certificate appointing a returned soldier, and that in many of those cases where a certificate was refused in favour of one returned soldier, it was always another returned soldier who got the position.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister kindly deal with the Spruce Lake case?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: The Spruce Lake case does not come under the returned soldier class.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is one of the rejections.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I know it is. It involves one of the sixteen civilians and I feel I should have no qualms of conscience when I reject a civilian in favour of another civilian, especially when I am satisfied that I am doing right. I have dealt only with the cases of returned soldiers so as to prove to the house and the country that the devil is not as black as he is painted.
While I am on the question of returned soldiers, let me say that since I have been at the head of this department, fourteen returned soldiers have been appointed to the head office staff, and I have given positions to 996 returned soldiers in post offices as mail carriers, letter distributors and temporary employees. My hon. friends opposite cannot show any such record, although they have accused me of being unfriendly to the returned soldiers.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many of those were appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Peter John Veniot: There were 164 appointed by the commission in the case of straight post office appointments, and 82 by your humble servant. It is not reasonable to suppose that there is a returned soldier for every post office vacancy throughout the Dominion. Many post office vacancies occur in outlying and country districts where the salary is so small that a returned soldier would not be looking for a position of that kind. Consequently, those offices would have to go to civilians. Let me say further, as regards the dismissals to which my hon. friends refer, and this terrible wielder of the political axe: in 1928 I discussed the question of 421 cfis-78594-135J
missals and I think clearly proved to the' house that not one-half, not one-quarter were dismissals along political lines; that there were grave and proper reasons for many of them. Since that time there have been 84 dismissals. I have the record under my hand1 showing 473 previously and 84 since, making 557 changes and dismissals in post offices throughout Canada since I have had the honour to be appointed to the head of the Post Office Department. In regard to the last 84 who were dismissed, what do I find? I find that 40 were dismissed for irregularities, shortages and incompetence, the list being as follows:
Number of-
Causes	dismissals
Irregularities and mismanagement..	14
Shortages	-	13
Arrested violation of civic laws.. ..	5
Advanced age	 1
Office closed	 2
Non-performance	of	duty	
1Unsuitability of	postmaster	1Political interference under investigation	
3Total	
40
That is 40 out of the 84. The balance were dismissed for departmental reasons, in some cases on account of unsuitability of site; in others, in order to give, in the opinion of the department, a better service to the public. Who is best able to judge whether a .postmaster is giving to the public the service that he should give, if it is not the officials of the department and the Postmaster General guided by them? Am I as Postmaster General to be guided by the advise of my hon. friends on the other side and to decide according to their dictum what a postmasteT should be and how he should administer the office over which he is placed in charge? This country would be in a pretty mess if the government had to depend upon the advice and reasoning of our hon. friends opposite in order to carry on the administration of affairs. What would become of responsible government? I have taken some of their advice, and I am sorry to-day because I did so. I foolishly listened to the advice of some of our hon. friends opposite and there are some of them who will say: Yes, when we went to see Veniot, he treated us right. There are many over there who are honest and I think they will say this when the time comes. That being the case, how can it be expected that we on this side of the house are going to be guided always by what our hon. friends opposite advance when we know it is certainly advanced not in the interest of this party but rather for their own political aggrandizement? There is one thing that
2136	COMMONS
Administration of Post Office Department
seems very singular to me in connection with the attacks that have been made upon my department and myself, because evidently the department of the Postmaster General has been singled out as that department which they can perhaps attack to the best advantage to themselves. Why? Because there are 38,750 employees in the Dominion of Canada under the Postmaster General. The Post Office Department handles resources of revenue, including savings bank deposits and so on, ranging from $41,000,000 or $42,000,000 to $50,000,000 and more. We have from
12,000	to 13,000 postmasters distributed throughout the length and breadth of Canada. Our communications are with the entire world. No department of the government comes more directly under the public eye, and in the oase of no department is there closer intimacy with the public. And, sir, it is significant, in view of the attacks that have been made in this house upon the Postmaster General and upon the administration of his department, and in view also of the attempt to create a scandal in connection with the post office of the city of St. John, that our friends opposite have been unable to find anything that resenlbles even the shadow of a scandal, except some irregularity in connection with the St. John post office. Having had three years of experience in this department, I am in a position to appreciate to the very fullest degree the responsibilities which weigh upon my shoulders. Although I have been accused of inefficiency, it is not my purpose to take up the time of the house in an attempt to outline the great improvements that have taken place in the department since your humble servant has been at the head of it. I am going to let the public judge of that, because they are the best judges.
Remember, I want it distinctly understood that I do not attribute to myself the whole credit for the reorganization and the immense improvements that have taken place in the department-for the extension of the rural mail routes, the extension of the railway mail service, the inauguration of the air mail service, the delivery of mail in winter time to those isolated spots which had never before received mail during that season, thus bringing comfort to the people of the Magdalen islands, the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, the northern sections throughout the Mackenzie river district, Cold lake, Flin-Flon and away up to the Yukon-all during the administration of your humble servant.


An hon. MEMBER:: 
Peter John Veniot: I am not going to touch
on that because penny postage speaks for itself. It is a means of binding closer together the bonds of empire throughout the whole British realm. While I do not desire to claim any great credit for the improvements that have taken place, I do wish to pay a tribute to the able and conscientious and devoted men who work under the present Postmaster General. I wish to pay a tribute to their honesty, and when hon. gentlemen opposite attempt to reflect upon the honesty of the administration of the department, they are reflecting more upon these faithful servants than upon the Postmaster General. I think it is my duty to stand in my place in this house and point this out, that there could be no more faithful servants in any department of this or any government than those who are to-day working under the control of the Postmaster General. At every turn, at every opportunity and on every occasion, when a policy is laid down by the government and they are requested to carry it out, they devote themselves night and day to seeing that those policies are put into effect, and they spare neither time nor labour to ensuring that under those policies the best possible service shall be given to the people of Canada by the postal department of this country.
In my closing remarks I wish to refer to something that was stated by the hon. member for Leeds. He made a reference to the difficulties at the St. John post office, which were discussed on the floor of this house last night in committee of supply. It will be remembered that I stated that long before any mention was made in this house of any difficulties at St. John, I had taken up the task of having that office thoroughly investigated. When first the rumour even of irregularities reached my ears, I endeavoured to get all the information possible so that I could see exactly how matters stood, and, if it became necessary because of contradictory statements and contradictory evidence, institute an investigation that would bring matters to a proper head. That investigation has been going on, started in part in St. John through disciplinary measures, and laying the foundation here in the office at Ottawa, getting the proper evidence and information along the line of reported irregularities.
The other day when the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) brought the question up on the floor of this house he stated, as it was his right to do, that he had received information which pointed to very grave irregularities in the postal district of the province of New Brunswick at St. John.

Administration of Post Office Department
and I was asked by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) if I would bring down the correspondence in connection with the matter. At the time we were in a heated discussion on some other subject, and I did say to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that I would bring down the correspondence, but the next day, when the orders of the day were called, I stated to the house that while I had made that promise the day before, in view of the fact that an investigation was being carried on by the officials of my department in connection with the alleged irregularities and in connection with the disciplinary measures to be taken, I did not feel justified in placing these papers on the table of the house, and I was 'borne out in that attitude by the leader of the opposition and by both sides of the house, as can be seen from their statements. I was then requested to have the original files placed in the custody of some of my officials so that a committee of our friends on the other side of the house- I do not know whether the word "committee" was used-could get together and examine the original files in the custody of my officials. I said yes, and that evening at eight o'clock I produced all those files in my own room in the charge of three officials from the different branches of the department connected with this matter. The gentlemen of the opposition, some six or seven in number, assembled in that room, and I left my officials with them. I told the officials to produce absolutely everything, give them everything, show everything on those files, and I left them in the hands of that committee. I went further even than that. When I saw that they wanted to go into those files minutely and believed that they did not have time to do it with only the originals in their possession, I had copies made of the originals. Those copies were handed to these six or seven gentlemen in that room that night, and the promise was given there that those copies would not be used publicly but only for their own personal information. Yet when the matter was brought up yesterday, without any notice to me on the part of our friends opposite, it came like a bolt from the blue to hear those files quoted from in the house. I thought that that was a bargain that would be adhered to, and I consented to give those official files-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. STEVENS:: I am quite certain that the Postmaster General has no desire to do an injustice to t'he leader of the opposition or to members on this side of the house.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think he will recall
that the point in the whole request for these files was this: There are a great many files, and the Postmaster General intimated that it would take some time and a good deal of labour to copy them. My leader said that in order to avoid the necessity of copying files which might not be required, members from this side of the house would examine the original files and request such files as were needed in dealing with this question. It was with that distinct understanding that these files were so examined.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman tells me he is speaking on behalf of his leader I will accept his word, but I understood it differently.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I add one further
word. I direct this more to the government as a whole. The opposition, or any member of the house, is entitled to the examination of the files of any of the various departments of the government.


Peter John Veniot: I am not going to raise
any point of order on that, because I have my opinion. I think to a great extent I am right when I say that confidential files between officials of a department are not open to the public.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But there are none of
these confidential.


Peter John Veniot: I am not going to raise
any discussion on it. That is the position I take. I make reference to the point because it shows that I have nothing to fear, nothing to hide; no matter who is guilty of irregularities, I produce everything and hide nothing.
Let me go on. Yesterday in the discussion the hon. leader of the opposition read from the files and placed them on Hansard. I have no fault to find with him, absolutely none, except this, that confidential reports between officials never Should have been placed on Hansard, because the very moment you do that you violate the confidence within that department where officials have to make secret reports, and you are breaking down the discipline that should exist there. But those confidential reports are on Hansard now, and the leader of the opposition has taken the responsibility of placing them there.
He has assumed another responsibility. From the files as he found them he felt that he was justified last night on the floor of this house in charging Mr. Griffith, the inspector in question, with being an embezzler and a
2138	COMMONS
Administration oj Post Office Department
thief. That is a serious charge to make. Up to that moment, not having completed the investigation, not having sufficient evidence to prove to me that there was even anything approaching such delinquency, I felt justified in keeping Mr. Griffith in the position that he occupied until the completion of the investigation that I am carrying on. But the leader of the opposition, occupying the responsible position that he occupies in this house, and before the country, having stood in his place and made a charge of that kind, claiming it is based upon the papers found in those files, I considered that the case had reached the stage where on that charge there must .be action taken, and this .morning after reviewing the whole situation, after weighing carefully the charges made upon the floor of this house, after considering from whose lips those charges had fallen, and bearing in mind the responsible position of the gentleman who made them, I authorized my deputy to wiie the suspension from duty of Mr. Griffith. Today he awaits the result of the investigation of the charges made by the hon. leader of the opposition. Let me repeat, the investigation was going on just the same. It had been started long before the case was brought up in tin house. I had felt right along that I should not suspend this man, but once a responsible member of this house had stood in his place and accused this man of being a thief and an embezzler, then upon the strength of that statement I suspended Mr. Griffith. To-day he is in the service, if you will, but not performing any duties until the result of the investigation whicl^ the department is now carrying on is known.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been accused ol being the champion political executioner oi the Dominion. Well, I have only this to say, that if, because of some political dismissals which it is claimed I have made I am to be styled the political executioner of the Dominion, I should like to find a name applicable to our friends opposite. I do not think anj suitable word has yet been discovered in the English language that would adequatelj describe the executionary methods of hon gentlemen opposite. I will not attempt to go over their record, I have gone over if before. But their record of dismissals between 1912 and 1917 is such that when it is held up to the public gaze there is no wind strong enough to prevent it from stinking in the nostrils of the Canadian public. That record stands out conspicuously, and j'ou can read it, I would not say in golden letters, but in large letters. The Tories of Canada were from 1912 to 1917 the political executioners par excellence. Even when they were in
[Mr. Veniot.l
power during the short three months from July 1 to September 14 they were active in nearly every county in the Dominion. In -the county of Northumberland every fish warden was dismissed by telegraph. Throughout the whole province of New Brunswick every returning officer was dismissed by one fell swoop of the pen. The only one who was left in office was the hon. gentleman who now represents the riding of Victoria-Car-leton (Mr. Foster). He was then sheriff of the county, and our Tory friends offered him the position, but he refused to act under the " shadow government," and to-day, as I have said, he is the member for that county in this house. Our friends opposite tried to buy him over by offering him the position, but he was too manly to accept it. He preferred to go down fighting rather than accept a position under our Tory friends. Let me go further. Every returning officer in the Dominion was dismissed by one fell swoop of the pen by our Tory friends. They were not satisfied with playing the political game along the line of dismissal of officials, they were not satisfied with the dismissal of every returning officer so that they could have the whole election machinery in their hands, but they undertook to influence the returning officers and forced them in many cases to divide up the polls in certain sections in order to segregate the Liberals and get a majority for the Tories. That is what our hon. friends opposite did, the hon. gentlemen who to-day call the Postmaster General the political executioner of Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, having exposed my friends opposite to that extent, I will close my remarks with the following statement. I have been Postmaster General of Canada since September 23, 1926. If I am to judge, and I do not say this in any laudatory mood at all, or in any boasting mood-no, I leave the boasting to our Tory friends; they are used to it-I am not saying it in any boasting mood at all, but if I am to judge by such newspapers as the Montreal Standard, the Montreal Star, and the French organ of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, L'Evenement, Veniot is a pretty good postmaster general. You will not see the Montreal Star denouncing Yeniot for inefficiency in his department. On the contrary, Tory as it is, dyed-in-the-wool as it is, it is fair enough to recognize the ability and efficiency of a man when they see it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: Our friends will not accept the Montreal Star. Then I must take it

Administration oj Post Office Department
they are repudiating the Star. They are repudiating it because of its editorial utterances, pointing out the efficiency of the Post Office Department under the Postmaster General.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: Well, I am glad my hon. friends have taken that stand, and no doubt the Montreal Star will take notice of it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the house for the kind attention given me. There are a great many more things I could deal with, and I know I have some staunch and true friends; if not many on the other side, I know I have quite a few on this side, and I think I can leave any further defence of the department in the hands of those who will follow me.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY:: (Peace River): Some days ago I called the attention of the house to a case in which I thought the Postmaster General had violated the spirit of the Civil Service Act, and I wish to refer now to another case, one which the minister has mentioned to-day, namely, the Wabamun post office in Alberta. The Postmaster General stated that he rejected the appointee of the Civil Service Commission because he had "only lately" come into the district, and I take it that in his opinion the man was not a bona fide resident of the district. I think I can state in ten or fifteen minutes the facts in connection with this case, and in any event I shall do so as briefly as I can.
The post office at Wabamun is of'course an office to which appointments must be made by the Civil Service Commission. In 1927 the then postmaster, Mr. McCusker, was dismissed from the office. He was a returned soldier, but he got into trouble with Mr. Henry White, from whom he rented the post office. He wanted leave to move to another building and this was granted him, but it was afterwards refused. He moved anyway and was dismissed. With that phase of the matter I will not deal this afternoon. The Civil Service Commission was of course notified of the fact that a new postmaster was required at Wabamun. They advertised for applicants and received half a dozen applications. The applicants were as follows-and they are placed here in order of merit so far as their qualifications for the position were concerned:
1.	Henry White.
2.	Sidney Robert Walley Thursfield.
3.	Charles McCusker.
4.	Edward Beaufoy Hawley.
5.	Mrs. Louisa McCusker.
6.	Arthur Sunley.
The following were eliminated: Mr. Henry White, because he was not a returned soldier; Charles McCusker, a returned soldier, rejected because he was a recently dismissed postmaster; Edward B. Hawley, " O.A.S.," in regard to whom the inspector who conducted the personal investigation states:
His personality and mentality are such that he would not be suitable.
Henry White, owing to the regulations giving preference to qualified " O.A.S." applicants, was rejected. And Mrs. Louisa McCusker and Arthur Sunley were rejected for the same reason. The only remaining candidate was Mr. Thursfield. The record states:
Mr. Thursfield, forty-two years of age, married and father of two children, is a British subject, born in England, and has been in Canada twenty-two years, nineteen months of which have been spent at Wabamun.
I wish the house to pay particular attention to the fact that he was a resident of Wabamun, receiving his mail through the Wabamun post office for nineteen months; yet he was rejected as having only recently arrived in Wabamiun. For nineteen months he had been established in a business way, and I cannot see why he can be excluded from the list of bona fide residents of the post office district of Wabamun, entitling him to his status as an applicant under subsection 3 of section 21 of the act. The record goes on:
Education: High school, three years; Brandon college; one year.
Experience: Stenographer, two years: farmer.
0.	A.S.:	England and France; gassed and
trench fever, for which he is in receipt of a 10 per cent pension; farming previous to enlistment and states he is unable to pursue efficiently this calling.
Remarks of inspector: Applicant is a newcomer to the district and practically unknown.
In the event of his appointment, Mr. Thursfield would provide suitable accommodation and location for the post office. He is well recommended.
This is signed "C.H.B., Assistant Secretary and Chief Examiner." Mr. Thursfield was appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I do not think it is necessary to cite again the fact that he was in receipt of a pension, but I want to read the report of the oral interview of Mr. Thursfield bv the Civil Service Commission, appearing on page 15 of this file:
Postmastership of Wabumun, Alberta
1.	Name of Applicant: Sidney Robert Walley Thursfield.
2.	Address of Applicant: Wabamun, Alberta.
3.	Age: 42.
4.	Length of residence in the district served by the office in question: 19 months.
5.	Is applicant a patron of the P.O. in question? Yes. If so, since what date? For 19 months.
2140	COMMONS
Administration of Post Office Department
6.	What seems to be the educational qualifications of the applicant? Good.
7.	Have you any information as to the character and habits of the applicant? Any information obtainable good.
8.	Do you know anything in the life of the applicant which in your opinion would render him ineligible for the postmastership? No.
9.	Along what lines has been the past experience of the applicant? Stenography and farming.	.
10.	The various characteristics of the applicant impress me as being Very Good, Above Average, Average or Door, as rated hereunder:
Characteristics-	Eating
Appearance	 Average
Bearing	 Average
Physique	 Above average
Tact	 Average
Conversation	 Average
Mentality	 Average
Personality	 Average
12.	How does the accommodation and location offered by this applicant compare with that of the other candidates? Location about 100 yards from present site.
13.	Do you consider this candidate sufficiently qualified as to education, experience, personality, character and integrity, accommodation and locality, to meet the needs of the office in question? (Yes or No.) If No, specify your reasons: Yes, applicant is, however, a newcomer to the district and is practically unknown.
The other day the Minister of National Defence and several other members of the house quoted1 the opinion given in 1919 by the Deputy Minister of Justice, and I wish to read just one section of it:
The fact that the man selected is not as good as his predecessor; or, in your words, not a man of reputation or outstanding ability, would not, I should think, in the absence of other objections, justify the deputy to reject him, provided we have passable qualifications.
I leave it to any member of the house, after what I have read as to the qualifications of this man Thursifield, who was appointed by the Civil Service Commission to the postmastership at Wabamun, to say whether or not he had passible qualifications. The only thing which might be at all questionable is the fact that he was unknown. But an examination of the file shows that two factions were fighting bitterly for the post office at Wabamun, and I submit that a man who was not connected with either of these factions, but was carrying on a business in the district really possessed an additional qualification for the position. No one with any intelligence would have any trouble in mastering the details of the office and becoming known to the 'patrons in a very short time. Notwithstanding this fact, the Postmaster General arrogated to himself-that is the only word that I can think of-the right to reject this applicant under section 24 of the Civil Service 
Act, a right which in my judgment he was not justified in exercising in view of the fact that he had in his possession the opinion of that section given by the Deputy Minister of Justice in 1919.


James Layton Ralston: What was the ground
of rejection?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I will read it; it is
marked No. 50 in sessional paper No. 235 of this year:
Ottawa, February 18, 1928.
P. T. Coolican, Esq.,
Acting Deputy Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-
With further reference to the question of the vacancy in the Wabamun post office, I beg to say that in looking over the report of the inspector and finding that he states that Mr. Thursfield has only lately arrived in Wabamun and is not very well known, I have decided not to accept the certificate issued in his favour. There seems to be another returned soldier by the name of Ed. B. Hawley, who has a disability of 80 per cent. In this ease the report of the inspector is not at all favourable, because he states as follows:	"His personality and
mentality are such that he would not be suitable," and he further states that his physical condition is rated as poor.
I further find that Mr. White, the present acting postmaster is rated as first in post office experience and efficiency and in my opinion this is the person who should get the nomination if we are to keep up the efficiency of our service.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) P. J. Veniot.
If it is open to the Postmaster General or anyone else to say that a person with nineteen months' residence in a district must be regarded as only lately arriving there; if it is open to the Postmaster General to say that this man is not qualified-I suppose under subsection 3 of section 21 of the Civil Service Act, which confines applicants to bona fide residents-you can make any section of the act mean whatever you like. I submit that it is absolutely impossible to say that this man was only recently arrived in the sense that would exclude him from being acceptable as the postmaster of the village of Wabamun.
Further, in this letter the Postmaster General practically rules out everyone with the exception of Mr. White, and makes it plain to the commission that as far as he is concerned Henry White is the only acceptable applicant.


Mr. THORSON:: What did the commission do?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The commission appointed Henry White. I am told that Henry

Administration oj Post Office Department
White was the Liberal candidate in the constituency of Lac Ste. Anne in the last provincial election in Alberta. I have here the Canadian Parliamentary Guide for 1928, where I find that the candidates in that constituency were M. C. McKeen, E. R. Barker and Henry White. So I submit that as far as I can see, and as this file reveals, this is purely a case of exercising political patronage, ruling out the commission and ruling out the applicants who were returned soldiers. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, serious as this amendment is, I feel that I must support it. In this corner of the house we have taken the stand that all appointments should be made by the Civil Service Commission and that all or practically all those civil servants who are now appointed by other means than the Civil Service Commission should be brought under the scope and operation of the act. As far as this motion is concerned, I must support it because of the experiences I have had in cases with which I have been familiar and which I have personally investigated and followed up. If these facts do not reveal a case of political patronage in the appointment of a postmaster in the village of Wabamun I do not think it is possible to establish such a case anywhere.


['The commission appointed Henry White. I am told that Henry\n\nAdministration oj Post Office Department\nWhite was the Liberal candidate in the constituency of Lac Ste. Anne in the last provincial election in Alberta. I have here the Canadian Parliamentary Guide for 1928, where I find that the candidates in that constituency were M. C. McKeen, E. R. Barker and Henry White. So I submit that as far as I can see, and as this file reveals, this is purely a case of exercising political patronage, ruling out the commission and ruling out the applicants who were returned soldiers. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, serious as this amendment is, I feel that I must support it. In this corner of the house we have taken the stand that all appointments should be made by the Civil Service Commission and that all or practically all those civil servants who are now appointed by other means than the Civil Service Commission should be brought under the scope and operation of the act. As far as this motion is concerned, I must support it because of the experiences I have had in cases with which I have been familiar and which I have personally investigated and followed up. If these facts do not reveal a case of political patronage in the appointment of a postmaster in the village of Wabamun I do not think it is possible to establish such a case anywhere.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired
with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was paired with the
hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Bissett). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff), Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert King Anderson: I was paired with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. TOBIN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris). Had I voted I would have voted against 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. POULIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. WARD:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I was paired with the
hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. COTNAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Dussault). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair). 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.


Hewitt Bostock: The question now is oa the main motion.
Motion (Mr. Robb) agreed to.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Care of patients and medical examination of pensioners, $2,600,000.
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: It was not intended that we should discuss this item this afternoon. The purpose is simply to bring the item up and then proceed with the Post Office Department item.


Mr. McGIBBON:: When will we take up
this item again?


James Alexander Robb: As soon as we get through
with the Post Office Department.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: It will be either to-morrow or Friday.

Supply-Post Office


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
Salaries and allowances, $17,295,464.40.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $16,305,000.	,
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 payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,176,175.
Yukon territory, $150,000-Total, $34,926,6o9.40.
The CHAIRMAN:: The first item is
salaries and allowances, $17,295,464.40.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the record of this department as I find it on page 12 of the report of the Postmaster General for the year ended March 31, 1928. The record shows that from the establishment of the Post Office Department in 1868 down to 1901 there was a deficit each year; that in the year 1902 we began a series of surpluses, and that these surpluses continued down to the year 1915 when there was a deficit. In the year 1916 and each year following down to the year 1922 there were very substantial surpluses, the amounts being as follows:
Y ear
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1920.
1921.
Surplus $2,849,271 16 4,601,805 81 3,298,836 58 2,329,128 71 3,675.531 77 1,669,856 71
Then, from 1922 on, the deficits or surpluse are as follows:
Year	Surplus	Deficit1922	.	.	
$1,566,886	531923.	. .	$1,467,730 89	1924.	. .	794,555 35	1925.	.	.	
1,291,809	531926	. .	524,778 48	1927	.	
1,629,001	491928	.	.	
1,850,040	89
The Postmaster General has brought down a statement covering the actual figures to the 1st January, 1929, and an estimate since then. According to that statement he estimates that the deficit for the year which expired on the 31st March last, will amount to $2,363,588. That seems rather a serious situation. This department, which was on a surplus-producing basis, now seems to have gone into the period of deficits. I should like the Postmaster General to explain to the committee the details of how this deficit arises.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is taking the year 1926, and he has shown there was a surplus of $524,778.48, and that during the years following, 1927 and 1928, there were deficits ranging from $1,629,000 to $1,S50,000. He should have remembered that in 1926 the reduction from three cents to two cents was made in postage; that with one stroke of the pen the receipts of the Post Office Department, had there been no increase in volume of business, would have been reduced by $6,000,000, but the volume of business has so increased since 1926 that we have almost brought that deficit down to a negligible amount. As to the estimated deficit reported for the fiscal year ended March 31 1929, it is true that deficit is estimated at approximately $2,500,000. I am dealing now with round figures. That is not surprising when it is considered that we have opened many new rural routes during last year and the year before; that we have extended the air mail service; that it cost last year somewhere in the vicinity of $400,000 or $500,000 more than we expended in the past; that under the Civil Service Act there have been statutory increases in the salaries of the employees of the postal department, and many more increases which I can explan as each item is taken up. For instance, in the item under discussion, there is an increase in salaries and allowances of $339,530. The total estimate for salaries and allowances for the fiscal year 1929-1930 is the amount provided for the fiscal year 1928-1929, plus $339,530, which is made up as follows: 1878 statutory increases which could not be avoided, and which are granted after the approval of the Civil Service Commission, amounting to $206,202 ; 235 additional positions required, owing to the increased volume of mail and to provide for the new and improved postal facilities afforded the public, $132,310-
Progress reported.
THE ROYAL AiSSENT


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the senate.
Accordingly, the house wrent up to the senate.
And having returned,
The Royal Assent
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An Act to amend The Grand Trunk Act, 1906-7, with respect to pensions.
An Act to further amend The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act.
An Act to amend the Militia Pension Act.
An Act to amend the Technical Education Act.
An Act respecting certain patent application of Stanley W. Hayes.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Catelli Macaroni Products Corporation Limited.
An Act to incorporate The Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada.
An Act to incorporate The Railway Employees Casualty Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate The National-LiveTpool Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate Barclays Bank (Canada).
An Act respecting the Pension Fund Society of the Bank of Montreal, the Molsons Bank Pension Fund, and the Merchants' Bank of Canada Pension Fund.
An Act respecting The Protective Association of Canada.
An Act to incorporate The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.
An Act respecting The Quebec Railway Light and Power Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Root Vegetables Act.
An Act respecting Chartered Trust and Executor Company.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Re-insurance Corporation.
An Act to incorporate The Wapiti Insurance Company.
An Act for the relief of Effie Margaret Hill.
An Act for the relief of Lera Ethel Vallance.
An Act for the relief of Frances Gwendolyn Snow Lott.
An Act for the relief of Edward George Croucher.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Alice Hervey.
An Act for the relief of Hunter Wilbert Faulkner.
[Mr. Veniot.J
An Act for the relief of William Henry Blackwell.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Lorene DeClute.
An Act for the relief of Emily Munnings. An Act for the relief of John William Telfer. An Act for the relief of James Ross Curry.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	William	Greig
Green.
An Act for the relief of Janet Gee.
An Act for the relief of Sylvester Wilfred Kerr.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Florence	Velma
Straclian.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	William	Henry
Laverty.
An Act for the relief of Ernest Carl Bouck.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	James Clayton
Powell.
An Act for the relief of Mina Thompson.
An Act for the relief of Clare Doutre Walters Bertram.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Duffield. An Act for the relief of Dorothy Madeline Hanson Campbell.
An Act for the relief of William Thomas Taylor.
An Act for the relief of Naomi Pauline Wilson.
An Act for the relief of Isabell Leach.
An Act for the relief of Alfred Rescorl.
An Act for the relief of Clarence Percy Shields.
An Act for the relief of Isabella Einboden.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Davenport.
An Act for the relief of Arnold Whitchurch Little.
An Act for the relief of Arthur James Taylor.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Grace Coleman.
An Act for the relief of Dora Taylor.
An Act for the relief of Helen Awrey.
An Act for the relief of James Lynham.
An Act for the relief of Bessie Stephen Lee. An Act for the relief of Irene Sagar.
An Act for the relief of Clifford Wilson.
An Act for the relief of Crank Arthur LeNoury.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Booker.
An Act for the relief of Louisa Martha Weston.
An Act for the relief of Bella Solnik.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.

Questions
An Act respecting the Lacombe and North Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the publlic service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1930.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1930.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 2, 1929