1929-05-02

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Marcil the fifth report of the select standing committee on standing orders was concurred in.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It has not been customary for the house to sit on Ascension day. By unanimous consent I would move:
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, the 8th instant, it stand adjourned until Friday, the 10th instant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. ARTHURS:: 1. How many medical officers have been appointed or engaged for the staff of:	(a) Pension Board; (b) Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; (c) Department oi Health, in Canada, from the year 1925 to date?
2. How many of said officers have been removed by: (a) resignation; (b) dismissals; (c) termination of agreement?
3.	What amount of retiring allowance has been granted by each department to officers whose services were dispensed with for any reason ?
Mr. KING (Kootenay);
1.
(a)	On staff 31st December, 1925,
full	time	
8Appointed	since	
2(b)	On staff 31st December, 1925,full time	
98
On staff 31st December, 1925,
part time	107

	205
Appointed since, full	time.	9
Appointed since, part	time.. .. 19

 28
(c) On staff 31st December, 1925,
full time	 27
On staff 31st December, 1925, part time	 63

	90
Appointed since, full time.. ..	8
Appointed since, part time.... 13

 21
2.	Pension Board-(a), (b) and (c), none; Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (now pensions division of Department of Pensions and National Health):
(a)	Part	time	.... 10	Full	time	.. .. 16	-	26(b)	Full	time	1(c)	Part	time	.. .. 14	Full	time	
7	-	21*
* Termination in 6 cases, 3 part time and 3 full time, was caused by death, in 8 cases, 6 part time and 2 full time, by transfer to payment by schedule of fees instead of salary or to other government departments and in 7 cases, 5 part time and 2 full time, by reduction in work at district offices, so that these officers were surplus to requirements.
Department of Health (now health division of Department of Pensions and National
Health):
(a)	Part	time	
7Full	time	
7
14
(b)	None
(c)	Part	time	
7Full	time	
5
12
* Termination in 7 cases, 3 part time and 4 full time, was caused by death, in 3 part time cases by transfer to payment by schedule of fees instead of salary, in 1 part time case to termination of agreement and in 1 full time case to superannuation.
Questions

3.
Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (now pensions division of Department of Pensions and National Health) $ 32,958 32 Department of Health (now health division of Department of Pensions and National
Health	,	4,249 31
Annuity	 655 67


BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	Have any bovine tuberculosis free areas been established in Saskatchewan during the past year?
2.	If so, how many and where?
3.	What was the proportion of: (a) reactors; (b) number of reactors; (c) reactors slaught-*red ?
4.	What compensation was paid to the owners for animals so slaughtered? -
5.	How did the percentage of reactors correspond with former years?
6.	What supervision is kept over these areas?
7.	Under what department is the control and supervision of this work?
8.	Is compensation paid to the owners for reactors slaughtered after the second and all subsequent tests?
9.	What are the names of veterinarians in charge of these tests in the province of Saskatchewan?
10.	Are they all fully qualified practitioners?
11.	What test is used?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	One-the File Hills Indian reservation.
3.	(a) 7.4 per cent at the initial test of the area; (b) twenty-three at the initial test of the area and three at the retest of herds in which infection was found; (c) twenty-three after the initial test and three after the retest of the herds in which infection was found.
4.	Compensation paid for animals that were slaughtered as a result of the initial test of the area $544. Compensation paid for animals slaughtered as the result of subsequent tests- $76.
5.	The File Hills area was tested last year for the first time and the reactors numbered 7.4 per cent of the animals tested. In the first general test of cattle in the Last Mountain area the first and only other area in Saskatchewan, t'he reactors numbered 0.8 per cent of the animals tested.
6.	A salaried veterinary inspector is placed in charge of a restricted area and he works under the supervision of the veterinary officer in charge of the province in which the area is established.
7.	The Department of Agriculture.
8.	Yes.
[DOT]'Mr. J. H. King.!
9.	Drs. F. A. Humphreys and M. J. Neely conducted the tests in the File Hills area under the supervision of Dr. M. Barker, district veterinary inspector.
10.	Yes.
11.	The intradenmal test in the initial general test of all animals. The intradermal test in the retest of range cattle and the intradermal and ophthalmic tests combined in the retest of farm cattle.


POST OFFICE-WELLAND
Mr. PETTIT:: What was the gross revenue, the expenses, and the net revenue of the post office in the city of Welland for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929?


Mr. VENIOT:: (a) $29,709.39, (b) $20,445.83,
(c)	$19,263.66.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	What number of hours, during each week, does each employee of the post office of the city of Montreal regularly attend to the duties of his employment?
2.	How many are employed on Sundays?
3.	What extra remuneration is given to those employed on Sundays?
4.	What extra remuneration is given to those who are employed for more than forty-four hours during any week?
5.	Is there any law or regulation which provides that any employee, who works extra time, should receive regular pay for that time, and a half time in addition?
6.	If so, is such law or regulation adhered to in the postal service of the city of Montreal?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	If on day duty, 44 hours. If on night duty, 38^ hours. If combination day and night duty, proportionate time. Christmas rush season, 48 hours day duty and 42 night duty.
2.	Varies according to the work to be undertaken. Averages, approximately, 242 employees for a period of 6 hours each Sunday.
3.	50c. an hour for each hour of duty performed.
4.	Extra duty undertaken in excess of the 44-hour week day duty, or 381-hour week night duty (exclusive of work performed on Sundays) which cannot be liquidated by allowing time off within the month following the month in which the overtime is worked, is paid for in cash at the overtime rate of pay, viz., time and a half.
5.	Order in council of the 2nd August, 1919, P.C. 1613.
6.	Yes, except that work undertaken on Sunday is not comprehended within the week's work but is paid for in cash at the rate of 50c. an hour for each hour worked.

International Peace


REBATE OF DUTY ON COAL
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What persons or corporations, during the year 1928, received refunds by way of 99 pel cent rebate of duty on foreign coal imported for use of iron or steel makers, and what was the amount of refund in each case?
2.	What persons or corporations, during the year 1928, received refunds by way of 99 per cent rebate of duty on foreign coal imported for use of other than iron and steel manufacturers, and what was the amount of refund in each case?


Mr. EULER:: 1 and 2. It is contrary to the practice of the Department of Customs and Excise to give information which would disclose the business of an individual concern.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	How many cattle were slaughtered as reactors in the Fraser valley, British Columbia area, during the twelve months ending January 31, 1929?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the owners of the cattle slaughtered in this area during the said period?
3.	How many did each owner lose?
4.	What compensation was awarded in each case?
5.	What amount of compensation was actually paid in each case previous to April 30, 1929?


INTERNATIONAL PEACE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a despatch appearing in the press this morning with reference to a debate in the English House of Lords with regard to Canada's attitude toward the signing of the optional clause. The Lord Chancellor is reported to have stated that he could not give the correspondence to the press without Canada's consent, and the question I wish to ask the Prime Minister is whether Canada has given her consent to the publication of the correspondence and if, when this consent is given, the Prime Minister will lay on the table the correspondence between Canada and Great Britain in this regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not recall having received any communication asking Canada's consent to the publication of this correspondence, but so far as our own correspondence
is concerned if it were requested by Great Britain there is no reason why it should not be brought down. With regard to any correspondence the British government may have had with us, I would have to obtain the consent of the British government before laying that correspondence on the table.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Would the Prime Minister
make it clear that there is no difficulty so far as this government is concerned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made a
statement in the house in this connection some time ago, and since the morning papers have a reference to what was then said it might be well for me to read my remarks on that occasion. On February 19 I made a short statement which is all I have said in this connection and which covers the position of the Canadian government with respect to the optional clause. That statement is found at page 248 of Hansard and was made in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) as follows:
My hon. friend will recall that during the last imperial conference a desire was expressed on the part of the governments assembled there that no one part of the British Empire should formally accept the optional clause without giving to the other parts of the empire an opportunity of discussing that particular subject. We have advised the other parts of the empire that in our opinion Canada should sign the optional clause, and we are at present receiving communications from other parts of the empire in reference thereto. We are carrying out our undertaking at the conference not to sign formally until there has been an opportunity for discussion, but we have made known that it is our desire to sign the optional clause.
I noticed that in the press report there seemed to be an impression that I had expressed some view as to what other parts of the empire were to do with respect to the optional clause. I expressed no such view either at that time or at any other time; I spoke in reference to Canada only. So far as we are concerned our correspondence could be brought down at any time, with the consent of the governments with which we have been corresponding.



PRIVILEGE-MR. JACOBS

Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: On the first page of the Ottawa Journal of May I appears the following statement:
Charges That Liberals Block Public Accounts Inquiry.
As chairman of the committee I wish to say that the statement is a malicious falsehood.
Supply-Post Office



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Hamilton Pettit: I would like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rin-fret) if he will supplement reference No. 107 with the information relating to the Senate and House of Commons Library.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
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, $34,926,639.40.
Mr. JONES:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that I would be doing my duty if I allowed this vote to pass without commenting on many of the statements which were made yesterday by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in defence of his department. It would -take at least two hours to make out the full case and spread it on Hansard. The Postmaster General said that he would deal with a certain number of postmasterships as they came under the Civil Service Aict. He dealt with Haiwkedbury, Alexandria, New Glasgow, Brigden, St. Boniface, Brussels, East St. John, Oliver, Norton, and one or two others. If the Postmaster General made similar misrepresentations with reference to all the other post offices as he did concerning Norton then his argument falls very flat and there is not one word of truth in the utterances of the hon. gentleman with regard to Norton.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Burpee Jones: This is what the Postmaster General stated yesterday.
I know that I am taking up a good deaf of the time of the house, but I think it is worth While. The next case is that of Norton in the province of New Brunswick. This position was declared vacant before my time and after an investigation as to political partisanship against the postmaster named 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 1927.
The Postmaster General as a responsible member of the cabinet and the present administration says that this matter was not called to his attention until 1928, but before I am through I intend to prove to the satisfaction of any reasonable person in this country that the Postmaster General did know-all about the Norton .case as far back as 1924 -when he was the premier of the province of New Brunswick. The Postmaster General's statement continues:
In the meantime Mr. Price, who was a very old man

I might state that he is not as old as the Postmaster General.
-was left in charge of the office although he had been found guilty of political partizanship. I understand that Mr. Ward was the victim of a very serious automobile accident.
I interjected at this point and said:
It was another returned soldier by the name of Harmer.
Then the Postmaster General continued:
I am coming to that case. I declared the office vacant and called for new advertisements.


Peter John Veniot: I was ref erring to Mr. Price.


George Burpee Jones: No, you referred to Mr. Ward and I corrected you. Mr. Harmer was iu an automobile accident as well.


Peter John Veniot: I did not know that.


George Burpee Jones: Oh yes, you knew Mr. Harmer. The statement continues:
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 Harmer. 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.
I intend to deal with the case from March, 1924. Order in Council, P.C. 326, dated March 7, 1924, was passed for the dismissal of Allan Price. A letter was written by Hon. Charles Murphy, the then Postmaster General, to Doctor McAllister, the defeated Liberal candidate in 1921, informing him that Mr. Price had been, dismissed by order in council and that he had better send in an applicant for the position. Dr. McAllister replied' to the

Supply-Post Office
then. Postmaster General stating that as this was a very important office he wanted to see a good man appointed. This occurred on March 11.
A letter dated March 17, 1924, was written by Dr. McAllister to Hon. Charles Murphy recommending William A. Reynolds, which stated that reasons would be given later on. This Norton file which appears to be stripped of a good deal of the correspondence does not contain any letter setting forth the further reasons why Mr. Reynolds should be appointed. In his letter of March 7 to Dr. McAllister, Mr. Murphy referred to the faot that Mr. Reynolds had been recommended by Hon. P. J. Yeniot, premier of the province of New Brunswick. The Postmaster General now comes forward and states that he knew nothing about this case until he assumed office.
On March 21 a letter was written by Mr. Coolican to the district superintendent at St. John with reference to advertising the position. I have all the papers under my hand, but as I said before, it would be impossible to read all the correspondence.
On May 29 notice of the advertisement was posted, signed by W. Foran, Secretary of the Civil Service Commission.
On May 28 there is a letter from W. H. Heine, enclosing a petition signed by ninety-two residents of Norton in favour of the retention of Mr. Price.
On April 15, 1924, there is a letter from Mr. L J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General, to the district superintendent at St. John re Fred E. Sharp, an applicant for the position. I may say that Mr. Fred E. Sharp was the defeated Liberal candidate in the 1917 federal election, and he was also on a previous occasion a defeated candidate for the New Brunswick legislature. This letter called the attention of the district superintendent to the fact that Mr. Sharp was an applicant and asked him to put Mr. Sharp's name on the list of applicants for the postmastership at Norton.
On April 15 there is a telegram from Doctor McAllister to the Hon. Charles Murphy, then Postmaster General, asking him to carry out his recommendation regarding Mr. Reynolds, but giving no further information as to his qualifications or why the position should be given to him over the heads of a large number of returned soldiers.
On April 17 there is another letter from Mr. L. J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General, to Doctor McAllister, pointing out that the Norton post office was under the Civil Service Commission.
On May 8, 1924, there is a report from the district superintendent to the Postmaster General, stating that ten applications had been received for the Norton post office. I wish to pause at this point for a moment or two in order to give the ratings of the different applicants for that office. The report from the district superintendent is dated St. John, New Brunswick, May 8, 1924, and it contains nine pages. I will just give a list of the applicants:
George Ward, a returned solder.
Ivan William Reid, a returned soldier.
Fred E. Sharp.
Miss Lucy Jane Campbell.
William A. Reynolds.
Ernest Nelson Myers.
William E. Harmer, a returned soldier.
This man enlisted in the 104 battalion. After he had enlisted he was taken with appendicitis. He was operated on and could not go to the front, but later on he went to work in a munitions plant and did everything he could to help win the war.
Miss Mary E. Saunders, Bloomfield Station.
Preston Douglas Price, a returned soldier formerly of Norton, but now of Concord, New Hampshire.
Charles Thomas Homer, Southfield, N.B.
That is five miles from Norton. It would take up too much time to read the whole report and I do not wish to dwell on the matter any longer than necessary. I will now give the report of the district superintendent in regard to George Ward, as follows:
Educational qualification:	Good common
school education in England.
Accommodation offered: Suitable.
Location offered: Present site.
Residential qualifications: Has been living in the vicinity of Norton since April, 1921.
Experience: A little post office experience and has had experience in meeting the public.
Character and integrity: Good.
Time willing to give to post office: Full time.
AVhether returned soldier: Yes.
Whether disability case: No,-but is in receipt of a small pension.
That was the report on. Mr. Ward, No. 1 on the whole list. There were practically as good reports on Ivan William Reid, another returned soldier; William Elias Harmer, a returned soldier; Preston Douglas Price, another returned soldier who saw service in France; and Charles Thomas Homer, another returned soldier who saw service at the front, and who, by the way, was a school teacher before he went to the war.
I wish to give a further report regarding George Ward, the man who received the certificate from the Civil Service Commission:
Mr. George Ward; twenty-eight years of age; unmarried; is a returned soldier who enlisted in 1915; went overseas in 1916 and saw service at Vimy Ridge, Hill 70 and Passchendaele;

Supply-Post Office

was wounded in November, 1917, and lost two fingers of his left hand; was discharged January, 1919, and is in receipt of a small pension per month. After his return from the war he took a course through the vocational department of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and has been employed as a telegraph operator on and off at intervals since March 6, 1920. For the past three months has been a clerk in the store of W. A. Saunders, at Bloomfield station in the parish of Norton six miles distant from Norton. He has had a little post office experience, having assisted the postmaster at Bloomfield station during the period the office was in Mr. Saunders' store (about one year). He is a man of good appearance, and comes well recommended by the members of the Empire Soldiers Club at Norton; by the secretary-treasurer of the G.W.V.A., and by King and McDonald, wholesale grocers of St. John; by the chief train dispatcher of the Canadian National Railways, Moncton, N.B., and by the Anglican Bishop of Fredericton, as per letters herewith enclosed.
There are no recommendations on the file. The file has been stripped of all those.
After his return from the war Mr. Ward met with an accident in a saw-mill which crippled his right hand slightly but his war and other injuries would not in any way interfere with his carrying on post office work. If appointed, Mr. Ward would provide a suitable location for the post office.
I do not intend to take up any more time. As I stated, this report of the district superintendent is nine pages long. I wish to lay this case before the committee in order that it may be judged on its merits.
On May 14, 1924, there is a letter and a petition from William E. Harmer, returned soldier, who had enlisted in the 104th battalion. This was sent to the Hon. Charles Stewart, at that time Acting Postmaster General.
On May 20 there is a letter from the Deputy Postmaster General to Doctor McAllister informing him again-there is no reference on the file to any letter from the doctor-that returned soldiers would have the preference under the Civil Service Act, as it is the law of the country. The Deputy Postmaster General who wrote that letter is the same deputy who is in charge to-day.
Next is a letter, dated May 27th, from William E. Harmer to the Hon. Charles Murphy, the then Postmaster General, informing him of Ward's record and of his joining the 104th battalion, and so on. It is a very long letter.
Then appears the certificate of the Civil Sendee Commission, dated July 30, 1924, of the apointment of George Ward as postmaster at Norton. I might point out that there were no strings attached to this certificate, as was the case, I understand, with some others.

This was a straight certificate appointing Mr. George Ward, postmaster at Norton.
About a week later, Mr. E. J. Undenvood, chief superintendent of post office service, writes to Mr. W. A. Reynolds, one of the applicants, informing him of the appointment of Mr. George Ward as postmaster at Norton.
Then on August 8, 1924, Doctor McAllister writes to the Hon, A. B. Copp, Secretary of State, as follows:
I am writing you again re Norton P.O. affair Little did I expect the Civil Service would choose Geo. Ward, not only for his being an emigrant to this country but for his incapabilities. It is true that he was overseas but he has been fully compensated since his return. The federal government gave him a course in telegraphy and the local government has compensated him to the extent of five hundred dollars, and I have learned to-day that his employer who runs a general store and had him as a cleTk. discharged him for cause. His employer was F. Saunders. Bloomfield, lumber man and merchant, I think this matter should be looked into. Please call the attention of this to the Postmaster General and by so doing you will greatly oblige.
Mr. McAllister was the defeated Liberal candidate in 1921, again in 1925, and again in 1926, and this is the kind of stuff that the local Liberal organization in the constituency of Royal kept putting up to the Postmaster General.
There is a lot of correspondence following the charge that Ward was a defaulter, and finally the matter came into the court at St. John, and after being considered by the grand jury it was thrown out. The correspondence which was furnished to the Civil Service Commission is here, and it shows that there was absolutely nothing in the charge and that it could not be proven.
On August 12, 1924, Hon. Charles Murphy writes to Mr. Copp acknowledging receipt of this letter from Doctor McAllister, saying that Ward had been appointed according to the law and under the Civil Service Commission. I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this was on August 12, 1924. For nearly two years from that time, until November 17, 1926, there was not much activity in this matter. During all this time the old postmaster was in charge, the man who had been dismissed by order in council. The former Postmaster General, the Hon. Charles Murphy, did not make any move to override the Civil Service Commission, but just as soon as the present Postmaster General assumed office on August 17, 1926, action took place. I will read this letter in full. It is written by the present Postmaster General

Supply-Post Office
to the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and is dated Ottawa, November 17, 1926:
Chairman,
Civil Service Commission,
Ottawa, Ont.
Gentlemen:
I understand that the vacancy for the Norton post office, Queens county, N.B.-
By the way, it is Kings, not Queens county; it is in the constituency of Royal:
[DOT]-lias been standing for a considerable time. It appears that serious objections have been raised to the appointment of one Ward, who, I understand, ranks first in the qualification examination for that position, followed by one Reynolds.
I further understand that your board issued a certificate of appointment in favour of Mr. Ward, but that he was not installed in office, and the former postmaster who was found guilty of political partisanship still remaining in charge of the office.
The hon. Postmaster General knew that this man was in office all the time, and preferred to keep Mr. Price there rather than appoint Mr. Ward, a returned soldier, to the office, as recommended by the Civil Service Commission. The letter continues:
With the knowledge that he had obtained this appointment, Mr. Ward, in the last election took a very active part. My information is that he was even obnoxious in his conduct to those who did not agree with him in politics. In view of this, I feel that Mr. Ward should not now be allowed to take advantage of the certificate that has been issued in his favour.
I would ask that your board give this matter very serious consideration.
The chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Doctor Roche, replied as follows, under date of November 20, 1926:
Dear Mr. Veniot:
I desire to acknowledge yours of the 17th, in which you refer to the fact that Mr. Ward ffor whose appointment as postmaster at Norton. Queens county, N.B. a certificate was issued by the commission some two years ago) took an active part in the recent general election, and expressing your view that Mr. Ward should not now be allowed to take advantage of the certificate issued in his favour.
Unfortunately, however, once a certificate of appointment has been issued by the commission the matter passes beyond the jurisdiction of this body, but I have placed your letter before the full board of the commission, and as the commission is awaiting the decision of the Department of Justice on a point in connection with another case that has a bearing on this case, you will be further advised after the commission has received the opinion of the Department of Justice on the point referred to.
Following the receipt of that letter, the Postmaster General did not lose very much time, for on November 24 he writes from his
78594-138}
office at Ottawa to the Hon. W. J. Roche, chairman of the Civil Service Commission, as follows:
My dear Sir:
I am in receipt of yours of the 20th in reply to mine of the 17th in which I called your attention to the fact that Mr. Ward (for whose appointment as postmaster at Norton. Queens County, N.B., a certificate was issued by the commission some two years ago) had taken an active part in the last federal election and for that reason I did not think that he should finally receive the appointment of postmaster at Norton. I note what, you say about a certificate being once issued that the matter passes beyond the jurisdiction of your commission, but that you have placed my letter before the full board of the commission, and as the commission is awaiting the decision from the Department of Justice on a point in connection with another case that has a bearing on this case, I will be further advised in the matter after you receive the opinion of the Justice department.
A few days after that the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Doctor Roche, wrote the following letter:
December 2, 1926.
Dear Mr. Veniot,
In further reference to the postmastership at Norton, Queens County, N.B., in mine of the-20th ultimo I pointed out that the commission's jurisdiction in regard to this appointment ceased after issuing the certificate in favour of Mr. Ward. But owing to another case having: been referred to the Department of Justice for-decision which might have a bearing upon this case I promised to let you know when such opinion was received.
The opinion referred to was in connection with the Hawkesbury postmastership, as to whether a department could legally reject a candidate for whom a certificate had been issued by the commission when more than one year had elapsed since the issue of such certificate.
The opinion just received from the Department of Justice is to the effect that section 13 may be invoked in rejecting a candidate after twelve months had elapsed from the date of certificate unless the person sought to be rejected has served in the position for a probationary period for six or tw-elve months, as the case may be. In the Hawkesbury case, however, 1 understand that your point is that the candidate for whom the commission issued its certificate of appointment is not sufficiently qualified bilingually, notwithstanding both the departmental officers and the commission decided otherwise, and if you feel justified in rejecting this candidate under section 13, apparently you can legally do so according to the decision of the Department of Justice. But in the case of the Norton postmastership you object to Mr. Ward being allowed to take advantage of the certificate issued in his favor by the reason of his activities in connection with the recent Dominion elections. I do not think this would be sufficient ground for the department to refuse to instal Mr. Ward in office, as he is not civil servant until he has been placed in a position to discharge the duties of same. Otherwise if he did not have the office tranferred to him for the next ten or fifteen years he might have his
Supply-Post Office

hands tied politically notwithstanding he was earning his livelihood entirely outside the service, and this does not seem at all reasonable.
It would appear to me therefore that if it is your intention to reject Mr. Ward under section 13 some more substantial reason should be assigned than the one to which you refer. I think if you will discuss this point with the Deputy Minister of Justice he will agree with me.
You see by this correspondence between the Postmaster General and the Civil Service Commission that there was a desperate effort made to get rid of Mr. Ward, who had been appointed postmaster at Norton. On August 28, 1928, after an interval of almost two years from the date of the letter I have just read, there was a lot of correspondence between the department and the Postmaster General. I wish to refer to a letter of August 28, 1928, written by the Hon. P. J. Veniot, Postmaster General, to Mr. Gaboury:
Dismiss Allan Price and appoint William A. Reynolds acting postmaster at Norton.
This was done in face of the letter from the Civil Service Commission setting out the law in regard to this case.
On August 31 there is a letter from E. J. Underwood to the district superintendent at St. John, instructing him to put into the office Mr. W. A. Reynolds as acting postmaster.
On September 7, 1928, I find a letter from H. W. Woods to the superintendent of postal service saying that Mr. Reynolds had been installed on September 15.
On September 14 there is a letter from Mr. B. E. Thomas, Service Bureau of the Canadian Legion of British Empire Service League, to the Hon. Mr. Veniot, asking him why Mr. Ward had not been called upon to fill the post office at Norton. I desire to read the letter in reply from the Postmaster General. It is dated September 19, 1928:
Dear Sir,-
I am in receipt of yours of the 14th instant m connection with the postmastership at Norton, N.B., and in reply beg to give you the following information:
It appears that in 1924, two years before I assumed the position of Postmaster General, an investigation was held into the conduct of the postmaster at Norton, N.B., and the charges made against him were investigated and proven. The office was declared vacant, but he was allowed to remain in temporary charge until the Civil Service Commission had made a permanent appointment. George Ward, a returned soldier, was one of the applicants, and he received the certificate of the Civil Service Commission for the permanent appointment. This certificate, it appears, was never accepted by the Postmaster General. The matter was left in abeyance with the old postmaster still acting when I took charge of this department. 
Now, I desire hon. members to listen to this. The letter continues:
I knew nothing about this matter. About a year ago my attention was called to the situation at Norton, and after making inquiries touching the details I decided that in view of the length of time that had expired between the date of advertising the vacancy in 1924, and the time that the matter had been drawn to my attention, and in view of the fact that I learned that Ward had left Norton and was engaged in a position at St. John, and that there were other returned soldiers who had applied and who were still residing in Norton, it would be better under all the circumstances to have the vacancy advertised anew. In the meantime, so as to give no undue advantage to one returned soldier as against another, I issued instructions to have this vacancy advertised and to appoint a Mr. Reynolds in temporary charge. I had to appoint a person in temporary charge because conditions were such as Norton that it was impossible to put up any longer with the old gentleman in charge.
You will notice that in this letter the Postmaster General states that the matter has only just been drawn to his attention, whereas two yeans previously he had taken the matter up himself with the Civil Service Commission,


Peter John Veniot: As Postmaster General?


George Burpee Jones: Yes, as Postmaster General,
in 1926. And this letter is 1928. In November and December, 1926, he had taken the matter up, and here he says he knew nothing about it. Perhaps I have taken up more time on this matter than I should otherwise have done, but it is one of the most important questions that can be directed to the attention of the house. On October 4,	1928, there was
addressed, from J. G. Herwig, of the British Empire Service League, a letter to the Hon. Mr. Veniot, calling his attention again to the matter of Mr. Ward's not receiving the appointment. And then we have another letter, October 5, 1928, from L. D. Theriault, secretary, to Mr. Herwig.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member's
time is up.


Mr. CLARK:: I want to ask the Postmaster General for the section of the Civil Service Act or of the Post Office Act which enables him to appoint a postmaster either permanently or temporarily.


Peter John Veniot: Where the salary does not
exceed $200, based upon a revenue of $400, the Postmaster General has the right to make a temporary appointment.


John Arthur Clark: I am referring to those
post offices which-

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will possess his soul in patience.


John Arthur Clark: I thought the minister had
misunderstood my question. It is not a question of preserving my patience; I want the Postmaster General to ibe clear.


Peter John Veniot: I will be clear. When a
vacancy occurs we consider that under the act we have the right to make a temporary appointment, and that continues until the Civil Service Commission makes it permanent.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister refer to
the section of any statute in existence which authorizes him or his deputy or anyone else to make such appointments?


Peter John Veniot: I am not in a position now to refer to such a statute.


John Arthur Clark: The minister has his deputy before him and his deputy knows that in dozens of cases this assumed power has been exercised by the minister. The Post Office Department must know offhand whether or not such a statutory power exists, and I ask for an answer. If the Postmaster General does not know then the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is in his place, the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) is in his place, and there is no question in the world but an answer can be given at a moment's notice.


Peter John Veniot: I will not undertake to satisfy the hon. gentleman by discussing legal issues, because I am not qualified to do so; I am not a lawyer. I did not take the trouble to inquire whether legally it can be done. I certainly followed the practice that has Obtained since 1919 under the Civil Service Act where temporary appointments have been made right along to fill vacancies until such time as the appointments are made permanent. I do know that under the decision of the Civil Service Commission, in the case of several appointments in the department, it, has been the practice since 1919 to make temporary appointments; where there is not a waiting list we are authorized or we do make such appointments. When the Civil Service Commission advertise for applications they obtain what is called a waiting list, comprising the applicants who have successfully passed, and so long as that waiting list is in existence no temporary appointment can be made, but appointments must be made from that waiting list, according to merit. They are made from the list provided the department by the commission. This has
been the practice since 1919. Otherwise how could you get along? You must have authority to make temporary appointments when vacancies occur in the post offices; otherwise how could you carry on the business?


John Arthur Clark: According to the act.


Peter John Veniot: I think I have followed it as closely as anyone.


John Arthur Clark: The minister has made no attempt to answer a very plain question. He asserted the other evening, when I was speaking, that there was lawful authority in the minister to make appointments-I will assume he meant temporary appointments. Now once more I appeal to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, if such power does exist, to point out to the committee the nature of that power on the part of the minister to make temporary appointments to post offices when post offices come under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I have not considered
the question but I am quite willing to do so.
I must however point out that under the law the Department of Justice is adviser to the departments of government; it acts for the departments of government and gives rulings asked for by those departments and even by parliament. But it has never been the practice of the Minister of Justice or of the Solicitor General to give to members of the house legal advice such as my hon. friend would like to obtain while the committee is sitting this afternoon. However, just to please my hon. friend I am willing to give consideration to his question.


John Arthur Clark: I think this is a new principle.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not; ask the hon. gentleman just in front of you.


John Arthur Clark: In any case the Minister of Justice has undertaken to consider this question and I trust he will give parliament a statement. I submit that it has been the duty of the Minister of Justice, of the Solicitor General and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to take notice of such a situation as has been brought before parliament during the last few weeks. This side of the house has repeatedly challenged the legal right of the Postmaster General to make appointments to post offices which come under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and the Postmaster General has often asserted his right to make such appointments.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Will my hon. friend allow me a question?


John Arthur Clark: If it is a statement, no; if it is a question, yes.


Peter John Veniot: It is a question.


John Arthur Clark: Certainly.


Peter John Veniot: Does that law you are now quoting-


John Arthur Clark: I have not quoted it yet.


Peter John Veniot: Does it apply to all departments-all appointments?


John Arthur Clark: I will quote the law and the minister can study it.


Peter John Veniot: That is not answering my [DOT]question.


John Arthur Clark: I will answer the question after I have quoted the law.


Peter John Veniot: You are attacking the Post Office Department.


John Arthur Clark: Yes; the post office estimates are before the house at the moment. But as I have pointed out, I am not attacking the Postmaster General at this moment any more than I am attacking the Prime Minister and his government. I am attacking the Prime Minister and his government at this moment for permitting any department to defy the law as it is laid down in the statute books, which is the will of this parliament.
Now I wish to draw to the attention of the committee certain sections of the Civil Service Act, I refer first to section 19, which is as follows:
Save as otherwise provided in this act or in any regulation made hereunder, neither the governor in council nor any minister, officer of the crown, board or commission, shall have power to appoint or promote any employee to a position in the civil service.
That certainly excludes the right of any minister of any department in this regard. Does that answer the Postmaster General?


Mr. THORSON:: That does not apply to temporary positions.


John Arthur Clark: I will come to that.


Mr. ROBB:: If that is true what is the
use of electing members of parliament? Why not let the Civil Service Commission run the country?


John Arthur Clark: I am surprised to hear the Minister of Finance assert to this committee and suggest to parliament that the chief duty
IMr. Clark.]
of the government is the appointment of employees. That is a delightful doctrine. Now let us go on to section 21:
Every deputy head shall notify the commission of every vacancy in any position in his department immediately after the vacancy occurs, and whenever such vacancy is to be filled, the deputy head shall request the commission to make an appointment.
We have had brought before us in the last few weeks many instances where the Postmaster General has delayed for months in notifying the Civil Service Commission and where he has made temporary appointments on his own responsibility without notifying the commission at all. I think it is time the government took some action instead of stand-up almost daily and by their votes endorsing the actions of the Postmaster General. Subsection 2 of section 21 dteals with temporary appointments, as follows:
The commission shall thereupon appoint the person whose name stands highest upon the commission's list of eligible persons for the class in which the position is found and who is willing to accept the appointment; in ease there is no such list for the class, the commission shall forthwith hold an examination and, if necessary to prevent any serious interference with the public business, but not otherwise, may fill the position at once by making a temporary appointment as prescribed herein.
That is the Civil Service Commission', not the Postmaster General, or any other minister of the crown.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me to direct his attention to one point? Does not that section refer only to what is known as the temporary waiting list?


John Arthur Clark: Most decidedly not, or it
would say so.


Peter John Veniot: They have to establish a
temporary waiting list.


John Arthur Clark: This is the statute dealing
with the question of appointments. There is only one section of the act which gives any power to any department to take on temporary employees, and I particularly direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to this section.
I refer to section 39; while section 38 also refers to temporary appointments it only covers the case of a temporary pressure of work requiring extra employees. Section 39 states:
When employees are required on short notice for emergency work outside the city of Ottawa, the responsible agent or officer of the department requiring such extra assistance may engage the necessary employees, and the said agent or

Supply-Post Office
officer in each case shall forthwith report to the commission through the deputy head of his department the names of the persons so employed.
2. No such employment shall extend beyond thirty days unless approved by the commission . . .


Mr. MARCIL:: Is there any time specified within which the commission must make an appointment or selection?


John Arthur Clark: No, I cannot find any such
provision except that the commissioners are charged by oath to deal with such cases forthwith. There is no specified time, but they are charged to deal with the matter immediately they are notified of the vacancy. Certain steps are prescribed and they are bound by their oaths to make the appointment forthwith.


Charles Marcil: Is the hon. gentleman aware that in making appointments to the outside service in the Post Office Department the Civil Service Commission must depend upon the officials of the department, the postal inspectors and so on, to secure the necessary information, and sometimes two or three months elapse before appointments are made? Who is to act in the meantime?


John Arthur Clark: The thing is perfectly simple; in practically all these dismissals the postmaster who was carrying on could have continued in office until the advertisement was issued and the district superintendent reported to the Postmaster General.


Mr. YENIOT:: What would you suggest
where a postmaster died?


John Arthur Clark: That is also quite simple;
the district superintendent is the man who must deal with the situation. I have read the section of the act which provides for cases where employees are required on short notice, and I should think that would take care of vacancies occurring through death:
When employees are required on short notice for emergency work outside the city of Ottawa, the responsible agent or officer of the department requiring such extra assistance may engage the necessary employees, and the said agent or officer in each case shall forthwith report to the commission through the deputy head of his department the names of the persons so employed.	,	, ,	,
2. No such employment shall extend beyond thirty days unless approved by the commission. . . .
That is perfectly clear; whoever is in charge of the district makes the appointment immediately and reports to his chief. If it is not possible to have the appointment confirmed within thirty days the chief, in this case the Postmaster General or his deputy, will simply write a letter to the Civil Service Commission explaining the circumstances and request the approval of the commission in the meantime until the office can be advertised and the vacancy filled in accordance with the Civil Service Act.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: That refers only to waiting lists.


John Arthur Clark: Waiting lists nothing; there is nothing here about waiting lists.


Mr. POULIOT:: So the minister will be
the subordinate of his officer.


Peter John Veniot: Let the hon. gentleman
consult the Civil Service Commission.


John Arthur Clark: I do not need to consult
them, I am consulting the will of parliament. At the moment I am not concerned with how the Civil Service Commission administers the act; as a matter of fact I am going to ask this government to investigate how the commission is administering this act, because I believe a file which I brought to the attention of the house the other evening clearly indicates that a civil service commissioner has disregarded his oath of office and, to speak quite frankly, I believe he has conspired with the Post Office Department to hold up these appointments.


James Alexander Robb: If the minister is wrong and
the Civil Service Commission is wrong, who is to carry on the business of the country?


John Arthur Clark: Follow the statute. If this
government continues this policy of ignoring this act, which is the will of parliament; if it continues to back these illegal appointments and this defiance of the act by a minister of the crown the people of this country will deal with this government and will put in office a government which will administer the act. If the act is deficient in any way it can be changed. The Minister of Finance may laugh; he apparently considers it a great joke when he thinks of the way the Postmaster General has been carrying on, but I should have thought that the Minister would have voted yesterday with a shamed face- if the shame was not in his face, it must have been in his heart-when condoning the offences of the Postmaster General. I would also direct the attention of the house to the fact that the Postmaster General came in and cast a vote as a juryman in his own favour- most remarkable conduct.
There are two other features in connection with this matter. The postmasters who have been illegally appointed by the Postmaster General are being illegally paid by this country. I would draw the attention of the government, and particularly the attention of
Supply-Post Office

the Minister of Finance to the fact that the Auditor General is passing payments to these employees who are unlawfully employed and who are retaining their positions contrary to the express provisions of the Civil Service Act.


James Alexander Robb: Then the Auditor General is wrong also?


John Arthur Clark: Certainly he is wrong, absolutely. I suggest right now to the Minister of Finance that he bring the Auditor General before the public accounts committee and sak him to explain why he is doing this.


An hon. MEMBER:: Another man gone wrong.
Mr.CLARK: I am going to give the various ministers who treat this matter with such levity one more test and see if their levity will extend that far.
The file in a particular case was sent to the Civil Service Commission on June 29, 1928, for action by that body. The appointment in question happened to be the post office at Sutton, but I am not going to deal with that particular office but endeavour to make my remarks general because there are many other similar cases. I venture to say that if an investigation were carried out it would be found that there are many other cases in which the Civil Service Commission is ^ involved in the same way as one commissioner is involved in. this case. On June 29 the appointment was referred to the Civil Service Commission. On July 9 the examination branch of the commission certified that a returned soldier was entitled to the appointment over the appointee of the Postmaster General who held office contrary to the provisions of subsection 4 of section 29 of the Civil Service Act, and despite the fact that the superintendent in Montreal had certified as to the fitness of the returned soldier. The examination was completed and the appointment could have been made but for some reason or other the file remained dormant in the office of the Civil Service Commission until October 25, when it was brought before Doctor Roche with a request from the Postmaster General that this appointment be allowed to stand still further. It had already been standing much longer than there was any legal right for it to stand, but Doctor Roche made an endorsement on the file-I wonder if the Minister of Finance will consider this as big a joke as he has considered the other breaches of the law?-as follows:
, 1 do not know why this file has been held tor the last three months without being passed on by the commissioners. It has only been 
placed before me this morning, October 25, and in the meantime the department has placed the office in charge of the least competent applicant of the two.
That is signed "W. J. R." and is initialled by the other commissioners. As I stated a careful investigation took place to ascertain why that file had been held in the office for three months without being brought to the attention of the chief commissioner. The report of J. L. Bouchard established beyond peradventure that no employee of the Civil Service Commission had had the file. It is on this report that I base my assertion of conspiracy and collusion between the Civil Service Commissioner and the minister. The following statement appears in the report:
I can only, therefore, conclude that whoever had the file held it until the looked for communication of the department to suspend action arrived.
On October 10, 1928, a request came to suspend action still further. Apparently this file had been held for the express purpose of making it impossible for the commission to function and administer the act which they were sworn to administer, and yet one of the commissioners endorses on the file:
I accept responsibility for holding this file m my office.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was the post office closed in the meantime?


John Arthur Clark: If the hon. member would
exercise just a little discretion-


Jean-François Pouliot: It is just for my information.


Mr. QUINN:: Read the statute.


John Arthur Clark: 
Mr. MANION:: To England.


John Arthur Clark: -to England to represent this country. They intend to send as our representative a man who deliberately breaks the statutes and laughs at it as he is doing right now.


Peter John Veniot: I am not laughing at that.


John Arthur Clark: A representative endorsed
by the members of this government. I would plead with the Minister of Finance under whose supervision there comes at least one official, the Auditor General; I would plead with the Prime Minister under whom possibly the Civil Service Commission would come in a case like this: I would plead with the Minister of Justice to take these serious matters under consideration, advise the ministers of the various departments as to their lawful powers under the act and have it made clear to the house what those powers are. If that is done and if the ministers of the crown will take these matters seriously under consideration, it will do a great deal towards satisfying the members of the house and the country at large.


Mr.   ROYS@: I do not know that one need
apalogize for taking part in this discussion. It involves a very important act and one that has been under consideration for some time in the house. If I wanted any further excuse for rising to say a few Words, it would be the attitude of the Postmaster General when the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) put a perfectly clear question to him, asking him to quote from the statute the section which gave him authority to make the appointment in the Sutton case, namely, that of Crowell. The Postmaster General excuses himself, stating that he is not a lawyer.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Did he not give another
reason also?


Mr. BOYS:: If he did, I missed it.


Peter John Veniot: I said that I was following the practice since 1919 under all governments.


William Alves Boys: With due respect to the minister, I do not think he has any excuse and I will pass on to discuss that matter in a moment or two. I am a lawyer and I have been a lawyer for a few years.


Peter John Veniot: I am glad I am not.


William Alves Boys: I have been a lawyer long
enough to learn that the lawyer who always thinks he knows the law, is more or less of a fool. I admit at once I am anything but infallible, but I will go so far as to say that I have endeavoured to understand the provisions of this act by carefully reading the sections, not once but twice or three times, and to ascertain, if I can the authority that is given to ministers of the crown in connection with the act. Having done so, I make this statement with great confidence. When the Postmaster General said that he is not a lawyer and he dose not know where he gets his authority, one would imagine that before he presumed to make an appointment of a temporary character, or any other appointment, he would satisfy himself from the officers in his department that he had that authority and, if he or they were doubtful, he would, as the Minister of Justice suggests, take advice from the Justice department. I agree with the Minister of Justice that I do not think it would be fair to expect him to stand up in the house and, speaking for the government, give an opinion on the spur of the moment, without having an opportunity to consider the matter. I do not know that it has ever been expected of him, but I think it is the duty of a minister in charge of a department to acquaint himself with the provisions of the act and to see where or not the act gives him authority. Having read the act carefully,
I state now in my opinion the minister had no authority of any kind, sort or description, to appoint Crowell to the temporary postmastership at Sutton. The sections of the act are quite clear. The Minister of Finance has come to the rescue and I would like to remind him that he was in the house with the Minister of Justice when the Civil Service Act was passed and he supported its provisions. The Minister of Finance rises and says: If a man dies, who is to carry on the business of the office? Is everything to be at a standstill? I can only say to the minister that before he makes such a proposition, he should read the provisions of the act. Let me say to the Minister of Finance and to the Postmaster General that the act provides most amply for the situation that is mentioned. As the Minister of Justice has been kind enough to say that he will take this matter under consideration, and let the house have his opinion, it is just as well that we should spend a few minutes in looking into the features of the act so that not only the ministers, but we members of parliament will know where we stand. We are sometimes asked by returned soldiers as to their rights
215S
Supply-Post Office

under the act. Apparently the Postmaster General has one view of their rights under the act, while others have a different view. At the moment I am not going to raise any question as to dismissals; I am not going to suggest that the Postmaster General is doing anything for ulterior purposes. I am going to deal with the provisions of the act, and I think it is high time that members of parliament as weld as departmental officials should understand what the aot means. If my interpretation of it is wrong, I shall be only too glad to have any sections I have overlooked pointed out to me, and to be put right in the matter, so that in future I shall be able to give advice to Anyone who may desire it of me.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I think I should point out that a discussion on the interpretation of certain sections of the Civil Service Act cannot properly come on the item which is now before the committee.


William Alves Boys: I am quite sure that when I point out the purpose of my observations, the Chairman will no longer suggest that I am out of order. I am endeavouring to discuss the provisions of the act as applicable to the action of the Postmaster General in making an appointment which he had no right to make. Let us take these sections up one by one. I think the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) was a member of the committee when the act was revised; I know I was, and I think I had the pleasure of sitting with him under the chairmanship of the Hon. A. K. Maclean when the act was passed. Section 19, to which the Minister of Finance pledged his assent as a member of the house when the act was passed, reads as follows:
Save as otherwise provided in this act or in any regulation made hereunder, neither the governor in council nor any minister, officer of the crown, board or commission, shall have power to appoint or promote any employee to a position in the civil service.
Does the Minister of Finance say that that does not cover all positions?


James Alexander Robb: Read the exceptions.


William Alves Boys: I am going to do so. That is one section he supported and I think that covers all appointments to post offices with the exception of post offices with a revenue under $400. I have in mind the Sutton case where the officer enjoys a salary of over $2,000. But apart from that the act applies to every department of government. That pro-

vision states that neither a minister nor the governor in council may make the appointment. Section 20 reads:
Except where otherwise expressly provided, all appointments to the civil service shall be upon competitive examination under and pursuant to the provisions of this act, and shall be during pleasure.
Is it suggested that that section does not apply to every solitary civil servant to be appointed to any department of government with the exception of some of the cases the Postmaster General has excepted' where in his department the offices are under $400? What happens when there is a vacancy? I particularly direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to section 21 and I was surprised to find him, with his experience, and as a supporter of the act, rise and say:	What is to
happen to the country if a man dies? Is the business of the country to be at a standstill? Does he think his colleague, the Hon. A. K. Maclean, chairman of the committee, was so remiss, careless and inefficient in his work that he never thought out the situation or that the members of the committee did not? Section 21 reads:
Every deputy head-
My hon. friend, the Postmaster General's deputy head.

shall notify the commission of every vacancy in any position in his department immediately after the vacancy occurs, and whenever such vacancy is to be filled, the deputy head shall request the commission to make an appointment.
Does any member suggest that that is not definite? I do not care what the vacancy is for, whether it is on account of death or promotion or resignation or dismissal; that is the section which governs. The deputy makes the request. Then subsection 2 reads:
The commission shall thereupon appoint the person whose name stands highest upon the commission's list of eligible persons.
The Postmaster General wants to make a distinction. He spoke, I am sure, without consideration and without reading the provisions of the act which govern. Does he suggest there is not a list for every position? I have already eliminated the offices under $400.


Peter John Veniot: I did not catch the hon. member's point.


William Alves Boys: Whenever there is a vacancy, it is the deputy head who notifies the commission. Why did my hon. friend say, when the hon. member for Vaneouver-Burrard was discussing this, that that applied only to eligible lists? There is an eligible list for every single appointment if there is a veteran who

Supply-Post Office
applied and asked to be on that list. If my hon. friend the Postmaster General wants to ask me a question, I shall be delighted. It is information I want.


Peter John Veniot: I merely wish to say this.
I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman-


William Alves Boys: I do not mind in the least.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: My hon. friend has asked me a question. In reply I say that there are not always eligible lists in existence.


William Alves Boys: I did not say there were.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman said that there was an eligible list for every appointment.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend did not listen to what I said. I said that providing there was a qualified person who wanted to be on that list, and I say it again.


Peter John Veniot: There may be many qualified people wanting to be on an eligible list, but they are not on because the eligible lists are cancelled every twelve months.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that if a man has a right to be on an eligible list and applies to be put on, he is put on, and that eligible list 'has to be considered by the commission.


Peter John Veniot: Only for one year.


William Alves Boys: It is renewed.


Peter John Veniot: No, it is not renewed except by examination.


William Alves Boys: There is one sure thing, and that is that there was an eligible list in the Sutton case, which my hon. friend knew all about and disregarded. In case there is no such list for the class, what is to happen under the act? It states:
The commission shall forthwith hold an examination and, if necessary to prevent any serious interference with the public business-
I would like my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to get this:
-and, if necessary to prevent any serious interference with the public business, but not otherwise, may fill the position at once by making a temporary appointment as prescribed herein. The minister would suggest: Who is to
carry on the business of the country? The act provides for that very case and states that if there is any urgency, not the Postmaster General, not his deputy head, but the
Civil Service Commission, and the Civil Service Commission alone, Shall make the appointment, and the business of the country goes on.
Subsection 3 of section 21 reads:
Except as to appointments to positions in the head-quarters of the several departments and other portions of the cavil service at Ottawa, the appointments to any local positions in any province shall, so far as practicable, be made from bona fide residents of such locality.
I almost think my friend the Postmaster General would agree with that provision. I took the view When acting as a member of the committee which considered the act in 1919 that in the event of a vacancy occurring let us say in the county of Simcoe, in a post office, in any of the towns or villages, a man should not be brought in from Toronto or Ottawa or some other place and take that position, and I had the honour of moving that subsection myself, and since then the appointments have been given to residents of the locality.
I pass on to the lists of applicants. I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) cannot follow all this at the moment, but when he comes to consider it, I trust he will do me the honour to think over what I am about to say. I again say that I may be wrong, but I have made an honest effort to get at the actual effect of these provisions and the conclusion that I have reached is this:
In connection with these appointments, there are three lists. They are provided for by section 29 of the Civil Service Act. I had better read subsection 2, so that there may be no room for doubt:
The commission shall prepare and maintain a special list of persons in receipt of pensions by reason of their services in the war who
(a)	have from causes attributable to such service lost capacity for physical exertion to an extent which makes them unfit efficiently to pursue the avocations which they were pursuing before the war;
(b)	have not been successfully reestablished in some other avocation; and
(c)	desire to be placed on such list.
That is what I was referring to when I addressed myself to the Postmaster General, that they would be put on if they had expressed the desire to be placed on such list.


Peter John Veniot: That applies to returned soldiers.


William Alves Boys: I quite agree that it does.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman was talking a little while ago about applicants generall}'.


William Alves Boys: No, I am talking about these special lists. Whether you call them two lists, or whether you want to regard the first two
Supply-Post Office

lists as really one list, and put them in a special class, I care not. Then there is another list, and rightly or wrongly the commission have adopted this construction of the act, and if they are wrong it is high time they were put right. If my hon. friend the Postmaster General or any other member of the house does not agree with the provisions of this act, the proper course to pursue is to amend the portions which are objectionable, and make them conform to what we want but so long as those provisions are in the act, they are the law of the land and they must be obeyed.
I come to the next class, and this is perhaps where the Postmaster General and some of us may be at issue in connection with the Sutton case and other cases.
The next is a list of returned men who have served and have the qualifications mentioned in the act, regardless of disability and regardless of reestablishment; in other words, if they have no disability and regardless of the fact that they have been fully reestablished, so long as they come within the class mentioned in the act namely, veterans, they are put on the third list, which has precedence over all civilians. I do not know whether the Postmaster General agrees with that, but I make that assertion. The Postmaster General shakes his head.


Peter John Veniot: I say we do not disagree.


William Alves Boys: We do not disagree. If my
hon. friend says that seriously, then how in the name of goodness he failed to appoint Hill, a returned man, to the Sutton post office, and a man from that locality, I cannot understand. A letter of the Postmaster General was read in this house asking whether this man Hill had been fully reestablished. The Postmaster General now agrees with me, that whether or not he had been reestablished it does not make a bit of difference.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that as regards reestablishment.


William Alves Boys: Let us understand each other.


Peter John Veniot: I still hold to the reestablishment.


William Alves Boys: I have made it plain that the first list, or a double list if you choose to call it that, comprises the two classes, the disabled class and the class that are not fully reestablished. I have then said, and to this the minister gives his assent-if this is a misunderstanding, let us put it right-that there was another eligible list of veterans who were fully reestablished and who had 
no disability, and who were given preference over any civilians if they were qualified. I have quoted the sections of the act on that point. I do not want to be rude at all, but I would ask the Postmaster General now that I have re-stated my position whether he agrees with that position or not.


Peter John Veniot: I think the best answer I
can give would be to allow the hon. gentleman to go on and make his statement, because when he asks a question and I answer it, he turns my answer the other way. I am satisfied to allow him to go on.


William Alves Boys: If I wanted to discuss the
turning question, I would know where to go for instruction.


Peter John Veniot: And you would be an apt
scholar.


William Alves Boys: We will leave that sort of
thing out of this discussion. I want to say to my hon. friend that I am not doing this vindictively at all. I wish to know for my own information, and further I think it is desirable that the house should know just what the effect of these provisions is.
I say that that is the third list. Then comes the fourth list, which is a list of civilians, or returned men, if you will, who have no special qualifications and are not on any special list. Appointment from that list goes by merit, the one with the highest marks being selected. That being so, let me apply it to the Sutton case, because I have had the opportunity of reading that case and I know a little about it -many of the other files I have not read and I do not wish to discuss cases that I have no knowledge of. In the Sutton case you had two applicants. You had Crowell, who was not a returned man. I am not going to discuss whether his qualifications were as good as Hill's or not, because that might be a controversial question. I will admit for the purpose of this argument that he had the qualifications. I am sure that the Postmaster General will admit from the evidence on the file that the returned man, Hill, had the necessary qualifications. The only point which he raised in his correspondence was whether Hill was fully reestablished. I say now that that had nothing whatever to do with it. It did not make any difference whether he was reestablished or not, because he belonged to the third class, and being a returned man he was entitled under the act to the appointment over any civilian. I say to the Postmaster General, if my construction is right-and until we get an opinion from the Minister of Justice, I will certainly assert my opinion against that of the Postmaster General, who says that

Supply-Post Office
he does not know where he gets his authority;
I have quoted the sections to substantiate my contention-and with that law on the statute book the Postmaster General has put Crowell in that office and has left him there two years, though Hill had a certificate from the Civil Service Commission, they being the only ones who could make the recommendation and issue the certificate. The Postmaster General has utterly disregarded that certificate and the provisions of the act, and lias left Crowell in that office now for two years without any authority whatever.
Now, that raises a further point. Where does he get the right to pay him? In the first place, if he is a temporary employee, there is not a scratch of the pen in this act from beginning to end which gives the Postmaster General or any officer of his authority to make temporary appointments. I use the word " temporary " technically. There is a difference between a temporary appointment, and an appointment to fill a vacancy. It is only right that emergency cases should be dealt with. There might be in St. John, if you will, or in Barrie, if you will, a vacancy which requires to be filled immediately, and there is no doubt that under the act-it only shows how thoroughly the matter was considered-the superintendent or inspector in charge has the power to appoint under section 39, subsection 1. It reads:
When employees are required on short notice for emergency work outside the city of Ottawa, the responsible agent or officer of the department-
Does my hon. friend suggest that that is his deputy or anyone else in his department at Ottawa? Does he not admit at once that that has relation to the officer in1 charge of the department in the locality in question? -requiring such extra assistance may engage the necessary employees, and the said agent or officer in each case shall forthwith report to the commission through the deputy head of his department the names of the persons so employed.
That is for a period of only thirty days. Let us read subsection 2:
No such employment shall extend beyond thirty days unless approved by the commission.
Not the Postmaster General, not his deputy either.


Peter John Veniot: For the sake of information-


William Alves Boys: I am glad I am interesting the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: You are -wrong; that is why I am interested. Do you apply that to the Sutton post office?


William Alves Boys: I certainly would apply it to
the Sutton post office.


Peter John Veniot: Let me continue. Do you
apply that to the general run of employment at the Sutton post office?


William Alves Boys: What is the sense of talking
about the general run of employment in the Sutton post office. We are discussing not some person that sweeps the office; we are discussing the postmaster of that office, nobody else.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?


William Alves Boys: In the capacity of a juryman or a member of this house?


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to know from my hon. friend if he submits that the Postmaster General is governed by the Civil Service Act or by the Post Office Act.


William Alves Boys: Both of course where the provisions are applicable. But I am sure my hon. friend, as an experienced lawyer and counsel, knows that the provisions dealing with this matter in the Post Office Act, under which act we used to operate, have all been repealed and the only law now which deals with these matters is the Civil Service Act. Prior to 1919 the Post Office Act governed. I say there is no power, and I want to distinguish between temporary employees and extra assistance. There is the authority to appoint contained in the section I have quoted. I trust the officer of the Postmaster General who sits beside him to assist in the passage of his estimates will pay attention to this and perhaps before the discussion is over he will be able to show the minister where his authority is to be found. I am open to conviction, I am anxious to get from him what he considers to be the law in this regard and if he can refer me to anything to contradict what I have stated, by all means let him do so and I shall be glad to read the sections and revise my view, if necessary. We have a vacancy which requires emergency treatment. There is authority, not for the Postmaster General, not for any officer in Ottawa, but for the responsible officer in charge of the locality to appoint to the vacancy a person for a period of thirty days, and no longer.
Dealing specifically with Sutton

not because that is the only case, there are many others, but there is nothing like taking a concrete case on which to base one's argument-a man has been appointed there as temporary postmaster; that appointment has been made by the Postmaster General without *any authority whatever under this act and without authority to pay him. Under section 42:
Temporary employees shall be paid only out of moneys specially voted by parliament for the purpose.
Supply-Post Office

I ask the Postmaster General-if he does not want to answer now he may do so later on-whether or not Mr. Crowell's salary appeared in the estimates last year, and whether the payment of his salary was authorized.


Peter John Veniot: It is authorized under the
general vote.


William Alves Boys: I think of $240,000. This is a matter the public accounts committee might well be asked1 to deal with, and have the Auditor General come before them to show how in the world, with these provisions before him, he ever passed that payment. I am most emphatic in my contention that the Postmaster General had no right to make that appointment under this act.
There is the situation. Without prolonging the matter, having dealt with these clauses, I should like before I sit down to ask the Postmaster General to kindly come to-morrow prepared to answer what I have said. If he is not a lawyer as he states and cannot tell us at once, and if he admits that although he is Postmaster General he does not understand the .provisions of the act which govern him, I ask that he come to-morrow fully advised upon the matter, either by his owrn officers or by the Department of Justice, and tell the house where he got the authority to make the appointment he made in the Sutton case-and in many others like it-even for thirty days. He has not the right to do it for thirty days, to say nothing of two years. From my knowledge of the Postmaster General I do not think he wishes to fly in the teeth of the statute. Possibly he thinks he has this right. But if he finds he has not, let him admit it, and in future carry on the work of the department having regard to the provisions of the act under discussion.


Peter John Veniot: I do not intend to take up the time of the committee in an attempt to interpret the act as my hon. friend has been doing. He is a lawyer I know-


William Alves Boys: Not infallible.


Peter John Veniot: -of good standing in his profession. I have often listened to lawyers interpreting statutes to suit their case, and I fear that is what the hon. gentleman has been trying to do. I say that notwithstanding all the confidence I have in him.


William Alves Boys: Kindly answer the argument;
that is the point.


Peter John Veniot: I say that because if the
act is applied in the way the hon. gentleman says it should be, then the whole of the public business would be held up.


William Alves Boys: Not at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Peter John Veniot: I make the statement. It
is for you to reason why.


Mr. HANSON:: It is for 3'ou to prove it.


William Alves Boys: I say this to my hon. friend.
Business certainly will be held up by pursuing the course which is now being followed. If the Civil Sendee Commission make appointments to various offices, and the Postmaster General will not allow the appointees to take office, undoubtedly the business of this country will be held up.


Peter John Veniot: I hope the two hon. gentlemen who have been discussing this act and interpreting it will let their memory go back to 1919.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. gentleman
just be courteous enough to hold his speech. Let me go back to 1919 and follow up what has been done since that time, I can show that all those whom I came after in the Post Office Department pursued the very same practice that I am following. If the law was wrong-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Murphy did not. In
the Norton case he did not.


Peter John Veniot: If the law as interpreted
by my hon. friend was in existence at that time then all these appointments have been illegal. I am not the only one who has made illegal appointments, if such be the case. The point I wish to make is this. When I came into office, and I found it being operated as it was in 1919, I never thought for a moment that it was necessary for me to undertake to give an interpretation of the Civil Service Act in making temporary appointments, when everyone who had preceded me in the office had been carrying on in the same manner in regard to such appointments. That is why I continued as I did in regard to temporary appointments. And I still maintain that, that practice having been observed since 1919, blame should not be heaped entirely upon my shoulders for having followed it. If, however, the practice is wrong, then both hon. gentlemen have done their duty in bringing the matter to the attention of the house so that, if wrong, it can be righted.


William Alves Boys: Will not my friend admit that the construction I place on the right of veterans who are not disabled, and so forth, is the construction placed upon the act by the Civil Service Commission?


Peter John Veniot: I will not admit that.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend will not say it
is not?

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman will
ask the Civil Service Commission they will tell him that they have rulings on the point from the Department of Justice with reference to reestablishment.


John Arthur Clark: That is only with regard to disabled men.


William Alves Boys: I would ask the Postmaster
General to be good enough to produce those rulings for the benefit of the committee.


Peter John Veniot: Let the commission produce them.


William Alves Boys: You can easily get them.


Peter John Veniot: No. I do not think it is fair that I should be asked to obtain information which should be produced by another department. Let the heads of the departments concerned produce the information.


William Alves Boys: Does not the Postmaster General himself wish to know what the ruling is with respect to the act that guides him?


Ernest Lapointe: I may say that I propose to find out all the rulings that have been given in connection with this matter, and I shall be glad to see that my hon. friend gets them. .


John Arthur Clark: I think they are already
tabled.


Ernest Lapointe: There may have been
others.


William Alves Boys: This is another ruling.


John Arthur Clark: What is the Postmaster General's interpretation as to the right of a returned soldier, not disabled, and possibly fully reestablished, as compared with that of the civilian?


Peter John Veniot: I will not give any interpretation of that since the Minister of Justice has undertaken to obtain all the rulings and interpretations issued in the past by his department. When they are produced we shall get it right.


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister, in connection with some of the appointments which have been made by him, refused to give a preference to a fully reestablished soldier, not disabled over a civilian.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot answer that offhand; I shall have to go to the record.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister admit that he did it in the Sutton case?


Peter John Veniot: There is no appointment yet in the Sutton case.


William Alves Boys: Temporary?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, temporary.


John Arthur Clark: The minister has given a preference there, in his own personal appointment, over a reestablished soldier.


Peter John Veniot: There was no returned soldier applying at the time the temporary apppointment was made.


John Arthur Clark: That is because the minister made the appointment before the applications were called for.


Peter John Veniot: Someone had to take charge of the place and run it; it could not run itself.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a few words to say on this matter. I heard- the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) say this afternoon that he wished to have the will of parliament expressed; I think it is rather the wish of the opposition that he wants to see fulfilled.
I do not understand how it can be said that persons who have been appointed temporarily by the Postmaster General, pending permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission, should not be paid. In my opinion the most important thing is to have the office running continuously. Suppose a postmaster dies or is unable to fulfil his duties; surely it is the duty of the Postmaster General to prevent what I may call a break in the service rendered by that particular post office; and to this end he must appoint someone temporarily to carry out the duties of the office pending appointment by the Civil Service Commission, and the person in charge shall be paid for performing such service.
We have heard a lot this afternoon about the Civil Service Act. I have here the French text of the act, chapter 22 of the revised statutes of 1927; and there is another act also which is of utmost importance in this connection, and which has been overlooked by all hon. gentlemen on the other side ever since they began discussing the estimates of the Post Office Department. I refer to the Post Office Act. If I understood what my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard said this afternoon, the minister has nothing to do in his department. For example, according to the hon. gentleman, in the event of a vacancy occurring it should be filled temporarily by a district superintendent, who would report to the Postmaster General advising him accordingly, and if that temporary appointment were not satisfactory, then -the Postmaster General would advise his officer of his dissatisfaction and would cancel the appointment and make another. This, it seems to me, is the. very reverse of what should be done. Under the statute the power is not
Supply-Post Office

given primarily to the subordinate, the employee, the officer of the department; it is vested in the minister who is at the head of all authority in the department. This is how I understand the law in this matter and 1 think it is but fair; it is common sense; otherwise we should have a state of insubordination.
There is another point to be considered: When there are two acts dealing with the same subject we must take those acts jointly in order to understand the intent of parliament. This is a principle which is understood not only by lawyers but even by ordinary business men in the country. Now here is a point of considerable importance in relation to this question. According to sections 19, 20 and 21 of chapter 22, the Civil Service Act, who is supposed to instruct the Civil Service Commission as to whom they are to appoint in case a vacancy occurs? Let us take the case of a postmaster in some village or town: he dies; suppose it is deemed urgent to appoint a successor immediately so that there may be no break in the continuity of the service. The question is, who will tell the Civil Service Commission what man is to replace temporarily the late postmaster?


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond West-Cape Breton):: Taschereau.


Jean-François Pouliot: St. Peter of Cape Breton. My hon. friend usually has very much brains in his hand.


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: I carry as much in my hands as my hon. friend does in his head.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I were a teacher and the hon. member my pupil I would send him to the tail of the class. But to resume my point. Suppose the postmaster dies in such a ease as I have suggested. I ask, who will give an eligible list to the Civil Service Commission?


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: Taschereau.


Jean-François Pouliot: I see my hon. friend wants to change his leader.


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: No; we will accept Taschereau as a subordinate.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I may be allowed to proceed, I will repeat the question: Who will instruct the the Civil Service Commission as to the person temporarily to replace the deceased or retired postmaster? That is a problem. I think the Postmaster General has been within his rights in making temporary appointments even in cases coming un-
der the Civil Service Act for permanent appointment. In section 7 of chapter 161 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, I find the following:
The Postmaster General may, subject to the provisions of the act,
(a)	establish and close post offices and post
routes	
He has that power.
(b)	remove or suspend any postmaster or other officer or servant of the post office;
(c)	enter into and enforce all contracts relating to the conveyance of the mails, or other business of the post office;
There are several sections relating to postage, money orders and so on and then follows a very important section which has been overlooked by hon. gentlemen opposite:
The Postmaster General may, subject to the provisions of this act,
(x) make such regulations as he deems necessary for the due and effective working of the post office and .postal business and arrangements, and for carrying this act fullv into effect.
2. Every such regulation shall have force and effect as if it formed part of the provisions of this act.
That is the law. The Postmaster General is given power to do certain things according to the act and where the act is not complete, where something is missing from the act, he is empowered to make regulations to provide for such special cases. That has been done by the ministers of several governments, Tory as well as Liberal. I heard my hon. friend opposite say that the present Postmaster General is taking his lead from the Tory party; that is easy to understand, because that act was adopted under the Tory government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friends should not laugh; I am very serious. The actions of the various ministers under this law show how they all have interpreted it, and it seems very clear to me.
I will not delay the committee longer; I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Postmaster General has been following the law, and no one can blame him for having done so.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend has the statute there; can he point to any section in the act which gives the right of appointment to the Postmaster General or his deputy? Can my hon. friend read any section of the act which is in conflict with the sections I quoted, which were very distinct?


Jean-François Pouliot: I quoted the subsection which empowers the minister to make regulations.

Supply-Post Office


William Alves Boys: The act says "appointments";


William Alves Boys: Does my hon. friend suggest that the act which gives the minister power to make regulations gives him power to make such regulations in violation of the provisions of the act? As a lawyer he would never say anything like that.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not in violation of the act. The minister is head of the department


William Alves Boys: He can make regulations for tD; enforcement of the act, but not in disregard of it. Read the act and see what it
says.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will read it again for the benefit of my hon. friend:
The Postmaster General may, subject to the provisions of this act,
(x) make such regulations as he deems necessary for the due and effective working of the post office and postal business and arrangements, and for carrying this act fully into effect.
The second subsection is very important also:
2. Every such regulation shall have force and effect as if it formed part of the provisions of this act.


William Alves Boys: Then may. I just crystallize it in this way:	Supposing under that section
the Postmaster General or any other minister made a regulation which is in conflict with the act itself; which would govern, the regulation or the act?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend has not
proved that the minister made a regulation of that kind.


William Alves Boys: I am quite confident he did
not do so; if he did so I say he had not the power.


Jean-François Pouliot: My point is that in the
Civil Service Act there is no specific provision for post offices, but such provision is contained in the Post Office Act-


William Alves Boys: Does my hon. friend say that the appointment of a postmaster is not an appointment under the Civil Service Act, and provided for by that act? Does my hon. friend suggest that the minister can make a regulation in conflict with the provisions of the act? Knowing my hon. friend as I do I venture to say that he will not make such a statement on the floor of this house as a lawyer and on his responsibility as a member.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows
very well that the Civil Service Act applies to all the departments in certain matters, but in the Civil Service Act there is no mention of postmasters.
the filling of a vacancy in a post office is an appointment and therefore comes under the act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, .but there is a great
distinction to make between permanent and temporary appointments; they are not the same at all. If the minister takes it upon himself to appoint a man to a permanent position which is not under his jurisdiction I believe that is contrary to the provisions of the act; but he has the right to appoint actiug postmasters-


William Alves Boys: Who?


Jean-François Pouliot: The Postmaster General.


William Alves Boys: Will my hon. friend read any
section of the act to support that statement?
I have read the sections which show that the Civil Service Commission must make such an appointment. I ask my hon. friend to help me and to help the house by reading any section of that act which says the Postmaster General or any minister can make such an appointment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will ask my hon.
friend to read the section forbidding the minister to do so.


William Alves Boys: I have read the section, which says that all these appointments whether temporary or otherwise must be made by the Civil Service Commission. My bon. friend has asked me to read it again, and I will do so. My hon. friend has the statute there, and he might follow me to make sure I do not leave out any words, as has happened before:
19. Save as otherwise provided in this act or in any regulation made hereunder, neither the governor in council nor any minister, ofhcer of the crown, board or commission, shall have power to appoint or promote any employee to a position in the civil service.
Does my hon. friend think there is any doubt about that?


Jean-François Pouliot: My contention is that it
is the spirit and the letter of the 'law that no "permanent" appointment under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission may be made by the minister.


William Alves Boys: While the hon. member admits that a permanent appointment cannot be made, does he suggest that a temporary appointment can be made by the minister or his deputy?


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely.


William Alves Boys: Where is the section?

Supply-Post Office


Jean-François Pouliot: I have read it twice but
I will read it again, so that the hon. member for North Simcoe can go to school with the hon. member for Vanoouver-Burrard. Section 7 of the Postal Service Act reads as follows:
The Postmaster General may, subject to the provisions of this act,
(x) make such regulations as he deems necessary for the due and effective working of the post office and postal business and arrangements, and for carrying this act fully into effect.


John Arthur Clark: Where does that say anything about making appointments?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will illustrate my viewpoint for the children. Suppose a postmaster dies, who is notified?


An hon. MEMBER:: The undertaker.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, it is not in the act; it is perhaps an appendix to the act. When a postmaster dies the assistant is supposed at once to notify the superintendent of the postal district-I think that is the way it goes-and then the district superintendent writes to the department and the minister is notified. In some cases the assistant may act as the acting postmaster or postmistress, but sometimes the assistant has no knowledge of the post office. In other cases the assistant has carried on the work of the post office while the postmaster did nothing. The department is the first to be notified of the vacancy. There is no provision in the act which says that the district superintendent should notify the Civil Service Commission of the death of a person in charge of a post office. In these cases the minister has to exercise a certain amount of discretion to see that the work of the post office is not disturbed through the death of the person in charge, and that is why the Postmaster General has to appoint someone as acting postmaster before the Civil Service Commission makes the final appointment. This may take some time and my friends on the other side of the house seemed to be very much surprised and scandalized because a file was left for some time in a drawer of the desk of one of the civil service commissioners. I have a letter which I keep as a curiosity writen to me by a gentleman, whom I shall not name, in answer to a letter of mine written ten years before. It is possible for a file to be left in a drawer without any intention of causing trouble to anyone, and I think it is unfair to use such strong language against the Civil Service Commission for a mere trifle.
Personally I am not in favour of the Civil Service Commission appointing public servants, but I do think that they will always be very helpful in holding examinations to see that people are qualified for certain posi-
tions. I believe the commissioners are competent men and are doing as well as could be expected when we consider the large amount of work which has to be done by them. The only reflection which has been cast upon the present commissioners is in respect to the Sutton case, and this matter has been fully discussed in the house.


William Alves Boys: 
Peter John Veniot: That applies to assistance
required in large offices.


William Alves Boys: That is not the point which
has been raised. If my hon. friend had been listening he would have heard me deal with that section. I was dealing with the argument of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), that there was authority vested in the minister to make temporary appointments. There is not one word in this act from beginning to end which says that the minister has the right to make an appointment of any kind, nor has he the right to employ extra assistance. The officers of his department in the locality may do that, but the minister has not that right.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like to ask my
hon. friend another question, because I am very much interested in discussing this matter. The people who are appointed as acting postmasters do not come under the Civil Service Act.

Supply-Post Office


William Alves Boys: They are temporary employees.


Jean-François Pouliot: When a man asks for an
appointment to a position which comes under the provisions of the Civil Service Act he does so at his own risk. When the decision of the minister-


William Alves Boys: They cannot appoint him.


Jean-François Pouliot: -is confirmed by the Civil Service Commission then he comes within the Civil Service Act.


William Alves Boys: Under the act he can neither
appoint him nor pay him.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the contention of my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: It is not simply my opinion; it is so provided by the act, the terms of which are very plain; and I know when my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, reads them, he will agree with me. Is there any doubt about this?-
Temporary employees shall be paid only out of moneys specially voted by -parliament for the purpose.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not the English text of the statute. I have the French text.


William Alves Boys: I would take a chance of my hon. friend's knowledge of English.


Jean-François Pouliot: The word "auxiliaire,"
meaning extra assistance, is used. It does not mean in the sense of acting in another man's place because an acting officer is one who replaces temporarily the person for whom he is acting. When we speak of "auxiliaires" we speak of people who come to assist in his work the officer in charge. That makes all the difference in the world.


William Alves Boys: Section 39 governs that. Let my hon. friend read it and take whichever view he likes. We should both content our souls for the present and wait for the pronouncement of the Minister of Justice. When we were promised that, I made up my mind that I would say no more at present, but I like a little dialogue with my hon. friend and I was tempted to continue.


Jean-François Pouliot: I like it myself, but I stick to my contention. To sum up, the last sections referred to by my hon. friend from Sim-coe apply to extra assistance, auxiliaries, people who come to assist the man who is in charge and not to acting officers. When a man is appointed temporarily as acting postmaster, he does not come under the Civil Service Act, but is appointed by the minister for a special purpose and for a particular length of time, and when he is so appointed by the minister he cannot say he is there for good, be-78594-1374
cause another appointment can be made by the Civil Service Commission. I have endeavoured to make myself as clear as possible, and while our views may differ, I like to discuss matters on such a high plane with my hon. friend from Simeoe.


William Alves Boys: It is entirely mutual.


George Burpee Jones: When my time expired earlier this afternoon, I was discussing a letter from Mr. Herwig to the Postmaster General, dated October 4, 1928. It reads:
We appreciate the fact that this ease has been pending a very long time. We are convinced, however, that he should be regarded as eligible and given the appointment in accordance with the spirit of the Civil Service Act.
That is the opinion of Mr. Herwig, of the Service Bureau, Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League.
In reply to this the secretary-and I presume it must be the secretary of the Postmaster General as the letter is from his office-writes as follows:
Mr. J. C. G. Herwig,
Service Bureau, Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L.,
P.O. Box No. 384, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,
Your favour of the 4th instant re the Norton postmastership, reached here during the absence of the Postmaster General.
Same will be submitted to him immediately on his return to the office and will receive the most serious consideration.
L.	D. Theriault,
Secretary.
Then we have a memorandum dated October 20, 1928, from the Postmaster General to his deputy, as follows:
If not already rejected, notify commission of rejection of certificate in favour of Ward.
That is the whole of that memorandum. The next letter following this is dated October 25, 1928, to the Secreraty of the Civil Service Commission, Ottawa, as follows:
Ee Norton:
Dear Sir:
The Postmaster General has given attention to the above-mentioned postmastership, in regard to which a certificate was issued by the Civil Service Commission on the 30th July, 1924, on behalf of Mr. George Ward, returned soldier.
In this connection. I beg to inform you that Mr. Ward is hereby rejected as unsuitable under section 24 of the Civil Service Act, and to state that with a view to making another selection, the vacancy will be advertised in the very near future.
This is as far as I intend to carry this case along at the present time. The vacancy was again advertised, and Mr. Ward, the same returned soldier, and Mr. William E. Harmer,
Supply-Post Office

another returned soldier, made application, but still the office at Norton is being occupied by acting postmaster W. E. Reynolds. I wish to close this matter of the Norton post office by saying that the Postmaster General has disregarded the provisions of the law of this country and, in particular, the Civil Service Act.
The minister stated earlier this afternoon that he has Carried on in the same way as his predecessors. The Hon. Charles Murphy, who was Postmaster General for Canada in a former Liberal government, let this matter stand, and recognized the application of Mr. Ward from 1922 to 1925. The present Postmaster General is always making statements of this kind. There are in the file statements and letters under his own signature which are absolutely untrue and the Postmaster General knows that himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Burpee Jones: Yesterday the Postmaster
General made a statement in regard to the returning officers. I did not intend to mention this, but it does not do to let the hon. gentleman away with all these wild statements. One would think he was in some back district in the province of New Brunswick addressing an audience when he spoke in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon. He said that the Tory party had dismissed every returning officer in the last election. I want to point out to the Postmaster General that that statement is absolutely false, because three, if not four or five in the province from which he comes, New Brunswick, were returning officers under his own government in the previous election. I leave the matter as it is at present before the committee, and I think it has been proven absolutely by many cases that the Postmaster General is not fitted for the position he occupies at the present time.


Mr. STIRLING:: I want to direct the attention of the committee to the incidents connected with the appointment of the postmaster at Oliver, British Columbia, to which passing allusion was made by the Postmaster General yesterday afternoon. The late postmaster at that place desired to resign -last fall, on being appointed customs officer at the neighbouring port of Osoyoos. The vacancy was therefore advertised by the Civil Service Commission and there were three applicanls, all of them being returned soldiers. The post office inspector at Vancouver interviewed these three applicants and reported on them to the Postmaster General. He placed them in a certain order of merit. The first name that appears we can set aside,
fMr. Jones.]
because, as the inspector points out, his military discharge papers were not in order. The second applicant is a man called Anderson, a Conservative, a storekeeper in Oliver since its inception and a responsible man. He intimated to the inspector that if appointed it was his intention to dispose of his stock, and alter his premises to make them more suitable for a post office. From 1912 to 1915 he had been postmaster at a place called Tow Hill, Graham Island, in British Columbia. The third name on t'he list was that of a man called Ede, a Liberal, a carpenter who had worked in Oliver in its early days, had moved away, and had recently returned to live in Oliver. In due course, in fact on the 8th of January of this year, the Civil Service Commission issued a certificate of appointment to Anderson. The form has frenquently been referred to here. It refers to Anderson as the appointee and draws his attention to section 13 of the Civil Service Act, but like others which have been drawn to the attention of the committee, it does not draw Anderson's attention to the ruling of the Department of Justice.


Peter John Veniot: Is the hon. member reading from the certificate that was found on the file?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: The certificate found on
the file is not the same class of certificate that is sent to the appointee. All the certificates sent to the appointees have that ruling printed on them and' do not go to the Department.


Grote Stirling: So that the file which
has been brought down is not an actual copy of the original papers?


Peter John Veniot: What you are reading is only notice to the department of his appointment, not a notice to the appointee. The latter is different.


Grote Stirling: But surely these papers
that are brought down for the use of the house purport to be exact copies of the original papers.


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but there is an error there.


Grote Stirling: Does my hon. friend say there is an error here?


Peter John Veniot: No, no. The hon. gentleman is reading from a certificate which he says went to the appointee. That certificate never went to the appointee. The Civil Service Commission sends to the appointee a certificate

Supply-Post Office
which is somewhat different from the one which it sends to us notifying us that an appointment has been made. On the certificate sent by the Civil Service Commission to the appointee is printed the ruling of the Justice department, but it is not on the one sent to us.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, in this file which was brought down with reference to the Oliver matter, this certificate appears which purports to be a copy of whait was sent to Anderson.


Peter John Veniot: It does not. The hon. gentleman is wrong. He is making an unfair statement; he is not stating the case right.


Grote Stirling: Then I would ask the Postmaster General to state it. Where is the mistake?


Peter John Veniot: There are two forms of certificate. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) has a copy of the certificate which is sent to the appointee, I believe, judging by the colour; it is a purple certificate. I think that is the one that is sent to the appointee.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: This is a notice of appointment to the postmaster. It is not a certificate.


Peter John Veniot: It contains the ruling of the Justice department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It does not contain it all, but only part of it as has been pointed out several times.


Peter John Veniot: It contains what the commission thought was sufficient to guide the appointee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know about that.


Peter John Veniot: What is the use of making statements that are not according to the facts?


Grote Stirling: I received these papers which set out what has happened with regard to this matter, and I certainly took it that this paper, which is called a certificate of appointment, was a copy of what was sent to the man.


Peter John Veniot: It is not.


Grote Stirling: If the Postmaster General says that that is not the case, we will drop that point and pass on, but it seems a most extraordinary thing to hand us a file which purports to be the file connected with the case, but which does not contain the papers which were used in this matter.


Peter John Veniot: You have everything from the department there.


Grote Stirling: Anderson, at all events, receives notice of his selection: I suppose the Postmaster General will agree to that. It is intimated to him that he has been selected. There is a suggestion at least that he will be appointed on probation, and he is told that he will receive instructions as to the date upon which he shall begin his work. I maintain that when a man receives a statement to that effect, bis reaction to it is that he has been successful in the examination held by the Civil Service Commission1, that he will be appointed on probation and will have to start work on a certain day. That at any rate is what entered Anderson's head. He disposed of his stock, altered his premises, bought certain fixtures, and retained the services of an assistant.
Just a month later, early in February, there is a letter from the Postmaster General .to his deputy which refers to the fact that the Postmaster General is in receipt of certain-information which shows that Anderson has; become the agent or local manager of a telephone company in that place. There is nothing on this file to show what is the-source of the Postmaster General's information. It is scarcely likely that the details of the poatmastership in a little place ike Giver, three thousand miles from here, would have been told by word of mouth to the Postmaster General, and I cannot help thinking that some communication must have been received by the Postmaster General which does not appear on this file. The deputy head accordingly writes to the superintendent of the postal service at Vancouver, and suggests that some guarded inquiries should be made to ascertain when Anderson took charge of the telephone company. Eventually the Postmaster General receives that information in the form of a communication signed by Mr. Murray of the superintendent's department in Vancouver, confirming -the fact that Mr. Anderson has been made agent for the local telephone company, and that he started operations on the 1st of February. I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that ever since Oliver has had a post office the holder of that postmastership has also been agent of the local -telephone company. To urge that connection as a good reason for rejecting the selection of the Civil Service Commission is not a reason -but a flimsy excuse. It takes six days for a letter to pass betwen Oliver and Ottawa, and a little more than a week after the Postmaster General communicated with his deputy asking him to ascertain details with regard to this telephone position, two letters are written from Oliver to the Postmaster General, which
Supply-Post Office

I shall put on record as they are very short. The first one is dated Oliver, February 18, and reads:
The Hon. the Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Honourable Sir:
In behalf of myself and others doing business at Oliver I take the liberty of respectfully requesting you that the post office be not put in with the telephone service, and also desiring that you would favourably consider the application for the postmastership sent in by Mr. H. A. Ede as we believe he is a suitable and competent person for the position.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) A. L. Rhynd.
Then follows a letter dated at Oliver, dated February 19, 1929, to the hon. Postmaster General:
Dear Sir,

It has always been a bone of contention here, the post office and telephone office in together, the service has been very poor. They are unable to give good service in either line. We understand Mr. Anderson, who has the telephone office, has an application for the post office as well, to which 90 per cent of the pepole here object, I am sure. There is another qualified applicant who we are sure would give good service, a Mr. Ede, who is qualified in every respect. I am sure this will voice the sentiment of a very large majority of the people of this district.
Thanking you for any consideration of this letter, I am,
Yours very truly,
William Foster,
Oliver Confectionery and Tonsorial.
There is no evidence whatever, Mr. Chairman, that the Postmaster General made any attempt to get confirmation of these statements. It would appear therefore that all that is necessary, when the desire for the rejection of a Civil Service Commission appointee is in the mind of the Postmaster General is that he should receive a letter, or perhaps his limit is two, containing any statement the author cares to make, and then the Postmaster General will accept those statements as a reason for the action he takes. Had he taken the trouble to get confirmation of the statements to which I have referred, I think these facts would have been revealed to him: that William Foster is the man who sold a vacant lot next his barber shop to Mr. Ede, and that the writer of the other letter has leased his ten-foot frontage to Mr. Ede, to be used for the new post office. Both of them, one would consider, rather biased witnesses, and I think further inquiry in the locality would have proved to him that these two men, Foster , and Rhynd, were about the only two supporters in the whole district that Mr. Ede had.

I suggest that the Postmaster General has set at naught the appointment of Anderson, who was acceptable in the eyes of the minister's own superintendent, and who has appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I do not understand why the Postmaster General should adopt this course. I do not understand why the government should set at naught the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I will say this much for the government, speaking as I do of four or five years' representation of that piece of southern British Columbia: I should be inclined to state that in the matter of these appointments the various departments of this government have been reasonnably fair, have reasonably left partisanship out of their appointments until now, and it has remained for the Postmaster General to spray this poison into that district of British Columbia. I do not know what effect the Postmaster General desires to obtain, but I think I know what the effect of his action will be. He has certainly made it far more difficult for the next Liberal candidate in the riding of Yale to get elected. He has certainly made it more difficult in the whole of souther British Columbia to instil into the minds of the people that this government is desirous of upholding the Civil Service Act. And I can assure him that the people of British Columbia desire to uphold it; they do not wish to see it flouted. And he has set this government at variance with the Canadian Legion. I would draw the attention of the committee to the two closing paragraphs of a letter adressed to the Postmaster General by J. C. G. Herwig, Service Bureau, Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. The letter is dated April 5, 1929. These are the paragraphs to which I refer:
May we ask whether favourable consideration can be given to a claim toy Mr. Anderson for reimbursement of expenses? We are sure that anyone applying for a position in the federal service should not suffer loss on that account, particularly after obtaining success in an open competition.
The views of the Canadian Legion in regard to the spirit in which rejections are carried out has already been made known to you. We regret that another case should have arisen where an ex-service man, after considerable delay, has^ been rejected on the grounds of "unsuitability" without a trial in the position.
That, I think, fairly reflects the opinion of the returned men in Canada, and also I think of the great body of civil servants from the Atlantic to the Pacific; they feel rather more nervous than they did as to the retention of their positions because of the conduct of the Postmaster General.

Supply-Post Office


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I desire to get some more information from the Postmaster General regarding the deficit about which he spoke last night.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Perhaps the best way to furnish this information will be for me to read this prepared memorandum which I have received from the office:
Reference by Mr. Stewart (Leeds) on the 1st instant, to the statement contained in the Postmaster General's report of revenue and expenditure and deficit or surplus as the case may be in post office revenue from the year 1868 down to the present, particularly recent years.
Re fiscal year 1921-22
The operations for that year showed a deficit of over $1,500,000 following a surplus of over $1,600,000 the preceding year. This deficit is due entirely to the greatly increased rates of payment to railways for the conveyance of mails which added to the expenditure of that year by over $3,700,000. Had it not been for this extra outlay the operations of the department for the year would have shown a very material surplus.
Those rates were fixed by the railway commission as the result of an application by the railways for increased rates at so much per foot for the use of mail cars.
1922-	23
The revenue for this year showed an increase of $2,700,000 over the preceding year. At the same time there was a decrease in expenditure of over $325,000 due largely to downward revisions in rates of payment to railways for conveyance of mails,-
That is in some cases where those downward revisions took place.
-the estimated savings on this account being at the rate of $400,000 per annum.
1923-	24
The discontinuance of the use of postage stamps in the payment of war tax on cheques, etc., effective from 1st October, 1923, resulted in a decrease in revenue while the expenditure on account of salaries of postal employees and supplies generally accounted for the reduction in surplus of approximately $600,000.
For the years 1916 to 1924 the figures giving the revenue of the department, included postage stamps used in payment of war tax. Had it not been for this source of income the operations of the department during _ those years would have shown a decided deficit each year.
1924-	25
The revenue during this year was adversely affected by the disruptions of business through the postal strike while the expenditure was correspondingly increased through the employment of additional temporary assistance. During the same year the expenditure was increased on account of payments consequent upon salary revision amounting to over $1,700,000. The surplus in the preceding year of approximately $800,000 being thereby changed to a deficit of over $1,200,000.
1925-	26
There was an increase in revenue over the preceding year of more than $2,400,000 due to increases in practically all phases of postal business including adjustments in favour of Canada of postage on parcels from other countries amounting to approximately $300,000 more than in the preceding year. Against this however, must be placed, under the head of salaries and allowances, an item of nearly $500,000 through the post office vote being charged with the expenditure for flat increase which superseded cost of living bonus following salary revision. The bonus had formerly been paid out of a general vote. The salary vote was also augmented by statutory increases of nearly $125,000. Increases in certain other items are practically offset by decreases in the remaining items. The items above enumerated, however, account for the spread of approximately $1,800,000 between the deficit for 1924-25 and the surplus of nearly $525,000 for the fiscal year 1925-26.
1926-	27
As stated by the Postmaster General in the house on the 1st instant the letter rate to all places in the North American continent was reduced from three to two cents effective 1st July, 1926, and consequently affected the revenue for nine months of the fiscal year the actual net decrease being about $1,645,000. The decrease would have been much greater had it not been for increased returns from other classes of mail matter and from other postal facilities. On the other hand expenditure was $500,000 higher than the preceding year, consisting largely of statutory increases and additional positions totalling nearly $400,000, also of added expense for mail service and equipment. These items account for the spread of approximately $2,150,000 between the surplus of the preceding year and the deficit in 1926-27.
1927-	28
Compared with the preceding year the increase in revenue was slightly more than offset by the additional expenditure. The increase in expenditure was due mainly to the following items-$600,000 through the flat increase in salary of $120 granted by parliament effective 1st April, 1927; $200,000 for statutory increases, and $109,000 for rural mail boxes (which are paid for as purchased by patrons of rural mail delivery) the balance being due to cost of handling the increased volume of mail and of improved postal facilities generally.
The introduction of two cent postage would have affected the remuneration of postmasters who are paid by a percentage on revenue had it not been for the decision of the government that the salaries of these officers should hot be reduced. Otherwise the net revenue would have been improved to the extent of approximately $500,000.
That is to say, an order in council was passed providing that the salaries should remain the same after as before the reduction from three to two cents.
1928-	29
In addition to the information given by the Postmaster General in the house relative to increased expenditures during the fiscal year which ended on the 31st March last, it might be stated that increases in expenditure have

Supply-Post Office
J___________________
occurred under practically every heading due to the general expansion of the service. It is to be understood, of course, that final figures for the year are not yet available and that any amounts quoted are more or less approximate until the accounts can be finally balanced.
That is all the information I have.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose we were considering the first item in vote 314. Shall the item carry? Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: The item was called
and no one rose to speak, so I declared it carried.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We were only half through the explanation I was asking from the Postmaster General with regard to the financial end of his department. I was referring to the revenues of the department, and the Postmaster General laid a statement on the table. I observe that during recent years the revenue has been steadily increas-ng, but the Postmaster General spoke about ;he reduction in postage rates and gave that is a reason for the falling off in the revenue. However, in his report for the year 1928 I find the following statement:
The net revenue for the year amounted to $30,529,154.76 and the expenditure to $32,379,195 65. This is an increase in the net revenue of $1,150,458.21, instead of the expected decrease due to two cent postage having been m operation for twelve months as compared witn nine months of the previous year; and it indicates a marked increase in the volume of all classes of mail matter.
So I take it that after all there was no loss in net revenue through the reduction in the postage rate. As I have said, the statement shows an increase in revenue so I submit that the decrease in postage rate cannot account for the deficit; the larger volume of business seems to have made up for the reduction in rates. Now I would like to ask the Postmaster General in what year the reduction became effective.


Peter John Veniot: I think it was October 1, 1926.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yet we find the revenue for 1926 $31,024,464.22, as compared with $28,581,992.87 in 1925, so that no loss was sustained through the lowering of the postage rate.


Peter John Veniot: It became effective only on October 1, 1926. Let me correct that statement; it came into effect on July 1, 1926.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then we find tha* in 1927 there was a loss in revenue of only $2,000,000 instead of the $6,000,000 stated by the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say there was a loss of revenue of $6,000,000; I said if there had been no increase in the volume of business, by one fell stroke of the pen the reduction would have been $6,000,000, but there was a large increase in the volume of business.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: So it is quite clear there was no loss of $6,000,000 in revenue.


Peter John Veniot: No one said there was.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want that clear, because that was my understanding. Then in 1928 the net revenue was up to $30,529,154.76 and it is estimated that the revenue for the current year will be higher still, so that I submit there has been no loss in revenue sustained through the reduction in the postage rate. What items other than the revenue from the sale of postage stamps produced that total? Is there any revenue from money orders and postal notes?


Peter John Veniot: There is just the revenue from that source and from the stamps.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps the Postmaster General can tell us under what headings the net revenue is made up?


Peter John Veniot: I have here a statement
which shows the revenue and expenditure in recent years.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am asking for the different sources of revenue; it is all bulked here.


Peter John Veniot: Our revenue is derived from the sale of stamps, from the commission on post office orders and postal notes, the postage on newspapers, the parcel post, the postage on circular advertising matter and so on and the sale of postal cards. I think that is about all.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All these items, except the commission on postal notes and money orders, would come under the heading of postage, I suppose?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I suppose there would be really only two headings?

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: On page 11 of the report the revenue is given in greater detail:
Postage stamps, postcards, etc.,
sold	$
Postage paid in cash on newspapers	 * [DOT]
Postage paid in cash on third class (printed) matter ..	..
Postage paid in cash on metered
mail matter	
Postage paid in cash on parcels. Rents of letter boxes and
drawers	
Commission received on money
orders	
Commission received on postal
notes	
Profit in exchange on money order business with other countries	
Profit in exchange on British postal order business.. Commission received from the United Kingdom on postal
order business	  [DOT]
Postage on parcels from other
countries	  [DOT]
Transit charges on correspondence from other countries. . Void money orders, that is, money orders issued between January 1, 1926, and December 31, 1926, payment of which had not been claimed up to
December 31, 1927	
Lapsed postal notes.. [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] Collections from sale of rural
mail boxes	
Miscellaneous revenue	
26,200,775 97
1,483,317 75
1,158,518 59
1,103,339 88 3,722,434 57
319,432 09
1,575,248 20
179,486 69
18,403 81 2,277 93
740 29 635,339 60 124,361 01
7.079 33 6,855 88
21.548 00 18,499 97
Deductions..


Mr. HEAPS:: I would like to refer to the
matter of salaries paid in the postal department. Could the Postmaster General give the committee the amount of increase he recommended to the Civil Service Commission should be granted to the postal workers:


Peter John Veniot: Last year I recommended
that the minimum and maximum salary should be increased. Speaking from memory, I recommended this year an increase without fixing the amount; I requested the commission to readjust the salaries of the postal workers, postal clerks, and postal porters. I read the reply from the commission the other day in which they said that they did not consider an increase justifiable. I replied to that letter in March, and so far as I know nothing has been done since.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The increase recommended
last year was only $60 per year.


Peter John Veniot: If my memory serves me
rightly I think the amount we recommended would have meant a vote in the estimates amounting to about $260,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But the individual increase
would not have been more than $60 per year?


Peter John Veniot: It would likely be around
that figure.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I believe there was some
correspondence tabled this year in relation to that particular question, but I have not had the time to look it up. The minister was good enough to inform the house the other night that he has exerted his very best efforts to obtain an increase for these postal employees, and he also went so far as to say that he had persuaded the government to side with his particular view. When I spoke on this question the other night I expressed some astonishment that the Civil Service Commission had not taken the proper action when the government were so unanimous in their views. It is quite possible that the Civil Service Commission turned it down because the recommendation of the Postmaster General would have meant so little to the men employed in the postal service. I am a very firm believer in the Civil Service Commission, and I would not like to see anything done which would impair the usefulness of that organization. However, the men in the postal department are becoming so disgusted with the actions of the government that they are beginning to ask that the question of salaries be taken out of the jurisdiction of the commission. But we should realize that once we begin to tamper with one of the main functions of that organization it will not be long before the commission will be wiped' out of existence.
The Postmaster General has offered these men an increase of $5 per month. Had his recommendation been carried out it would mean they would receive a minimum of S90 per month. I do not think the Postmaster General or any member of this house will say that $90 per month is a decent living wage. Yesterday the Postmaster General, when making a defence of his department, paid a very eloquent tribute to the men and women employed in the department. He said that they were mostly responsible for the efficiency of the department, and I think the men who give such good service to the government and to the people of this country are deserving of at least a decent living wage. The government has not as yet recognized that fact, except for the recommendation of a $5 per month increase.
I would like to read a letter which is characteristic of a number I have received from
Supply-Post Office

different parts of this country. This is a letter from an ex-service man in the city of Toronto:
I receive as salary $85 per month. Started to work on the city staff in September 1928; received my appointment latter part of February 1929,-
He then goes on to say that out of the salary of $85 per month a deduction of $8.50 is made, leaving a salary of $76.50, which he receives for his services.


Mr. STEVENS:: What is the deduction
for?


Abraham Albert Heaps: He does not say, but I
imagine that part of it is for superannuation. The letter continues:
I have a wife and eight children to support on my salary, which as you will see is really only $76.50 per month. Would be indebted to you if you would place these facts before the house as I feel sure that were they aware of the small pittance paid to postal helpers, and the hardships caused through same, a large number of whom are returned men like myself, I have confidence to believe that there is not a member in the house who would not be in favour of granting us a living wage.


Robert James Manion: What is his occupation?


Abraham Albert Heaps: He is a postal helper.


James Alexander Robb: What is his name?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think it would be fair to the man to give his name; I will let my hon. friend see the letter.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: They would dismiss him.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This man, the father of
eight children, has served overseas and a grateful country now rewards him with wages of less than $85 per month. I want to read from another communication which deals more particularly with the Civil Service Commission and its attitude toward the postal employees. This comes from a very high official of the organization and in his communication to me he represents what I believe to be the overwhelming sentiment of those employed in the Post Office Department. He writes:
. despair of ever getting any measure of justice or equity at the hands of the Civil Service Commission. Letter carriers and other postal employees are becoming disgusted waiting for something that does not materialize, o- nothing has been received under the Civil Service Commission since the act was amended in 1919, but a reduction of $156 in their salaries.
Then he goes on:
When we go to the commission with our grievances they never tell us the same story ""'ice. Four years ago they told us if any increase was given us it would have to be given 
to all the civil service; that the amount would be so large the House of Commons would not vote it. The following year they told us if the government would give them the money they would try and distribute it. What they told us in 1928 you will find on page 2 of our circular letter to members of parliament, dated February IS, 1929. This year they advised our committee not to expect any increase as there were lots of men to be got for what they were receiving now.
In other words, when these men went to the Civil Service Commission this year to ask for an adjustment of their salaries, the reply they received was: "If you are not satisfied with your present condition, there are plenty of men to be obtained for the salaries that you are working for." If that is the way in which the Civil Service Commission handles the employees of the government, it seems to me a change should be made in the personnel of the commission.
The Postmaster General, as I said a moment ago, spoke yesterday in the house of the efficiency of the staff under his control. Nothing is more likely to impair the efficiency of that department than underpaying the men. I do not think any hon. member can expect a man who is working for $85, $90 or even $100 a month to be able to continue to give efficient service. We expect a great deal from those in the employ of the Post Office department. We expect the postmen to be courteous, honest, able to meet the public; we require that they shall be men of good character and physique. They have to go out in all sorts and conditions of weather; yet when the postman comes to our house we can almost tell the time by his knock. It is a sign of ingratitude that in the face of all this talk in parliament of our prosperity and our huge surpluses of revenue over expenditure, we refuse to increase the salaries of hundreds and possibly thousands of men in our employ who find it impossible to live on the wages they receive.
I believe I am not doing the Postmaster General an injustice when I say that he recommended an increase of $5 per month to these men, but I want to see him and the government go a little further than that. The least the government can do is to pay to its ablebodied employees a minimum salary of $100 per month as requested by the postal workers in a memorandum to members of the house.
I feel rather disappointed at the action of the government and even of parliament, that we can find no means of overcoming the obstacle of the Civil Service Commission to giving the postal workers what they are entitled to. If the government were to insert in the estimates a sum *hat would allow these men an in-

Supply-Post Office
crease of approximately $120 to $150 a year, parliament, I feel satisfied, would vote it without a dissenting vote. It appears to me that on the present occasion the reason these men are not getting the increase is that parliament is unanimous in its view. IV hen we all agree on a thing, the men apparently cannot get it.
If there were a little disagreement on the question, it is possible that the postal employees would get the increase. Will the Postmaster General hold out any hope whatever to the lower paid men in the postal service of receiving a proper reward for the services they render to the people of the Dominion?


Robert James Manion: I wish to say just a few
words along the same lines as the observations of my hon. friend. The hon. member for South Wellington in a few very eloquent remarks dealt with this question. He took up the matter with the minister and, after asking certain questions, found out that there were some 10,000 of the lower paid employees. The wages of many of those men would be under $100 a month. One's sympathy goes out to men of that type, who are toying to play the game, trying to be honest and to be worthy of the confidence of the people of the country in classes of service which demand the greatest amount of confidence and honesty. In my own city, for instance, there is no finer group of men than those employed in the Post Office Department, the letter carriers and other postal employees are a very high type of men. Many of them are, of course, reasonably well paid, but the postal helpers and letter carriers certainly deserve the sympathy of the house. I submit to the minister, in view of what has been pointed out by the last speaker as to the unanimous support which this question usually gets in the house-at least the unanimity of views which prevails with respect to it on this side, whether on the part of the group in the other corner or this group here- that the government will have no difficulty in passing such a resolution. They will receive no opposition from our side, and I am sure, if they bring in any such resolution, they will get no opposition over there. Parliament is the high court of the land. The Civil Service Commission, with all due respect-and I am one of those who support it-is not in control of a question like this. This question can be decided by the high court of parliament, by hon. members sitting in this house, and without taking up further time, I think the minister might well consider carrying out the suggestions of the hon. member for South Wellington and the hon. member for North
Winnipeg in regard to increasing the salaries of the lower paid men. It might be said to me-and I will say it so that somebody else will not-that I was at one time in a position to have dealt with the matter. I doubt if the minister would have said this, but he knows I was not in office long enough to deal with a question of this sort. I could not have dealt with it during an election without being accused of having ulterior motives and he knows what it is to be accused of that. I appeal to the minister's sense of generosity, and to the government generally, to deal with this question from a generous standpoint. I can bespeak the support of all the members on this side, and I know the minister need not worry about his own.


Peter John Veniot: It must not be understood
that the salary of a postal helper who is receiving $1,020 a year is fixed at that; it ranges from that figure to the maximum, which is $1,440.


Robert James Manion: It takes some years to
attain the maximum.


Peter John Veniot: It increases at the rate of
$60 a year. That is the way the Civil Service Commission regulates the matter The salary of a letter carrier begins at a minimum of $1,080 and increases to $1,440, and the salary of a postal clerk goes from $1,080 to $1,740. When they enter the service they enter at a minimum and after a number of years they reach a maximum which is a fairly good wage. My endeavour at the beginning was to increase the minimum and also to increase the maximum. I am not quite sure, but speaking from memory I think I asked that the minimum salary of the postal helper, which is $1,020, be increased by $100, and of course the maximum would also receive that $100 increase. I am speaking from memory, but I think that is about right. I give that information so that the committee will see how the thing works out. The other evening I think I gave the number of employees, namely, letter carriers, 2,710; postal clerks, 3,009; postal helpers, 2,922.


Robert James Manion: Is it not a fact that if the minister or the government brought in an estimate to increase these salaries, irrespective of anything in the Civil Service Act, parliament is supreme and could carry the matter through?


Peter John Veniot: I think that parliament could, but I cannot lay down a policy for the government in this matter. I would have to have the government state its policy before I could commit myself.
Supply-Post Office


Henry Herbert Stevens: While on this point, may I draw the minister's attention to the fact that in 1919 parliament voted a bonus for the letter carriers of $480, which, with the standard salary of $720, gave them a total of $1,200 as a minimum. Later on there was supposed to be a stabilization of salary to do away with the bonus, and it was understood that this stabilization would not lower the minimum to this class of workers, as to others, but when parliament did stabilize salaries, the result was that instead of receiving a bonus and salary which amounted to $1,200, the letter carriers received a salary of only $1,020.


Peter John Veniot: Going back to the old minimum.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The old minimum was $720.


Peter John Veniot: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The government did away with the $480 bonus and fixed the minimum salary at $1,020, with no bonus, making a loss of $180 per annum. The point I am making is that the letter carriers actually suffered a loss of $180 a year in the so-called stabilization.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Only as respects the minimum.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is the minimum we are speaking of, and this is the class that is suffering. It is all very well to say that there has been an increase of $60 a year, but with that increase it would take the letter carrier three years before he would reach the $1,200 which he was receiving before the stabilization.


Charles A. Stewart: It affected very few in the service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not think so; there is quite a number. The suggestion has been made to fix the minimum at $1,200 a year, it strikes me as a reasonable request.


Mr. McMILLAN:: I am sure that the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Fort William a few months ago, that he had every sympathy with the employees of the Post Office Department and stood solidly behind the Civil Service Commission at all times, except when he was a member of the shadow government-


Robert James Manion: I deny absolutely that I ever interfered at any time with the Civil Service Commission.


Thomas McMillan: You deny it absolutely?


Robert James Manion: Absolutely.


Thomas McMillan: You deny that you ever sent telegrams which secured the dismissal of post office officials in any part of Canada?


Robert James Manion: I deny absolutely that I ever interfered with anybody who was under the Civil Service Commission and that I ever appointed anjHbody who should have been appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Thomas McMillan: So far as the expressions of sympathy which we have just heard for the poorly paid class of piiblic officials are concerned, more particularly postal-workers, I have every sympathy with the condition of those who are receiving salaries which do not enable them to sustain themselves and their families in that degree of comfort which we as citizens of this country would all like to see. But, sir, it has been a surprise to me during the four sessions I have sat in this house to observe the salience which has been kept respecting the returns of those who are the real wealth producers of this country. What is the situation? The real wealth producers of this country, in the first place, are the agriculturists, the artisans, mechanics, those who are engaged in the leading industries of this country, and the workingmen of Canada. If you take the year of our highest agricultural production-


Mr. GOTT:: Order. The hon. gentleman is getting away from the question.


Thomas McMillan: Am I to be called to order, when these post office estimates are up for discussion and hon. members time after time talk about the poorly paid employees in this and other departments, if I endeavour to make a comparison with other poorly paid workers in this country? I was going to say that in the year 1927, which is the last year for which we have the full figures, and the year of our greatest agricultural production, the total agricultural production in this country amounted to $1,780,000,000. In that estimate is counted twice all the agricultural products which are consumed upon the farm in the production of our live stock and live stock products of every kind. When you subtract that amount from the sum total and divide the remainder among 711,090 farmers, which is the number in this country according to the last census-and that does not take in all the small farmers owning one acre or less -you will find that the gross earnings of each individual farmer and his family were less than $2,200 per annum. When you take into account the annual requirements, the necessary farm expenses), interest on investment, et cetera, I invite anyone in this house or out

Supply-Post Office
of it to show where the average farmer in Canada is earning to-day over $1,190. When we come to the forty leading industries of this country and divide the total wage and salary bill of their employees amongst their number, according to the returns of 1924, we find that the average wage for the individual worker-not for himself, his wife and family-is $1,104.41. The earnings of the hired male servant and	the maid servant on the f'arm
together total $1,103 per annum, so that the average farmer of Canada with his wife and family are only able to earn to-day what his man servant and maid servant are receiving on the average throughout Canada. So when we consider the question of the salaries of our public officials, should not the whole economic system in this country be taken into consideration? Because after all is said and done, the real wealth producere of this country constitute the class upon whom the whole burden in the end must fall. If those who do produce the wealth of the country, are able to retain such a small portion to themselves how under heaven can they afford to pay other people any more?


Peter John Veniot: I think in reading from my notes I made a mistake, in fact I am sure I did in giving the figures for the postal helpers. I gave the maximum as $1,440; it should be $1,320. For letter carriers I gave the maximum as $1,440; it should be $1,500. The other figures are correct.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Are not those
figures even in revised form subject to a diminution of so much per cent by way of compulsory contribution to a superannuation fund?


Peter John Veniot: All employees of the government who come under the Pension Act contribute 5 per cent.


Leslie Gordon Bell: So the net is not the figure the Postmaster General has given.
Mr. VENIOT; I have given the minimum and the maximum. Of course it is understood that 5 per cent is deducted for superannuation.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The minimum is
that much less.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
think some of us will agree that there is altogether too much truth in what the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) has stated. The agricultural people are receiving far less than they should receive, and the employees in industry are also receiving far less than they should receive.
I am one of those who believe that we axe not going to get very much improvement until we have a pretty complete reformation of the system. I would go further than I fancy my hon. friend from South Huron would go, though I do not think this is the time to discuss these other questions. I would rather emphasize the relation between the low paid employees of the government and the higher paid. We very easily secure additions in salary, for instance, in the case of the deputy ministers-perhaps their salaries are not too great; I am not discussing that, but I do say there is a very wide discrepancy between the higher paid and the lower paid officials. Whatever may be true of agriculturists or those engaged in industry generally, we are dealing now with one particular class of government employees and I think we would do well to consider, not this class in relation to some other group outside, but rather the actual requirements of this class having regard to living conditions as they are to-day.
In that connection I would refer to a document which I think has been quoted before in this discussion. It is a memorandum issued by the Amalgamated Civil Servants. I will quote two or three brief paragraphs.
First of all the question is put as to the cost of living to-day, and some figures are cited that were given before the industrial relations committee of this house. The memorandum then proceeds:
For our purpose we have taken the figures from The Labour Gazette, which supplies the cost of a weekly budget of staple foods, fuel, light and rent only. It is stated in the Gazette that to estimate the cost of other necessities it is necessary to increase the cost of this budget by 50 per cent. We do not even go as high as this, merely adding 33-1/3 per cent.
Surely, that is a very, very moderate basis on which to go. The argument is concise:
In 1919 the average cost of living was $22.18 per week, which, plus one-third, amounted to $1,557.81 for the year. Compare this with the $1,312.05 actually received by thousands of civil servants considered to be _ in_ the $1,500 maximum class of to-day. Again, in 1920, living costs for the year were $1,794.50. whilst these civil servants received only $1,593.
That is, taking the very lowest minimum figures as put forth in our own Labour Gazette we find that the maximum figure of the postal workers falls far short of the minimum requirement for decent living.
Now, if we in Canada were living in a period of trade depression there might possibly be some reason for this state of affairs, but we are assured by the Minister of Finance that we are living in a period of very great prosperity, and his budget shows a surplus. I would say that under these condi-
Supply-Post Office

tions there is no excuse for permitting such a situation to continue. Let me read another paragraph from this memorandum:
The average weekly budget over the period 1918-1927 was $21.79, amounting, plus one-third, to $1,510.77, while the average amount actually received by the class of civil servants mentioned was $1,396.11. Thus, these employees have, for ten years, been receiving an average salary less by $114.66, than the average cost of a budget, much less than the cost of a minimum health and decency budget.
So much for the higher paid of the postal helpers. Then comes a very strong plea for the lowest paid employees in the service.
The main point, however, which we desire to stress most strongly is, that there are many civil servants in receipt of an average salary far below even $1,200 per annum.
With an average cost of living existing over a period of ten years amounting to $1,510.77 per annum, surely our request for a $1,200 minimum salary errs only on the side of modesty, and justifies us in once again appealing for and urging your support.
I repeat, this seems to be an eminently modest and reasonable request. Our own statistics show that the very minimum required is over $1,500; all that the civil servants here ask is that no one should be paid less than $1,200.
According to some statistics recently brought down at the request of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), there are at the present time civil servants of the male sex getting less than $100 per month, full time, 2,089, and temporary, 1,672. To bring all these people up to the $1,200 a year minimum it would take $64,629. Surely not a tremendous amount when we consider the alleged prosperity of this country and the manner in which we can throw away money for certain purposes. In this same return I find that in the post office there are 624 full time employees, and 686 temporary employees receiving less than $100 a month. It would require only $18,534 to bring these people up to the $1,200 class. This is such a small amount I hardly like to put it forward as a reform in government policy, and yet the government seems determined to refuse to take any action about it.
As I said the other day, it seems to me that the Postmaster General is simply hiding behind the Civil Service Commission. He has asked them for very little-some $5 a month -hardly enough to justify the commission in considering seriously any change. If he had asked for $100 or $200 or $300 a year extra he might be justified and the house would be justified in insisting upon its being granted. But the Postmaster General's request is so small that one hardly can blame the Civil Service Commission for not acceding to it. fMr. Woodsworth.]
An hon. gentleman behind me laughs; apparently he is astonished at this argument. But I repeat that the amount asked for is so very small that it seems to me the Postmaster General is merely seeking an excuse and is not very serious about the matter. If he were at all serious he would force it to an issue.
Again, as I said, it seems to me that the Postmaster General is hiding behind the government; for again to-night he says, "I am not the government, I cannot take action". The other night he refused to come out definitely and say that he would recommend such action to the government. Until we have a statement from the Postmaster General that he is prepared: to recommend substantial increases to the government and that the government is prepared to stand by such recommendation, then we shall have to throw the blame for the lack of these increases upon the Postmaster General himself.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I had not intended taking part in this debate, but I have had correspondence with letter carriers and have asked them confidentially to state their opinion on the matter, I asked them plainly: "Do you think the Postmaster General is making a screen of the Civil Service Commission? Do you think that the Civil Service Commission ought to be disbanded, and would you rather go back to the patronage system? If not, what is your opinion regarding this question?" The answer I got was this:	We do not
know and we are not prepared to say that the Postmaster General is hiding behind the Civil Service Commission, making a smoke screen of it. Nor am I prepared to make that charge either, because I have no evidence touching the matter. The Postmaster General on April 5 did make a statement at the instance of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) and we all agreed with the conclusions of hon. gentlemen who had spoken before him. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and members of the opposition agreed with the Postmaster General that there should be a substantial increase in the salaries of these employees. The Postmaster General himself said so. Now the question that presents itself to me is this: Can we formulate some sort of proposal which will solve the problem for this year? It seems to me that the Civil Service Commission themselves cannot be such iron clad people as to be impervious to public opinion and to the opinion expressed on either side of this house. They cannot be individuals of that description unless there is something behind it of which

Supply-Post Office
we do not know. Well, I put this proposition to the Postmaster General-and I am not throwing any insinuations at him. We have all expressed the view that these men deserve an increase in salary, and they themselves have stated their position. They say, "The Postmaster General has admitted that we deserve an increase, but what with the commission not taking action and the Postmaster General, although recommending it not being able to enforce it, we are the sufferers". This is the proposition I put to the Postmaster General: Supposing that he himself nominated a committee from both sides of the house and waited upon the Civil Service Commission and asked for a conference, placing the matter before them in a reasonable light. If they were reasonable men they would comply with the request.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let us go down on our knees when we do it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: No; we do not need to
go down on our knees. If they have the power which it is said they have, and if the Postmaster General, as he says, cannot help himself, it is not an unreasonable proposal that such a committee as I suggest should meet with the Civil Service Commission and talk the matter over. Then, if they remained unreasonable, further action could be taken. Let me make another suggestion to the Postmaster General: If the Civil Service Commission do accede to the request-or if they do not- will the Postmaster General, shall I say, show his sincerity in this matter by calculating what the total increase would amount to and including it in the supplementary estimates, so that it may be available when the Civil Service Commission do comply with the request of the house?


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I am glad to
be able to say a few words on behalf of the postal workers of the Dominion. I wish to say frankly that I am in favour of an increase to the lower paid postal workers in Canada. I do not think there is any room for argument in that regard. I am very much pleased also to observe to-night such unanimity of opinion in the house touching the question. During the last few days we have listened to a very lengthy discussion from the other side of the house with referrence to the action of the Postmaster General. And what has been the whole weight of the argument, if you can call it an argument, emanating from that side? It has been this: that if, for example, a postmaster died in this country it would be a crime for the Postmaster General to endeavour in any way to keep the service going by appointing a man temporarily. That is about the substance of the argument we have had from the other side. And what do we find to-night? We have heard the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), an hon. gentleman for whom I have the highest regard. I am always sorry to see him on the other side because he never looks at home; still, I have a very high regard for him. I was therefore glad to hear him; and I was glad to hear the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) also making a plea. But what did it indicate? The Civil Service Commiss'on, which we have been led to believe was a paragon of perfection, for some unaccountable reason now comprises such scoundrels that they will not do full justice to the postal employees. In other words, when hon. gentlemen opposite for their own purpose wish to use the Civil Service Commission, the commission are the finest type of people in the country; but when it does not suit the purpose of hon. gentlemen opposite to represent the commission in this light then they ignore them. Now I want to ask this question: Who at the present time is running the affairs of this country?


Eccles James Gott: No one.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Is it the Civil
Service Commission or the government? When I find the Postmaster General saying that there was a wish to pay the lower paid postal workers more money but that the commission refused to meet this wish, then I ask myself and this house seriously the question I have just put: Who is running this country at the present time?


An hon. MEMBER:: Veniot.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Well, let me
say to my hon. friends opposite that if they could show anyone as capable of administration as the Postmaster General they would be very well off. What position do we find ourselves in when, all parties being unanimous in the desire to pay more money to the lower salaried employees, we discover that we are impotent in the matter?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Alves Boys: Let the government introduce legislation; that is all that is necessary.


James Alexander Robb: You would block it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: But what I
want to bring out is this: How is it that so suddenly hon. gentlemen opposite change their opinion regarding the Civil Service Commission? At one time they wish the Civil Service Commission to be in absolute control-
Supply-Post Office


Mr. ERNST:: Nat the Civil Service Commission, but the law.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My hon. friend is talking too fast; he will learn more when he is here longer. iAt another time hon. gentlemen opposite, when it suits their purpose, desire to override the authority given that same Civil Service Commission under the law. I tell hon. gentlemen opposite they cannot have it both ways; either they must stick to the law at ah times or they must not do so, and if they ore going to stick to it in one case why not stick to it all the time? I want to say emphatically that so far as I am personally concerned, if this government wishes to pay these postal workers or the employees of any other department larger salaries but cannot do so under the existing law, that law should be changed immediately.


Mr. GEARY:: That is what has been suggested.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: No, hon. gentlemen opposite are not saying that; at one time they say the Civil Service Commission are paragons of perfection and the next moment they say the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission is not worth considering. I have never heard greater inconsistencies in argument in my life, and I am sure the people of this great country will be thoroughly disgusted with such arguments coming from hon. gentlemen opposite.
About ten years ago I remember when certain postal employees in my city were on strike. We had a public meeting, which I attended and where I did a little speaking, and I said very boldly that I condemned the action of postal workers in going on strike. I also said, however, that since they were paid such very * small salaries, and since they were striking for larger salaries, I was with them 100 per cent. I took that position ten years ago and I am of the same opinion to-night.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Alexander MacGillivray Young: Has the Civil Service Commission, under the present Civil Service Act, the power to increase these salaries?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, in my judgment it has the power to do so, but I understood the minister to say the commission will not grant his recommendation.


Peter John Veniot: The commission say it is not justified.
7S5M-138


Hugh Guthrie: If they are wrong in that opinion are they to bind this parliament? The idea is absurd. That commission is our creature, and we cannot permit to exist a wrong which has been brought to our attention. If there is no division of opinion on the question I should like a good many more hon. members on the other side of the house to get up and support this request for action, then I think we might get somewhere; they would force the government to do what is right by these employees and do it this session. Let it not be postponed any longer; let it be done now.


James Alexander Robb: The debate this week has been as varied as the weather.


Hugh Guthrie: The weather has been pretty steady-rain.


James Alexander Robb: During the early part of the
week we had hon. gentlemen opposite attacking my colleague the Postmaster General; they alleged that he had not always acted as the Civil Service Commission had recommended. Now we have them urging that the government-


Hugh Guthrie: That parliament, not the government.


James Alexander Robb: -override the decision of the Civil Service Commission.


Hugh Guthrie: Parliament can do it


James Alexander Robb: It is only fair to say of the Civil Service Commission that in their report they claim that the salaries paid in the postal service are comparable with the salaries paid in other departments of the government service. I submit to the hon. gentlemen that if they are going to consider an increase in the salaries of the civil service of Canada they should not pick out only the postal workers. I venture to say that if the postal employees of Canada or the civil service of Canada were asked how they were being treated to-day as compared with the salaries and retirement allowances they received under the administration of which my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) was a minister, that they would reply that they are being fairly well treated. This government has improved to a marked degree the position of the civil service of Canada; not only have salaries been increased but we have provided retirement allowances for members of the service, and in many cases for their families.
As pointed out a moment ago by an hon. gentleman who represents a rural constituency, in considering the salaries of the civil service it is only fair to take into consideration the salaries of those who provide the

21S2
Supply-Post Office

revenue for the carrying on of the affairs of this country. I think every member in the house will admit that our primary industries, those of the farm, forest, mine and fisheries, provide the traffic for the railways.


Miss MACPHAIL:: And the tariff too.


James Alexander Robb: They provide a great part oi the revenue of the railway workers, and, with the railway workers and those who are employed in industry, provide the revenue to carry on the affairs of the government.
I am one of those who have great respect for the Civil Service Commission as a means of determining the qualifications for entering the service. I do not say that they are always right but I think they do fairly well under the act parliament has given them to administer. In some places that act limits the scope of the commission in determining who shall get the position, but until parliament has the courage to amend the act-bring it a little nearer if you wish to the British act, and I think that would be much better for Canada-we must put up with the act as it is. The Civil Service Commission in considering the salaries to be paid in one department of the service must take into consideration the salaries paid in other government services.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the minister has so much confidence in the commission why does he appoint another commission to investigate them?


James Alexander Robb: In the particular service which the hon. gentleman have been discussing there is a surplus of applications for the positions, notwithstanding the salaries paid. The people who accept those positions know before they enter the service what the salary is going to be; they know what the minimum and the maximum are; they know of the pensions provided for their families. In this particular service there is a large waiting list all the time, but in the technical classes the experience has been that men are being drawn away from the service. Industry is offering them more than the government offers, and that is why this commission of advisers was appointed. I am glad to say that the personnel of the commission has been well received by the country as a whole. Their duty is to look into the relativity of certain salaries paid in the public service of Canada to the remuneration for similar services in the different industries of the country.
It is all very well for my hon. friend, the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) to say that we can put an amount in the estimates to take care of the postal workers, but how is that to be allocated?
(Mr. Robb.]


Hugh Guthrie: According to the lowest
paid.


James Alexander Robb: Are we to override the Civil
Service Commission, which has been formed purposely to determine how much is to be given to each class in the service? These questions must all be worked out. If we put in an amount for the postal workers what will my hon. friend say about the other workers employed in the public service? Are we to throw them to the wolves? Have they not some right to consideration as to the salary they should get?


Hugh Guthrie: If they are down as low as the others.


James Alexander Robb: Take the rural postmaster
who has to wait up late at nights for the different trains; has he no rights?


Hugh Guthrie: The rural mail carrier
too?


James Alexander Robb: If there is any class that is not properly treated it is the rural postmaster.


Mr. COOTE:: You should treat them
better.	[DOT]


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has referred
to the rural mail carrier. That position is advertised and any person can tender for the work; that business is carried on the same as the other business of Canada. If wre are going to establish a fixed remuneration for the rural mail carriers-


Hugh Guthrie: On a mileage basis.


James Alexander Robb: -then we must be prepared to go a step further and give all contracts on that basis and abandon the tender system.
When you take into consideration the salaries paid to the civil service as compared with those paid on the farm, in the mines, in the forests; as compared with those paid to teachers in the public schools, to professors in the colleges, to those working in the department stores and different commercial houses throughout the country; as compared with the salaries paid in the services of the different provincial governments, it will be found that the employees of the Dominion of Canada are much better off to-day than they were when this government assumed the responsibilities of office in 1922.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I assume from what the minister says that it would be inadvisable to bring up the question of postal workers'' salaries without considering the salaries paid in the rest of the service.


James Alexander Robb: I think it would be fairer.

Supply-Post Office


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does my hon. friend condemn the Postmaster General for making his recommendation on April 5 that the salaries of postal workers should be increased?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Mr. MALONEY:: The minister has mentioned the superannuation scheme under which the civil servants come. Does he contend that that is a gift from the government to the civil service? Is it not a fact that the civil service, because of their monthly contributions, are entitled to that superannuation?


James Alexander Robb: Yes; the government pays
part and they pay part.


Martin James Maloney: But the government is
making money on the superannuation scheme every day. The government is making more out of the superannuation scheme than any insurance company in the country is making out of insurance, because many civil servants may die before they retire and all that money remains with the government. The superannuation is certainly no gift. I am not finding fault with the minister for stating he believes many civil servants are well paid.
I believe that to be the fact, but on the other hand there are innumerable civil servants who are much underpaid and as soon as the government realizes that fact the better it will be for the public service of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: I am rather interested in this discussion for two or three reasons, the first being that on several occasions when ministers found it necessary to ask parliament to increase salaries notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, they got very little support from hon. gentlemen opposite. I have vivid recollections of several such occasions. Another objection I take to the suggestions of some hon. gentlemen opposite is this: they suggest that because the postal workers are now under review, they should be given an increase, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not deny that they have all, in season and out of season, been the advocates of control by the Civil Service Commission.


Robert James Manion: Control of appointments.


Charles A. Stewart: Control oi
appointments and control of salaries.


Hugh Guthrie: If we think they do
wrong, we can correct them.


Charles A. Stewart: Hon. gentlemen opposite have argued that the Civil Service Commission should rule over the civil 78594-138^
service of this country. Notwithstanding any opinion we may have had about the matter, the act has remained without change. Along with all the other members of the government who were present when the proposition of the Postmaster General was made to increase these salaries, I was agreeable to it, and we asked the Civil Service Commission to consider such an increase. But hon. gentlemen opposite will bear in mind that since this government came into office there have been one or two increases granted to the civil service. In what- manner were the Civil Service Commission asked to revise the salaries of the civil service? They were asked to ascertain the wages paid in similar vocations in industrial and commercial life in this country and to fix the salaries of the civil servants on that basis. I am not going to argue that that was done in its entirety, but I do say that those were the instructions given to the Civil Service Commission when the increases were proposed. The commission did their work and parliament accepted that. The salaries were fixed on that basis and it is assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the civil service are on a parity with similar services in other lines of endeavour throughout the country. That is the basis on which we presume those conclusions were reached.
I for one am in favour of an increase to the postal workers. But this is the surprising thing to me: the acting leader of the opposition stands up in his place to-night and states that all the government, has to do is to insert an item in the estimates to provide for this increase. That would be absolutely unfair. As a reason for not recommending an increase at this time, the Civil Service Commission say that it would make the salaries of the postal employees out of line with those of other classes of civil servants. Every individual employed in the civil service who is drawing a salary similar to that of the postal worker has a right to be considered. Nevertheless-hon. gentlemen opposite will ignore all these considerations. It seems to me that if the Civil Service Commission are instructed that the minimum salaries paid in those classes are too low, and to readjust them, that is their business; but in all sincerity I do not think parliament is equipped on every occasion to do work of this character at the request of someone in some particular line. I am not quarrelling with the suggestion of the acting leader of the opposition that perhaps the rural mail carriers or the rural postmasters do not receive enough money. But, parliament in its wisdom having set up a civil service commission for this purpose, having given it all the equipment for making investigation, ascertain-
21S4
Supply-Post Office

ing wherein there is inequality, and trying to place the civil service upon a parity from one end of the country to the other, that commission is the proper 'body to arrive at a conclusion whether or not an increase should be granted. If the salaries are not in line with what people in similar occupations in commercial and industrial life are receiving, then let the commission recommend that increase, and let us pay it. When the Postmaster General suggested to the government that the postal employees were underpaid, I believed him; but I realized that if they were to receive an increase, then a very large body of the civil service was also entitled to an increase. I am not opposing that, but it seems rather a strange procedure to ask parliament to deal with a single case without taking into consideration the whole service. I will agree with my hon. friend if he will ask the Civil Service Commission to consider the salaries of all those in similar classes and vocations, but I am not prepared to consider one class only.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us take all the lower grades.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but let the Civil Service Commission handle the question. I think they are the body best equipped to do it, and not the House of Commons.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Has no other member of the government made a similar request or recommendation in connection with his department?


Charles A. Stewart: We are making requests repeatedly. In my department I have as many requests for increase turned down as are granted. The Civil Service Commission have a man who goes through the Department of the Interior making reports whether the recommendations made by the minister-because they have to be signed by Mm-are to be granted or not, and the Civil ^Service Commission take action on those reports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Finance
and the Minister of the Interior have both laid emphasis upon the fact that we have criticized the Postmaster General for departing from the terms of the Civil Service Act in connection with certain features of his department, and on the other hand they claim that we are now-
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton):	I did not
suggest anything of the kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend did.


Charles A. Stewart: No; I confined my remarks to the particular question at issue. I was not in the chamber when the other question was under discussion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are told that we are now advocating a violation of the Civil Service Act. I think the hon. member for Saskatoon was the one who said this.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I did not say
you were advocating a violation of the act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, an overriding of the commission. We will put it in that way.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: What I was
pointing out was that for the last few days this commission was being held up as one which was doing no wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Now my hon. friends want parliament to act in place of the commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have not held up the commission as doing no wrong. We have stood behind the Civil Service Act as the governing act over the civil service of this country, and we still stand behind it.
Here is the situation that has arisen in regard to the rate of salary paid to the lower paid classes of the service. The Postmaster General told us last year, and I think he told us again this year, that he had made a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission and that the Civil Service Commission-he will correct me if I am wrong-turned down his request on the ground, at least this was one of the grounds, that if they increased the salaries of the lower paid members of the Post Office Department it would necessarily follow that they would have to increase the salaries paid in connection with similar lines of work in other departments.


Peter John Veniot: That would rather be the inference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Frankly, that has no
terrors for me. The point at issue is this: Are these men whose position we are now discussing-I would remind the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that we are now discussing the post office estimates, by the way-paid a sufficient salary? There is unanimity of opinion, or there was until the Minister of Finance spoke, that they are not paid a sufficient salary. If there are other civil servants doing a similar class of work in other departments the same reasoning naturally will apply to their case. We have said-my hon. friend from South Wellington so stated a moment ago-that it was within

Supply-Post Office
(he power of parliament to adjust this matter, and I suggest to the minister and to the government a way in which it could be done, supplementing what my hon. friend from South Wellington said a moment ago. We could take into consideration the question of a minimum salary-a minimum wage, we will put it that way. The suggestion, has been made-I made it myself a few weeks ago- that we should fix S100 a month as the minimum wage for an adult civil servant; that, of course, would not apply to youngsters just entering the sendee as messengers or something of that sort. Let adult civil servants, doing the normal work of an adult, be paid a minimum salary of $100 per month. Some classes might properly be exempted; there would not be very many, and they could be specified. That is a reasonable proposition, and if parliament would so declare the Civil Service Commission would undoubtedly immediately comply. If is within the competence of parliament so to declare.
I pointed out to the minister a few moments ag0-I did it a week ago, and I am going to do it now, and draw it to the attention of the Minister of the Interior as well-that as a matter of fact certain .members of the Post Office Department are to-day receiving less salary than they were in 1919. The facts are clear; there is no escape from them. In 1919 there was a minimum wage to a letter carrier of $720, and there was a bonus paid of $480, making a total of $1,200. The civil service properly asked that the salary be stabilized at that rate as a minimum, and that certain increases then be given. Parliament accordingly fixed the mimimum salary for a letter carrier at $1,200, overriding, if you please, the Civil Service Commission, or disregarding it, in so far as the Civil Service Act is concerned. Parliament did that as a matter of fairness to the underpaid civil servants. They had asked that that rate be stabilized as a minimum salary, and it was virtually agreed that it should be so stabilized. But when action had been taken, this is what resulted: The minimum salary was fixed at $1,020, with no bonus, so that the letter carrier who in 1919 was drawing $720 in salary and $480 as a bonus, or a total of $4,200, finds himself $180 a year or $15 a month, poorer, because he is receiving $1,020 instead of $1,200. There is no excuse for that.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend explain how that comes about? He says that some of these men are drawing less money than they did in 1919, although it was stipulated that no man should draw less than his salary and bonus after the stabilization.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The action of parliament had, as a matter of fact, that result. I am not at the moment criticizing the action of the government.


Charles A. Stewart: What I am asking my hon. friend is, how does it come about that any individual in the service at that time could now be drawing less money? I could understand it as applying to those entering the service since then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can tell my hon. friend that it is a fact, nevertheless. I will give another case. The maximum salary of a post office letter carrier in 1919 was $1,280, plus $396 bonus, or a total of $1,656. He now receives a maximum salary of $1,500, or a reduction of $156. There is a legitimate grievance which these men have. They find themselves poorer owing to the action of this house in 1924 than they were in 1919. The Postmaster General disclaims responsibility because he says that he cannot act in this matter alone. Very good; then I submit to the government that the situation is such that it ought to engage their attention and be righted this session; it should not be allowed to continue as at present. I brought this matter to the attention of the house last year, as did my hon. friends from Winnipeg; we have it up again this year; there is a general feeling in the house that some action should be taken, yet we simply drift along. It will not do for the government to answer that the Civil Service Commission-


Peter John Veniot: Does my hon. friend suggest that the minimum salary on entrance to the service be $100 pier month?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suggest a minimum salary of $100 to an adult for the normal work of an adult.


Charles A. Stewart: That means young stenographers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, youngsters of that character might be termed apprentices and should be exempted.


Peter John Veniot: None under eighteen receive the minimum for an adult.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That virtually would do away with the objection. In some cases the objection might hold; I think there are a few messengers, for instance, who carry special delivery letters and so forth. No one is suggesting that they should be included.


Charles A. Stewart: A number of married men act in the same capacity as messengers. We have all those difficulties .s
Supply-Post Office


Henry Herbert Stevens: A man doing a man's job is entitled to a minimum wage of $100 a month, and I think that ought to be accepted and established by parliament. I suggest to the government that they take this question into consideration and let us this session declare such a principle, fixing the minimum salary, and then the commission with all their machinery could very readily adjust the various salaries.


Peter John Veniot: May I ask my hon. friend when that minimum to which he referred was fixed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In 1924.


Peter John Veniot: By law?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, by the action of parliament, and it was intended-there is no question of this-to stabilize the rate at the original figure of $720 per year plus the bonus of $480, as the minimum salary.


Peter John Veniot: But it did not work out that way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it did not. I frankly confess that I do not understand what peculiar twist of phraseology in the law brought about that result, but that is .the result.


Peter John Veniot: I see that that is the result but I cannot understand how it could be 'brought about.
_ Mr. STEVENS: No, and that is why I invite the government to reconsider this whole question. I have under my hand a reference to the report of a committee of parliament which recommended what I am now suggesting. A committee of parliament sat in 1924, and if I recollect rightly, they made a unanimous report in regard to the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right; the bonus was to be added in every case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, the bonus was to be added in every case and stabilized at that rate. I think the committee will take my word for it-


Charles A. Stewart: That is quite correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -that the parliamentary committee-it was under Mr. Raymond as chairman, if I recall rightly-recommended unanimously that this should be done. The grievance of some of these employees is that they not only failed to get that accomplished, but they are actually under a lower rate today than they were at that time. So there is a very strong case for these workers. And when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance brings tMr. C. A. Stewart.]
forward the suggestion that the increase would run into other departments, the answer is a simple one:	If in other departments employees doing a similar class of work are receiving these lower rates of pay, then by all means bring them up to the level we are now advocating for the letter carriers and postal workers.


Mr. J. FERNAND FAFARD (L'Islet) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say
a few words on behalf of the rural counties. We, who represent the farming classes, have broad enough views to understand that letter-carriers are entitled to a reasonable remuneration, in order that they may give to their children a decent education. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre stated that he was in favour of a minimum salary of $100 per month for civil servants. If he is sincere, he also desires that this minimum salary be applicable not only to civil servants but also to those employed in basic industries. Evidently, being the champion of large interests, he did not wish to mention this minimum salary for those employed in industries which help in the development of our natural resources.
I recall reading in newspapers that when the house is in session, it entails an expenditure of $30,000 per day to the country. Well, sir, it is unfortunate to note that during the present week we have already spent $200,000. Why? To find out what everybody knows, that the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) is the best Postmaster General that we have had for many years past. His dealings were thoroughly investigated and absolutely nothing illegal was found.
Sir, as a representative of a rural riding, I must point out that a great deal of time is devoted, in this House, to the cause of civil servants and very little thought is given to the farming classes. We have farmers who own lands worth seven or eight thousand dollars and are far from earning the minimum salary the hon. member for Vancouver Centre mentioned a short while ago.
If we, on this side of the House, representatives of rural ridings, are in favour of an equitable salary for the civil servants; if we want them to live decently and give a good education to their families, we equally want the hon. members of the opposition to cast their eyes now and then on the farming classes. When we lowered the duties on farm implements, a few years ago, that was rendering a minimum service to the farmers, yet we met opposition which was not to the credit of these same gentlemen who sit opposite to us.

Supply-Post Office
Once more, I do not wish to further waste the time of the House, however, I want to ask the hon. members sitting on your left, sir, to take a greater interest in the farming classes of this country.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I think sometimes, Mr. Chairman, we speak rather prematurely in regard to these matters ; the unanimity which was apparent earlier in the evening does not now exist. We understood at the outset that every member was agreed on this subject, and that the government were absolutely behind the proposal to increase the rate of pay and bring it up to a fair standard. To-night we find that one or two members on the government side are in favour of this increase, "but"-and there they pause and begin to give some reason why the proposal should not be adopted. Finally the Minister of Finance, upon whom will depend in the main the settlement of this question, tells us that the civil service is well paid. Consequently I do not believe that any suggestions we may offer or any pressure we can put upon the Postmaster General will avail in bringing about a settlement of this question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Until the next general election.


Arthur Edward Ross: Perhaps. The
Minister of Finance said that the civil servants have a splendid system of superannuation. But as the member for South Renfrew pointed out, that is not at Bill to the credit of the government. We have heard of cases of civil servants paying into the superannuation fund without receiving a cent in return. It is the best kind of industrial insurance that I know of for the benefit of the company-in this case the government. The Minister of Finance also said that in the end the public pays for these increases. Well, I would point out that the postal helpers are employed in distributing the mail in our cities, and it is from these urban centres that most of the profit from the postal service is derived. Therefore if the public pays for increases of this kind I think the request of the postal helpers should reoeive special consideration at the hands of the government. Besides, the government has not sought to reduce the war tax collected in the cities. Therefore the cities may rightly claim that the postal service should receive fair consideration from the Postmaster General.
It has been said that the government increased the salaries of these men. This is disputed, and it has been pointed out by one member that some of the salaries instead of being increased have been reduced under the settlement which the government claim benefited the postal workers. If this contention of these men as would appear, is well-founded, then I think the government should reconsider the case and see to it that they are given the substantial increase which we all understood they were to receive. I do not think the Postmaster General will deny after what has been pointed out by several hon. members to-night that some of these postal workers are not as well off to-day as they were in 1919. In my opinion this has been demonstrated in the course of the discussion, but it appears as if the Postmaster General now perceives it for the first time. Undoubtedly a grievance exists among the lower paid members of the postal service, and the Postmaster General should accede to our request that these men be placed on an equality with the other postal helpera in regard to increased pay. I have pleasure in supporting the proposal, but after listening to the Minister of Finance I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that our efforts will fail unless they are more strongly supported on the other side of the house than they have been up to the present time.


Mr. EVANS:: I wish to add my voice to the demand that has been made for a living wage for the postal workers of this country. It has been a surprise to me for many years now that somehow or other the government expects certain civil servants to exist on a wage which must be far below the living line, while the men who get seven, eight and nine thousand dollars are continually being further considered. This is not as it should be. We like to think that we are living under a democratic form of government. Regarding the words of the Minister of Finance that many of the primary producers are not in any better position, after all, the rate of remuneration at which a man's services may be obtained does not matter; the government should not expect him to work for a wage on which he cannot live decently. Regarding those whom the Minister of Finance also mentioned, those who furnish the revenue of the nation, the new wealth which is added each year, it is quite true that we are guaranteeing the profits of all other classes except those who really create this new wealth. One way in
Supply-Post Office

which the government can help those who are getting only a poor living wage is for them to lower the cost of living. While we are guaranteeing the profits of one class, we are making it impossible for the wages that are paid to meet the cost of living which every other class has to face. Some means must be found to give these people a living wage. Lately I was told that some of the temporary workers in Ottawa are receiving as low as S68 a month. This is far below what a family can live on these days.
The Minister of Finance also mentioned the rural mail carriers as perhaps the most poorly paid in the whole service, and he said the government do not fix the salaries of these carriers. I think they do worse than fix the salaries; they grind them down to the very lowest cent they can do the work for. There is one rural mail route established in my constituency and the tenders have been twice issued for rural mail carriers; but the price has been too high in each case; yet in each case only a very moderate W'age is asked for the day's work. Moreover, we expect in the rural mail service men who will comply with all the regulations, men who have to be out in all sorts of weather, travelling over all kinds of roads. And we also exact from the rural mail carrier a bond which is not asked for in the case of the city worker. A good deal of consideration is therefore due the rural mail carrier and I should like to see him receive better treatment than he has been getting in the past. Very few of these people get anything like a wage commensurate with the expenses involved in their calling.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I feel constrained to say a word or two in reply to the remarks made this evening by the Minister of Finance. The hon. gentleman asked why we were discussing only postal employees. I am quite prepared to deal with the whole question of wages of all civil servants when the proper time comes; but we are now dealing with post office estimates, hence the discussion of the salaries of postal employees.
As has been already pointed out, in previous years there has been a fairly unanimous feeling in this house in favour of an increase in salary for these men, but so far it has been denied them, let us say, by the Civil Service Commission. Another reason why we should deal with the postal department is that it is one of the revenue producing branches of government; it is the service for which the people pay. I am satisfied, therefore, that the majority of the people do not want to see the postal employees poorly paid; I believe that the people who come into contact with 
the postal service are anxious to see that these employees get a reasonably fair wage for the services they perform.
When the Minister of Finance discussed the question of technical employees and the salaries paid them, he came out with what is to me a most remarkable statement. He said that as there was a shortage of technical employees it was necessary to consider the question of giving to these people an increase in salary. But what did the Minister of Finance actually do? When the Civil Service Commission recomended a fairly large increase in the salaries of these technical employees the minister evidently was dissatisfied with that recomendation and therefore appointed a commission to look into the matter. There is the anomaly, I might say the absurdity of the position in which the Minister of 1' inance finds himself. He went further and made the statement that, so far as these other workers are concerned, these lower paid men, there are too many of this class and consequently we can keep wages down to the absolute minimum. As a labour representative in this house I strongly resent, and I wish to say that the labour movement throughout the Dominion will equally resent the idea that because there is a waiting list, a large number of men out of work, that is any excuse for the government to reduce wages. And that is the only conclusion one can come to from the remarks of the Minister of Finance to-night. He also asked with what particular class of employees the postal workers could be classified. Well, suppose we classify postal employees with the labourers, let us say, of Toronto. The labourers there are paid by the municipal council, I believe, 60 cents per hour, which is probably more than is paid to the postal workers of Toronto. If I were asked with what class of workers I should classify postal employees I should say that the postal worker, in view of the many qualifications which a man must possess in order to become a postman in Canada, and in view of the strict examination he must passs before he enters the public service, ought to be classified at least with policemen and firemen. I have seen the examination test which postal workers are expected to pass before they are accepted, and I venture to say that if the same examination were submitted to members of parliament more than one half of them would not be able to pass it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Speak for yourself.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am speaking for myself.
I could not answer half the questions which these people are asked by the Civil Service

Supply-Post Office
Commission to answer. As I say, I would classify the postal workers with at least policemen and firemen, who are receiving more than $85 a month to begin with. I do not know what the salaries of these employees are in different parts of the Dominion, but I know that in Winnipeg they start with 8120 a month. The minimum of that class in Winnipeg to-day is equal to if not greater than the maximum of the postal employees. And, as I have pointed out, the postal employee is expected to pass a very difficult examination.
I resent the implication of the Minister of Finance that wages are to be determined by this government on the principle of supply and demand, that is, that if there are a great number of applicants for positions as postal workers, the salaries of these men must be kept down to the utmost minimum. The minister will not contend that the salary of $85 a month being paid to-day is anything like a reasonable salary for the services these men perform; all he can say is that the salary is commensurate with that paid other workers, and because there are large numbers on the waiting list he says these men are not entitled to any increases. That is something we strongly resent, and personally I think that in his more calm and reflective moments the Minister of Finance would not have made such an assertion.


Mr. FORKE:: I had no intention of taking part in this discussion, but I do not think the hon. member is drawing a fair conclusion from the remarks of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance compared these wages with the amounts paid in other lines of work, and said that apparently people were more anxious to enter the employment of the government than to work for private firms. He did not say that because of the large number on the waiting list the wages were being kept down.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the acting leader of the opposition to-night, and I quite agree that in the lower classes of the government services the salaries are too small. If a general increase for the lower classes of employees were suggested I should be only too glad to support such a measure. I know of one woman who is attempting to support her mother and keep a small apartment on $60 a month, and I know she has a very hard time of it. I should like to see the salaries of the lower classes in all departments increased.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no doubt that the postal workers of Canada will be very glad and thankful for the sympathy of the minister,
but they would be more thankful if he would carry his sympathy to a practical point and induce his colleagues in the government to do something this session. I think my friend the minister will realize what I mean if, when he goes home to-night, he will read the second chapter of the Epistle of St. James.
Now I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has anything been done recently in connection with an examination called a sortation test in city post offices. Information has come to me in the shape of a telegram to the effect that men who have reached their maximum in the postal service, who have been in the department a long time and who are entitled to full pay, are now being subjected to an annual sortation test under the threat made by public notice, I understand given by the postmaster of Montreal, that unless these men are able to pass this sortation test their salaries will be decreased and they will be degraded in rank. Perhaps I had better read the notice, which was posted in the Montreal office and which is contained in a telegram sent me by the United Postal Workers of Canada, Montreal branch:
Sortation Test
The department has called our attention to the fact that a number of postal _ clerks at Montreal who have reached the maximum rate of pay failed in their case examinations. We are in consequence directed to remind all concerned that clerks must take the test successfully every year, firstly to qualify for the annual increase up to a maximum and then to retain this maximum rate after they have reached it. The official communication adds that unless all these who are drawing maximum pay take the tests successfully in the near future and continue to do so from year to year thereafter the question of reducing their salaries to the next lower grade will be seriously considered. It is up to these concerned to take the warning and to make a serious effort to pass the case examinations successfully if they would save _ themselves the serious consequences of a reduction of salary.
V. Gaudet,
Postmaster.
I want to ask the Postmaster General 'f there is any authority for posting a notice of that kind in the Montreal office.


Peter John Veniot: I think that was done all over Canada. When these men reach their maximum they continue to take their case examination, which is a major examination, and if they fail they are given another year in which to study and practise in order to bring themselves to the point of efficiency required of an official or mail sorter who has reached his maximum and wishes to retain his position. This is done more as a dis-ciplinarj' measure than anything else, in or-
Sup-ply-Post Office

der to try to maintain the efficiency of the service; because if sortation efficiency is allowed to go down the whole organization in that branch is disrupted. I think that practice has been followed in the larger offices all over Canada for years; it is nothing new.


Hugh Guthrie: I am glad to have this explanation from the minister. Perhaps he will explain another matter which I desire to bring to his attention. This question is contained in a letter from a prominent citizen of Montreal, written on April 19:
We certainly have a grievance here in Montreal, as I am sure no city in the world of its size and importance has such poor service. Some time ago an English merchant who had spent twenty years in China said of the post office service here that no city in China of half the size would stand it.	I spent the
month of .July last year in Lee, which is a suburb of London, England, twelve miles from Charing Cross but in London. There we had four deliveries in the day, at 7 a.m., 11 a.m., 4 P-m., and 9 p.m. Here in Montreal, just west of W estmount, we have two, one at from 10.30 to 12 a.m. and another between 4 and 5, one delivery on Saturday and none on holidays. If a letter is mailed in any part of Montreal to any other part, no matter how early in the day it is mailed, it will be cause for rejoicing if it gets to its destination the next day, but the chances will be against it. I mailed a letter in London at ten o'clock at night and the recipient called me on the 'phone before 8 a.m. the next morning.


Mr. POWER:: You can do that in Montreal also.


Hugh Guthrie: I am bringing this matter to the attention not of the hon. member for Quebec South but of the Postmaster General, ir. the hope that in some way he may be able to remedy conditions, because from this letter it is evident that a grievance exists in that city.


George Reginald Geary: The question has been raised ay the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is to the effect of the stabilization act of 1924. What happened in that connection was that the S480 cost of living bonus had been gradually in part absorbed in increases in salary, and the complaint of the postal men is that when salaries were finally stabilized at least one class was left worse off to the extent ot $156 per annum as compared with what they received before the stabilization took place.


Peter John Veniot: Would that be the class going in?


George Reginald Geary: That may not have been the class going in, although they undoubtedly suffer to the extent of at least $180, the difference between the old total of $1,200 and the amount of $1,020 received after stabilization. If I might make a suggestion to 
the Postmaster General, he might acquaint the house with the particulars of the distribution of that bonus and the result in the end. I am sure he can readily find that information in his office and I believe the house would like to obtain it. The complaint seems thoroughly justified. I have had the opportunity of going into the figures and I find that men are receiving $156 a year less than they received before the stabilization took place. It may be said that the cost of living bonus was not required in 1924 so much as in 1919, but I am not at all sure of that. I do not think the budgets issued by the Minister of Labour will show that the cost of living has decreased to such an extent as to justify the lower pay which the postal men now receive. They require very special qualifications. As the hon. member for North Winnipeg has just said, their duties are extremely onerous; they carry registered mail, collect money, sell stamps, and have other responsibilities which the postal carrier of old did rot have to assume. The ordinary labourer working for the corporation of the city of Toronto-I hope the committee will forgive me for referring to this, but it is something I happen to know something about 

the man who works in the ditches for the city of Toronto gets $1,497 per year for a forty-eight hour week, and he also gets a fortnight's annual holidays.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much per hour?


George Reginald Geary: He gets $28.80 per week.


Charles Gavan Power: Is he a permanent employee?


George Reginald Geary: He is a permanent employee. Every employee who is taken on by the city of Toronto receives sixty cents for every hour he works, and is generally taken on for two, three or four months. His pay for a week amounts to $28.80, or $1,497 per year, with Saturday afternons off and a holiday of two weeks in each year. The men in the postal service deserve at least equal treatment.
As I ventured to say the other night, the government of Canada should make of itself a model employer. I do not mean to say that it should pay exorbitant wages, but it should see that any adult in its employ, possibly a married man with' a family, should not be paid less than is required to keep himself and his family. Hon. members on the opposite side of the house must realize that the present minimum rate will not keep a man, let alone a man with a family.
I understand that the Minister of Finance agreed with the Postmaster General in for-

Supply-Post Office
warding the recommendation of the government to the Civil Service Commission for an increase in the salary of the postal workers.
I can hardly understand the minister's action after hearing him speak to-night, because one can only gather from his remarks that he is opposed to this increase. The Minister of the Interior is also opposed to the increase and takes refuge behind the Civil Service Act. As the hon. member for North Winnipeg has said, the Civil Service Commission recommended an increase in technical salaries which was much higher than the government wished to pay. The Minister of Finance then instituted a commission to inquire into and report on the matter. What is to become of that commission's report if it is to the effect that the government is right in refusing the scale of wages adopted by the Civil Service Commission? I suppose nothing will be done. What is the government going to do if the report is that the scale suggested by the Civil Service Commission is right? After appointing a commission at considerable expense and wasting a lot of time, is the government simply going to treat the report as waste paper unless it happens to meet with its own view? No government should send a commission out on an inquiry having determined ahead of time that if its report be at variance with the government's wishes it will be treated as a nullity. The result logically will be the overriding of the Civil Service Commission, should the report agree with the government's views, and there is no difference in principle between overriding it in that way and increasing the salaries or providing the money with which the increases could be paid.
From the statements of the Postmaster General, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance it is hard to tell just what is the government's position. Does it intend to and does it wish to increase the wages of these men, or does it intend to leave them as they are? After listening to the hon. member for South Wellington the Postmaster General will surely regard him as an ally. I believe the Postmaster General wants to take this action, and the hon. member for South Wellington has pointed out a way in which it can be done. Parliament stands supreme over any creature of its own, and it can bring legislation down during this session to enable a higher salary to be paid to these employees. If that legislation includes an increase of salary to employees in other departments who are underpaid, then I say that this house will welcome the opportunity to remedy any injustice which may exist in other departments as well as that which does exist in this particular branch of the service.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have been rather
surprised to-night at the remarks of the various ministers who have spoken upon this question. I think we must all agree that there is something behind this thing which does not appear on the surface. If we trace the whole matter back to the beginning we will find that the government has not been at all fair with the civil servants of Canada. As far as I can see they have been put off from time to time with promises made at election times, and have been more or less deceived by promises made after elections which have not been carried out. The Minister of the Interior said to-night that recommendations had been made for increases in other departments. That statement was made in reply to a question which I asked him. My question was: Did any of the other ministers of the government make similar recommendations to that made by the Postmaster General? I gathered from what he said that such had been the case, that other ministers had made similar recommendations. The Minister of the Interior spoke for all the ministers who were present at the time he was speaking, and he said that they had all been in favour of the increases recommended by the Postmaster General.- I think I am safe in saying that would mean that the majority of the council were in favour of that recommendation. Following up the line taken by the Minister of the Interior, I presume the whole council were in favour of the recommendations which had been made by other ministers of the crown for increases in their departments.
I have been brought into fairly close touch with employees of the government through the New Westminster branch of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, and I have met a great many of the employees of the various departments. So far as I can see these men are very reasonable in their demands. From time to time they have placed their case before the government, and I think they have done it in an intelligent and reasonable manner, but their representations have not received proper consideration. I agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that there are other departments in which the employees are not being paid enough. I have been informed of complaints of employees of the Public Works department, of penitentiary guards, who are connected with the department of the Minister of Justice; of employees of the departments of National Revenue and Marine and Fisheries, of employees of other departments of the government. I think I could easily demonstrate tonight that in all those departments there are
Supply-Post Office

employees who are much underpaid. I do not think it is fair to say to them, as has been said by the government in many cases: If you do not like the job, then you can resign and let somebody else have it; there are many men looking for your jobs. I do not think that is a fair way of looking at the matter, more particularly in view of the provisions of the Superannuation Act and the conditions attached to the retirement allowance of which the Minister of Finance seems to be so proud. As a matter of fact, under the law as it now stands, if a civil servant who has not been in the employ of the government for at least ten years retires, he gets back none of the money that has been taken monthly from his wages during the time of his employment. I understand that 5 per cent is taken off their wages, and if they leave voluntarily before the ten years expire, they get back not one cent of that money. That is nothing short of brigandage, because it is their money which has been retained, and when they leave the service they are entitled to receive it. The government says:	Yes, you can quit. But
what will the government do? It will confiscate the money of those employees and add it to the enormous balance, running into millions of dollars, which stands to the credit of the government in the retirement fund. That is certainly not fair, reasonable or just. The hon. member for Saskatoon will, I think, agree with me in regard to that. He knows something of the Saskatchewan act, and I think if the government compares the Saskatchewan act with the Dominion act, it will find that the Dominion act is not as fair to employees as the Saskatchewan act. Under the latter act a man has to pay in 4 per cent, not 5 per cent, of his wages, and he can get back the amount standing to his credit whether he retires within ten years or after a longer period. Moreover, he is allowed a better rate of interest than is allowed under the Dominion act.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Saskatchewan is a model for most of the other provinces.


William Garland McQuarrie: In this connection I would hold it out to the government as an example which might be followed, and I am sure the civil servants in my constituency would be very much pleased if the Saskatchewan act were adopted by the Dominion government. What I am contending is that it is very unfair to say to these men: If you are not satisfied with the wages you are receiving, then you can retire. They are entitled to more reasonable treatment than that.
It is very strange and unfair for the Postmaster General and the other ministers to try

to put the blame on the Civil Service Commission, because they know perfectly well that the blame should not be attached to the commission at all. The government is responsible. If the government carried out one-half of the promises which were made by the ministers during the election, then the civd servants would have no cause to complain.
I have spoken about the penitentiaries, and I wouid point out in that connection that the employees in the penitentiaries are under another disadvantage; that is that .they are not allowed to organize. They do not now belong to the amalgamated civil Servants' association, and they are not permitted to belong to it, because a ruling has been handed down by the Minister of Justice to the effect that they must not join such an organization. As a matter of fact they did at one time belong to it, but later on they were compelled to withdraw and now they are kept out of the organization notwithstanding the statement which has been made recently by the Minister of Labour that the government allows all civil servants to belong to associations and to organize if they so desire.
I believe, as I have stated before, that the civil servants have been unfairly treated by the government. I have seen the requests made by the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, and I say without hesitation that I would support those requests almost- in their entirety. The government must be either deceptive or very weak-kneed. There is something wrong somewhere, and I do not believe this matter will ever be remedied until we get into office a government which will take hold of the matter in a fair and reasonable way, and settle it to the satisfaction not only of the employees themselves, but of the country at large; because I do not believe that the people are anxious that their employees should be asked to work for anything less than a reasonable living wage.
In reference to the particular department which is under review at the present time, it is admitted by the Postmaster General that certain employees are not getting enough and he has recommended an increase. What defence can there be for this flimsy excuse which has been put up by various ministers that under the Civil Service Act it is not within ihe power of the government to take action? We have seen it demonstrated time after time that the Postmaster General or some other minister could and did override the Civil Service Commission.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Does the hon. member approve that?

Supply-Post Office


William Garland McQuarrie: I can prove it in many
cases.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hea*.


William Garland McQuarrie: I thought the hon. member asked if I could iprove it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: No, I asked whether the hon. member approved it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I say that the government is playing with the Civil Service Commission. There is not one minister who will from his place in the house say honestly and sincerely that he believes in the Civil Service Commission, and there are very few members on that side of the house who will support it. They want to get back to the old patronage system. I have no doubt they will tell you that privately; indeed, they will say it publicly, and they have declared so publicly many times in the house. Why has the government not the courage of its convictions? Why does it not attempt to do away with the Civil Service Commission? The answer is obvious: It is afraid to do so. It is afraid of what the people of the country will say to it at the next election if it adopts a course of that kind. If the hon. member for Saskatoon wants to know, I am and always have been in favour of the Civil Service Commission. I never had patronage and I do not want- it. I think that the patronage can be and is much better administered by the Civil Service Commission than it would be if members on the other side of the house were administering it themselves. I do not believe in this policy of blaming the Civil Service Commission. If the Postmaster General is actually in favour of increasing the wages of these employees, let him stand up and say: I ask for no quarter and I give no quarter to my colleagues in the cabinet. That is what he should do. He is a man of great courage; he has shown that here, and I think it is really disgraceful for him to remain a minister of the crown when his recommendations are not accepted by the government. He can never make me believe, no minister of the orown can make me believe, that the cabinet as a whole is desirous of increasing the *wages of these men at this time. I never will believe it, because if they felt that way about it they would see that the wages were raised in very short order. I suggest to the Postmaster General that he show in the cabinet some of that courage which he has displayed throughout the course of this debate and that he insist on his recommendations being carried out so that these men may be given a fair
deal; and I suggest also that his colleagues take up the question of wages in their respective departments and see that their recommendations for increases are carried out.


John Evans: I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General regarding the design of the new postage stamp. We have often commemorated certain events by a new stamp. Lately I see that the Canadian emblem, the maple leaf, and the crown, are missing from the new design. There did not seem to be any reason for a change of that kind just now. Perhaps the minister would explain it.


Peter John Veniot: I did not catch all that the hon. gentleman said, but if I understood him aright, he wished to know why the crown was loft off the postage stamp.


John Evans: Yes, and the maple leaf, the Canadian emblem.


Peter John Veniot: I do not know that I can
explain it. Our experts have advised us, perhaps not in connection with this particular matter, but in connection with other matters, that under the system of heraldry the head of the reigning sovereign was a sufficient indication of our connection with the British crown. That is the only reason I can see at the moment. I know that the stamp used to contain a portrait of the sovereign, with the crown.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not the crown on
the head to which my hon. friend refers, but the two small crowns in the upper corner of the stamp.


Peter John Veniot: I could not say positively,
but I do not remember any change in that
respect having been made since my time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wonder if the Postmaster
General will tell the house what the position of the postal workers is at the present time, and if there is any hope of their getting any increase in salary.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is certainly putting a difficult question to me, asking me to reply on behalf of the whole house. Surely he is not sincere when he asks me to state what this house is going to do or what it might do. I have stated my own position in connection with this matter. I have made an honest statement, and I have been sincere in what I have done. The government was also sincere in accepting my recommendation. I sent it on to the Civil Service Commission, but the commission refused to consider it, and their reply has been placed before the house. They stated that it was unjustifiable. That is the only definite reason they gave in their
Supply-Post Office

reply. I know that suggestions have been made on the floor of this house as to how that situation might be met. I am not going into the details of the argument, because I think we have argued it long enough, but I say that it becomes now a matter of policy as to what shall be done and, of course, it is for the government to decide what that policy shall be. It is not my place to speak on behalf of the government until they have decided upon a policy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask when we may
expect the government to give to the house the method by which they are going to meet the situation?


Peter John Veniot: I am not supposed to expect anything. I am only supposed to work on definite propositions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the minister does
not correctly interpret his duties and his responsibilities. We are bound to put our questions to the minister who is in charge of the estimates for a given department.


Peter John Veniot: I do the best I can, but
there are questions that I cannot answer- such as new policies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We do not expect an
answer to any unreasonable question, but what we do expect is this. After accepting the minister's statement of last year as a truthful statement, as he says, of his position, and we give him credit for that, the house at large has discussed this question very fully since, and has indicated to the minister, and through him to his colleagues in the government, that the house is not satisfied with that position. We say that the finding of the commission-which, by the way, is not precisely what it is represented to be by the government, but we will wave aside technicalities-is not satisfactory. We still believe that there is a justifiable grievance on the part of a large body of the civil servants in this country, and we feel that it is our duty to bring this question to the attention of the government. I think the minister himself will admit that the facts which I brought to his attention half an hour or so ago indicate that there is an obvious difficulty or grievance or injustice which ought to be remedied. The minister can scarcely claim to have discharged his duty fully by simply saying: I am only one minister; I cannot do this thing. The attitude of the Minister of Finance was not by any means what the Postmaster General suggests. The Postmaster General says: I put my case before my colleagues, my colleagues endorsed it, and we sent our united

recommendation to the Civil Service Commission, and they rejected it. The Minister of Finance, however, speaking from his place to-night, spoke rather strongly against this matter.


Peter John Veniot: I think the hon. member
is misinterpreting his statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I give the Minister of
Finance credit that he spoke very frankly. He made a rather elaborate argument that this particular class of civil servants were paid more than persons engaged in private work of a similar character. That was his position, in a few words. We are not satisfied with that position. We think the government ought to give some attention to the representations made by parliament. I am a little disappointed by the attitude taken by two or three hon. gentlemen to-night, but in the main the expressions of view have been entirely in support of what the minister says his own position is. It ought to be a more comfortable position than he has been occupying during the last week or two, because he has been subject to rather bitter criticism.


Peter John Veniot: I am always comfortable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are now saying to the minister: we are behind you, we want to help you give expression to your view in this particular case.


Peter John Veniot: Beware of the Greeks bearing gifts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I am bringing no gifts If I could I would bring this little gift of justice to these workers. I would give back to them at least what was taken away from them when the salary was stabilized. I think it is a horrible injustice to these people. The suggestion is that they were "gold-bricked"- a little bit unparliamentary, perhaps, but it is very expressive of what took place. These workers trusted the government, they thought they were going to get an adjustment that was favourable, and they now find in one case they are getting $180 a year less, in another case $156 a year less, and so on in varying amounts. It is not fair, it is not just. They have placed their case before us repeatedly.
I myself and others brought it here last year; nothing was done and it went over to this year; we are coming towards the end of the session again, and nothing has been done. We can get nothing from the minister. My hon. friend's question was a fair one. What can the government do? Will the Minister of Finance, will the Minister of Justice, will some other minister tell us? The Minister of

Supply-Post Office
Finance is leading the house; will he say this much, that the ministers will collectively consider this whole question and make some statement to the house next week or within a few days? Surely we might have that assurance. I think parliament is entitled, after going into this question so earnestly as we have, to have these views reconsidered by the minister. I can assure the minister-and I think I am speaking for everybody on this side of the house-that we will give the government loyal support in every reasonable effort they may make to remedy these grievances. In the light of that, surely the minister will say that the government will review the question and vouchsafe an answer, say. next Monday or Tuesday. That is a reasonable question, and I am sorry the Postmaster General-whose attitude on this one thing has been fair, according to his own statement-I am sorry to-night that he sort of throws up the sponge.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My friend is rather fond of posing as a man of ultra courage. As was suggested to me a moment ago, if he would just pour out in the council chamber in the east block some of the vim and energy he has exemplified here in one or two of his speeches recently, I rather think his colleagues would be quickly scurrying for cover. Let him crack that whip of his around them and waken them up. My genial friend the Minister of Finance could not possibly resist his overwhelming eloquence and his dominating personality. I am certain the Prime Minister could not.


Peter John Veniot: You must have kissed the Blarney stone recently.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all. I have a
great admiration for courage, but I do like to see that courage directed in a useful cause. Now, here is a chance for the Postmaster General to do something of a very useful character. Let the Minister of Finance vouchsafe to this house, after all the pleading and urging of this case, an assurance that the government will in the sacred precincts of the east block, between now, we will say, and Monday or Tuesday, spend an hour considering the welfare of these people. I ask him at least to give us that assurance tonight, and then we will wait with patience and gratitude and hope for what we trust will be a favourable answer. I make that appeal to the Minister of Finance now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not a move! I am surprised. I really thought the Minister of Finance could not resist an appeal of that character. I turn in sorrow to the Minister of Justice, who has not been very much occupied this session. We were sorry at the early part of the session that he was away; we are glad he is back.


Ernest Lapointe: You will be surprised
at the amount of work I have had to do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure. Will he now with his splendid record of interest in the welfare of the poor-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do not laugh, please.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is not a laughing
matter. Will the Minister of Justice say that he will support the Postmaster General in council and see that half an hour's consideration is given to this question?


Ernest Lapointe: When it comes to the
expenditure of money I am no good at all;
I leave it to others.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I see very little comfort
for some thousands of civil servants in that quarter.


Charles Gavan Power: What about the Minister
of Agriculture?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Agriculture a moment ago said: come to Saskatchewan and we will show you a model for aotion throughout this country. Will the Minister of Agriculture go to the council chamber with his colleague the Postmaster General who is anxious to have a little support?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I think I do well
if 1 look after my own staff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There you are! What
about the Minister of Health?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I am always
interested in the people.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Health,
whose gentleness and kindness of heart are noted, will he undertake this task? He is silent. What about the Solicitor General? The Minister of Marine? The Secretary of State? I think I have called them all. Not one of them answered.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The Minister of
Immigration is up at the back.
Supply-Post Office


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Immigration exhausted himself a moment ago when he expressed his sympathy. His heart bled with sympathy. I am sorry it has bled so much that he has had to go and sit away at the back.
$120 granted by parliament from April 1, 1927; another $200,000 is due to statutory increases approved by the Civil Service Commission; $109,000 is due to the purchase of rural mail boxes; and the remainder is due to the increase in volume of mail handled and to improved postal facilities, including air mail service, given the public.


Charles Gavan Power: Do you expect anything
more from the Scotch?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Immigration will have a leaky heart; his sympathy has oozed out so vigorously. What about the Secretary of State? Let me appeal to the Secretary of State to bring this to the attention of the cabinet.


Mr. RINFRET:: Does my hon. friend require the help of the Secretary of State against a finding of the commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That would be a great
change in my hon. friend's mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have stimulated the
interest of one of the ministers, the Secretary of State, who by virtue of his custody of the great seal, and so on, perhaps is the right minister to bring this forward. We ask him if he will support the Postmaster General in seeing that the salaries of the underpaid civil servants of the Postmaster General's department and other departments shall be brought up to the level of a living wage. That is all we are asking. Will he see that that is taken into consideration by the cabinet and an answer given us next week?
Now, we have failed, I am sorry to say, in getting answers from the ministers. But we have placed the case, I think, fairly before the house. We have urged the government to take action; we have assured the government of our support; but we have failed up to the present to get any encouragement from them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I think this would be a very appropriate stage of the discussion-


Ernest Lapointe: It is early in the proceedings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -to refer to
paragraph nine of the Postmaster General's report and to read this paragraph. It says:
shows an increase of f1'"'!,497.61. Of this increase, about $600,000 is due to the general flat increase in salary of 
Will the Postmaster General give us a statement of the total salaries for the year preceding the one covered by this report, and the salaries to which he refers in this paragraph for this year covered by this report. Then we shall see where the difference comes in.


Peter John Veniot: It states there, if I mistake not, that of the increase about $600,000 is due to the general flat increase in salaries of $120 per annum granted by parliament.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But I am asking for the total salaries-the total amount paid in each year.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot give that offhand. It will take some time to get the information but I shall endeavour to get it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That information ought to be available; will the minister have it for us to-morrow?


Peter John Veniot: We will get it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then we will
pass that item and go on to rural mail boxes. How are they purchased-by tender?


Peter John Veniot: Yes. I think it was in
1927 that we called for tenders for rural mail boxes and the contract was awarded that year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many
boxes were purchased on that occasion?


Peter John Veniot: I am speaking from
memory, but I think it was in the vicinity of 45,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many
tenders were put in for them?


Peter John Veniot: Fifty-two models were submitted and there were fifteen or twenty tenders.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can you give us the particulars of those tenders? *


Peter John Veniot: I cannot right off the bat;
I do not carry that in my mind. I did submit the whole thing to the house in 1928 and it was discussed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not recall it; it was not discussed by myself, I know that. Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?

Imperial Cable Merger


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And where were the boxes made?


Peter John Veniot: Montreal.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Made in Canada?


Peter John Veniot: Of course, Montreal.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many mail boxes
have been bought by the department since confederation?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On what terms
are these boxes supplied?


Peter John Veniot: They are delivered at $4.25 each. That is the actual cost, including manufacture, freight and so forth. We have distributing points in Winnipeg, Montreal, and
Moncton.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the Postmaster General care to discuss for a few minutes the statutory increases and tell us how they work out? Every year, as I understand it, there are certain statutory increases, but is it not a fact that in other directions there are decreases due to the fact that juniors come in and take the places of others? There must be some change therefore in the total of the salaries.


Peter John Veniot: I do not catch the purport of the question.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are there not
some employees coming in at minimum salaries and replacing higher salaried employees?


Peter John Veniot: There are always employees coming in at minimum salaries and taking the places of others who are promoted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Or who drop
out.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, that is the case every year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then the total amount paid for salaries is not automatically increased by the total amount of the statutory increases?


Peter John Veniot: The difference in the other direction would be so small as to be hardly w'orth talking about. It will be found in the estimates that we allow so much one way or the other to meet these conditions, but the amount is not large.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could we not
have the particulars of that?


Peter John Veniot: I am afraid I have nothing further at the moment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Postmaster General seems to have much less information than other ministers who are able to answer similar questions very fully. In the typewritten statement which the minister has fur-nised for the year ended March 31, 1929, I find the following:
Deductions from net revenue are mostly made up by payments of salary to revenue postmasters. The increase of $566,700 is due to increase of salaries to these postmasters.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will continue to-morroW.
Progress reported.



IMPERIAL CABLE MERGER

Peter John Veniot: I beg to lay on the table the report asked for by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) with regard to the Pacific cable transaction. I am laying on the table such correspondence as we are permitted to bring down, and which is not of a secret character, between the contracting parties, the British government, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Under Secretary of State informs me that this is the only information which we are at liberty at the present time to lay on the table.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 3, 1929
The bouse met at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Cahill.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. 'SPEAKER:	It is moved by Mr. Matthews, seconded by Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park) that Bills Nos. 177, 178, 179-
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
thought it was understood that these bills were not to be put through the house en bloc.


Mr. SPEAKER:: We will take each one
separately.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Adele Cawthra Rogers.-Mr. Matthews.

Private Bills

Bill No. 180, for the relief of Edgar Charles Buchanan.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).


Mr. SPENCE:: Mr. Speaker, on account
of the illness of the hon, member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), who is at present in the hospital at Toronto, would it not be fair to him to allow the bills which stand in his name to be read the first time? I move for him that the bills which stand in his name be now read the first time.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Maud Parker. -Mr. Spence (for Mr. Church). .
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Eleanor Vair. -Mr. Spence (for Mr. Church).
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Edna Maud James.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Helen Jane Sim Pittendreich.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Isabel Honor Gilderoy.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Alfred Roy Edwards.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Molly Vaughan.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Lillian Augusta Dunn.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Myrtle Mary Jane McLean.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Catherine Goring.-Mr. Spence for Mr. Church.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Harvey Baden Powell Haney.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Ivy Georgina Lloyd.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Helen Steele. -Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of John Campbell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Annie Forbes Sangster.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Joseph Nicholl.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Charles Stanley Cuneo.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of William Allan Griffith.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Sydney Bishop. -Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Walter Henry Lyne Dixson.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Ida Rosenberg. -Mr. Spence.

Bill No. 208,	for	the	relief	of	Marjory
Lavinia Bradford.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 209,	for	the	relief	of	Patrizio
Nardini.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).



NOVA SCOTIA FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: I	would like	to	ask thegovernment if they	have	any idea	when I
shall receive an answer to the questions that I asked on the orders of the day last Monday?


Ernest Lapointe: I will call the attention of the
minister of the department concerned to the question.

POST OFFICE nEPARTMENT
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
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, $34,926,639.40.


John Arthur Clark: On the evening of April 30, I made some remarks in regard to the post office at Sutton, Quebec, and a member of the Civil Service Commission. Yesterday evening I received from the secretary of the commission a letter which I should like to read to the committee as it involves a certain correction. It reads:
In the course of your remarks in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening on the appointment of a postmaster at Sutton, P.Q., you stated that the file had been held in the office of the Civil Service Commission by Commissioner Tremblay for a period of seven months. Your statement reads as follows:
"I must accept the statement which has been made by the hon. Postmaster General, but I would ask him to search his records and search his mind because I believe when he has done so he will find that he personally is the man who is responsible for this file having been lost in Mr. Tremblay's office for seven months." Commissioner Tremblay has asked me to point out to you that while the file was held for a little over two months in his office, a delay for which he assumes full responsibility, it was not held for seven months, as stated in your

Supply

Post Office
remarks, and he would be glad if you could see your way to taking an early opportunity of making this correction in Hansard.
What I did say was " for several months," and I had actually made the correction in the unrevised Hansard when this letter arrived. Furthermore, I gave the exact dates on two or three occasions, both on May 1 and yesterday, fixing the time during which this file was held in Mr. Tremblay's office, and those dates show that it was a little over two months, as he states. I am therefore very glad to make the correction in the house.
I am also glad to note that Commissioner Tremblay agrees with me that the file was held in his office for several months, and I would like very much to know why that or any other file was held in Commissioner Tremblay's office for several months, when it was the duty of the commission to deal with it and to make the appointment under the Civil Service Act.


Peter John Veniot: I think the letter mentioned the name of the Postmaster General, that he might give some information.


John Arthur Clark: The letter is simply confirming what I said on the evening of the first, and I simply read what already appears in Hansard.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: While I may be responsible for the file having been held in the department, I certainly am in no way responsible for the delay in holding the file in the office of the Civil Service Commission. It was sent to the Civil Service Commission, and after that I had absolutely no connection with it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Postmaster General made considerable progress in the consideration of his estimates yesterday, but there are two or three other matters which I think we ought to get cleared up at this stage. According to report, there has been a number of extensions of rural mail routes in the past year, many applications for extensions or new routes, and many refusals of these applications. Could the Postmaster General inform the committee as to the number of extensions or new routes established in each province, with the mileage involved, and the cost of these extensions or new routes as the case may be?


Peter John Veniot: I have here a very long list which includes all the applications, I think, from every constituency in Canada for rural mail delivery routes, giving the mileage, the time tenders were invited, the number of routes authorized, and the number now in operation. I have not got the cost of each route, but I would have been glad to supply 7S591-139J
that information if I had known that it would be requested. This list comprises about twenty-five or thirty sheets, and perhaps the hon. gentleman will be satisfied if I lay it on the table instead of taking up the time of the house by reading it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will be quite satisfactory if the minister lays it on the table.


Peter John Veniot: I will do so. For the benefit of the committee I might state that the number of routes in operation at the present time throughout Canada, in the different provinces, is as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 177
Nova Scotia	 172
New Brunswick	 305
Quebec	 922
Ontario	 2,006
Manitoba	 112
Saskatchewan	 91
Alberta	 151
British Columbia	 79
Total	 4,015
I will also lay that on the table.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the minister the cost in each case?


Peter John Veniot: Not the cost of each one.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The total cost?


Peter John Veniot: I think I can get the total cost.


Mr. BRADY:: I would ask the Postmaster General from what source he receives these applications for rural mail routes.


Peter John Veniot: Generally we get them in the form of a petition from the people of the district; at other times through letters addressed to the department. We send the petition or a synopsis of it to the district superintendent with a request that he send an inspector to examine the proposed route and report on its feasibility. Generally, when he reports favourably, the route is opened. If there is any difficulty while he is making the inspection or any doubt as to the feasibility of the route, the matter is held over for further investigation. When it is decided to open the route we call for tenders, giving a description of the route.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is one other matter which I wish to bring up in the absence owing to illness of the hon. member who first brought it up some time ago, and that is with respect to the change in the name or monogram on the mail wagons and carts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Rotten!
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought the matter up.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am bringing it up because the hon. gentleman who asked about it originally is not here, and I think there ought to be an explanation whether the change was made by order in council or upon what authority.


Peter John Veniot: I am only too pleased to give the information and I want to thank the hon. member for bringing the matter up. This matter has been standing for some time, and it had been my intention to give an explanation to the house at an early date. Hon. gentlemen may remember that some four weeks ago I attempted to do so on the orders of the day, but the Speaker decided that I was out of order in doing so at that stage without the unanimous consent of the house. Unanimous consent was not given, and the matter was therefore held over until my estimates came up for discussion.
The first time that my attention was drawn to the dropping of the monogram or the letters G.R. from some of the mail trucks and mail appliances used in our departmental service was when I read an article in a Toronto paper, the Toronto Telegram, I believe. When the Toronto Telegram called the attention of the public to what is supposed to be the elimination of the monogram or letters G.R., it made this comment at the foot of the article: We are informed that fiiis did not take place during the regime of the present Postmaster General. I wish to express my appreciation of the fairness of the Telegram on that occasion, but some other newspapers-I am not saying this in any critical spirit-disregarding the fairness of the telegram, gave me a roasting, so to speak. My attention having been called to this matter, I made inquiries and I found that there never had been any order in council or any departmental order isssued in regard to the so-called monogram or the letters G.R. When this matter first came up I did discover that, three or four years ago last January, the letters " G.R." on each side of the Canadian coat of arms had been left off most of the new trucks obtained for the postal service-there were not many. Investigation showed that this had happened in the cities and larger towns where the service is carried on in that way. Apparently no orders to do this had been issued, and I could only surmise that the omission had been due to neglect on the part of somebody.
I immediately issued an order that the royal monogram should be placed on all trucks and other vehicles from which they had been omitted.

This is the form of contract for the carrying of the mails entered into with individuals who are not employees of the department. It will be seen that at the top appears the royal arms and on one side the letter "G" and on the other side the letter "R" and underneath the words "Royal Mail Canada." Those words, "Royal Mail Canada" are to be found on all vehicles used in the transporting of mail from post offices to trains and from trains to trains. The traps we are using to-day for transporting mail from the post offices to the trains, or in the gathering of mail by post office officials bear the words "Canadian Mail." It has been that way for years. That is the only explanation I can give. I discovered that on some of those traps the monogram was lacking. I do not think it was a case of general elimination of the monogram; but it was left off some of the vehicles used for the transportation of the mails. As I said before, the moment I got through the investigation, having received reports from Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, St. John, Halifax and other large centres, I issued an order that wherever those letters "G.R." were absent thej^ should be placed on the vehicles. That is the fullest explanation I can give of the matter.


John Arthur Clark: I wonder if the minister
would explain why the communication from the Post Office Department in this connection dated February 20, 1929, was not included in the return which was tabled on the motion of the member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). I have before me the original return, and endorsed on it is the report of the Post Office Department on the date I have mentioned, addressed to the Under Secretary of State: "Enclosed is answer in so far as the Post Office Department is concerned. L. J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General." But there is no answer.	[DOT]


Peter John Veniot: I think that was intended
for "nil." There were no orders or correspondence so far as I could find.


John Arthur Clark: The answers of all the other departments are in this return and in each case they make the definite statement that they have nothing. The Post Office Department says: " Enclosed is answer in so far as the Post Office Department is concerned." Would the minister ask his deputy, who signed this, to furnish him with the reply which was enclosed?

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: It was the one word "nil."
I saw it on the report submitted to me. I do not know whether it was taken off or not, but that would have been our reply; it could not have been anything else.


John Arthur Clark: It could not have been taken off this return; all the replies are numbered.


Peter John Veniot: I know our reply would be nil.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the explanation of the Postmaster General in regard to the disappearance of the royal monogram from certain mail carts, which has been discussed more or less in the newspapers, is quite satisfactory. It is a matter of satisfaction to know that as soon as the minister's attention was drawn to the matter he ordered the royal monogram to be replaced on the trucks from which they had been omitted or removed, and I gather from the statement made to-day that the royal monogram will continue to appear-


Peter John Veniot: Yes, certainly.


Hugh Guthrie: -as heretofore upon all such trucks. There is no doubt that, while the words "Canadian mail" are now used, from time immemorial, both here and in the motherland, the mails have been referred to as "His Majesty's Mails", and the contract which the Postmaster General produced as a sample of what is in use in the Post Office Department is a contract for conveying His Majesty's Mails, not Canadian mail; and the contract is made between the contractor and His Majesty, his successors and assigns-the Postmaster General is not even represented. There seems to be a very ancient usage in this respect. What reason can there be for suggesting any change? I certainly should like to see the well-known terms "His Majesty's Mails" continued. The form of contract which I hold in my hand was printed as recently as June 1927, and having been produced here to-day by the Postmaster General I presume it is the form of contract used today. Under this form of contract when contractors agree with the government to carry or deliver mail it is His Majesty's mails that they agree to carry, and the contract is made directly with His Majesty the King in this respect.
I understand that in the revised statutes for some reason or other the term "Canadian Mail" has crept in. What authority there was for the change nobody seems to know. It was not in the old Post Office Act. There the term used was "His Majesty's Mail". But in the revised statutes the term "Canadian
Mail" has been used. I do not suppose this house knew anything about it when the revised statutes came here to be confirmed. We passed them; nobody's attention was drawn to the change. These words appear in the revised statutes in respect of the post office to-dav. But I hope the Postmaster General will not only continue the term "Royal Mail" as a matter of course, but will also continue the term as heretofore of "Hi3 Majesty's Mails".


Peter John Veniot: Section 11 of this contract
provides:
The said contractor agrees to provide the necessary approved vehicles painted red "English vermilion" with "Royal Arms" and "G.R." and "Parcel Post", "Royal Mail", "Canada", in gold letters thereon.
That is part of the contract. It has been in that form for I don't know how long, before I took charge of the department.


Ernest Lapointe: With regard to the
the change in the revised statutes, I made some inquiries. It appears that the commissioners of the revised statutes, as was their right, and even their duty, when different expressions are used in the same act, to try to -make them harmonize and use the same phraseology, communicated with the officers of the Post Office Department. In some sections of that act the words used are "Canada Mail" and in a couple of other places it is "His Majesty's Mail." The officers of the department thought that perhaps it would be better to use "Canada Mail" especially for the reason that there are mails carried in Canada which are His Majesty's Mails with out being Canadian mail. For instance, the British mails which are circulated in Canada are His Majesty's mails as well as our own, and that term really does not describe exclusively Canadian mail. The officers there fore thought fit to use the words "Canada Mail". Perhaps, if it is agreeable to all, we might compromise by saying, "His Majesty's Canadian Mail" or "His Majesty's Mails in Canada". However, I am considering this matter as to this change so that no one could take exception to what was done. The change was certainly made in good faith.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Last night I asked the Postmaster General a question in connection with the wages of letter carriers and L wish to ask now, before the item passes: Is the Postmaster General considering, or doing anything further to put into effect, the recommendations as put on Hansard on April 5?
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: The only thing I can say is that I am considering the matter, but I am not in a position now to say what other steps I shall take. I am giving the question serious consideration.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the Postmaster General's attention been drawn to the careless manner in which mail matter is handled in the city of Ottawa, and, it may be, in other places? I do not know what the provisions of the contract are, but I do know that during the present session I saw an open wagon or truck caiying big sacks of mail, piled high, and these sacks apparently had came from the direction of these buildings. One of them dropped and fell on the street. The driver kept on going, and had it not been for someone else calling his attention to the fact that he had lost the sack it might have been missing altogether. It seems to me there ' should be some restrictive requirements regarding the manner in which mail matter is handled. The present mode, if what I saw was a sample of it, certainly does not tend to safety.


Peter John Veniot: I can assure the hon, gentleman that in the last two and a half years, since I have been Postmaster General, I have spent considerable time-probably eight months of the year-in Ottawa in departmental work. I live at the Chateau and am very closely in touch with the post office, and I can assure the hon. gentleman, that an instance of the kind he has cited is certainly not typical; it is not frequent. However, now that this statement has been made, I feel called upon to compliment the contractors ,vho are handling mail in Ottawa on the efficient way in which they are doing so. The mail bags which the hon. gentleman sees piled up in these wagons are what we call tie bags and do not contain first class matter; they contain printed matter, newspapers, reports and things of that kind. While an instance of the kind my hon. friend has mentioned may occur, it should not be accepted as proof that there is any neglect in the handling of mails by the contractors in the city.


Hugh Guthrie: There is one item in the Postmaster General's report that calls for a word of explanation.. I refer to the item on page 11 with regard to indemnity paid to owners of lost insured parcels amounting to 831,123. In other words, insured parcels were lost last year for which the government paid an indemnity amounting to 834,000 odd. That seems an enormous amount and must represent the loss of a considerable number of insured parcels.


Peter John Veniot: The amount given by the hon. member is correct-834,123.53. We insure valuable parcels, and this is to make up the losses on such parcels.


Hugh Guthrie: Lost by what-theft?


Peter John Veniot: By theft-


Hugh Guthrie: In the Post Office Department?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, by theft, fire or otherwise. For instance, we had a fire last year or the year before in a railway accident and considerable mail was lost. A mail car was burned and a good many packages were lost in consequence. We indemnified the owners of the parcels. The indemnity is paid after a thorough investigation.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the requirement in regard to the carriage of these mails from or to the post office? What kind of vehicles must the contractors have? The Postmaster General has said that the contractors here have a remarkable record. If that is so, it is only a matter of luck, because there is nothing in the world to prevent mail bags from falling off these vehicles. I want to know why Canada Should be so far behind other countries in this connection. I do not think there is another country in the world where mail matter is handled as carelessly as it is here. If the Postmaster General will look up his records he will find that insurance has been paid several times on parcels sent from the parliament buildings. If the parcels are transported in these open wagons and in sacks piled so high and carelessly as the sacks I have seen, then, as I say, it is only a matter of luck if some of them are not lost. The Postmaster General has not yet answered my question: What are the provisions in the contract with respect to this matter, and how is the carriage of mail rendered safe?


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to take up
the time of the house reading the contract, which is very lengthy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read sections 11 and 12.
I will read them for the minister. Section 11 provides that the vehicles, state of repair, cleanliness and painting shall be approved by the Postmaster General; and then section 12:
Approved vehicles with closed locked covers as per specifications, photographs, etc. to be seen at the office of the postmaster-
And so forth. In other words, the mails are supposed to be carried in looked and closed vehicles like express wagons and, I presume, with a steel screen covering that locked door.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: That refers particularly, I
am told, to first class matter and not so much to newsprint, newspapers, circulars and things of that kind which are very bulky and which would not require closed cars for their transportation. The hon. gentleman was reading paragraphs 11 and 12, which I am informed apply particularly to first class matter.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then does the Postmaster General say that all first class matter is carried in vehicles such as those described in the contract? Will he make that statement?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Yes, in large cities.


William Garland McQuarrie: What do you mean
by large cities?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: In cities and towns where
we have such contracts.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: If this is the
proper time I would like an explanation from the minister with regard to the transactions which have taken place in respect of the Pacific cable.
Mr. MaeLAREN:	Coming back to the
question of the designation of mails, the Minister of Justice made a suggestion in this regard, but I do not understand that his suggestion is in any definite form. I would just like to assure myself that this matter will receive the attention of the Minister of Justice. and perhaps he may give his decision to the house later on.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister say
that all first class matter which is sent from these buildings is carried in closed and locked vehicles? I do not think that is the case at all.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I cannot answer that question offhand, but I will make inquiries and if that is net the case I will see that it is done. That is the best I can do.


Mr.   MacDOXALD@South Cape Breton: I would like to join with other hon. members who have spoken in urging the Postmaster General seriously to consider this question of increased salaries for postal workers. I happen to know all the men employed in this work in my own city and I know they are underpaid. They are entrusted with very important work, and I think we are simply putting a premium on dishonesty when we pay such people very small salaries and trust them with the handling of very large sums of money. I hope the Postmaster General will be firm in his demand that the Civil Service Commission revise these salaries upward.


John Frederick Johnston: Before the question with regard to the Pacific cable is answered I might point out that it would come more properly under the third item of this vote. The item we are now considering covers salaries and allowances.


George Halsey Perley: I believe the minister would like to dispose of this question in a general way now.


Peter John Veniot: Yesterday I laid on the table all the files we thought it proper to bring down. There are some secret communications between Great Britain and the other contracting parties concerned with this Pacific cable, including Canada, New Zealand and Australia, which it would not be in the public interest or in the interest of these contracting parties to make public to-day, because all negotiations have not been completed as yet.
Just here let me say that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) asked for these files some time ago, but it was impossible for me to bring them down until yesterday. In a conversation which I had this morning with the hon. member he stated that he would have preferred to have this matter left over for another day, but while I thought at that time I might be able to do so I would like to go on with it now if possible, if I can do so without seriously inconveniencing the hon. member for North Winnipeg. If, when we have disposed of the question, the hon. member desires any further information I will be only too glad to bring it down.
In the meantime let me present a synopsis of what has taken place. The duplicate Pacific cable between Canada and Australia was placed in operation in November, 1926, and it was expected by the Pacific cable board that owing to the improved facilities there would be an immediate increase in the volume of business and a corresponding increase in the revenue. However, in April, 1927, a beam wireless system was placed iu operation between Great Britain and Australia, the rates charged being approximately one-third less than the cable rates. As a result of the successful operation of the beam wireless about 50 per cent of the Pacific cable traffic between Great Britain and Australia has been taken away from the cable and its revenues have been reduced by approximately half a million dollars a year. Moreover, a beam wireless service has been recently inaugurated between Canada and Australia and it is expected this will substantially reduce the volume of United States traffic which is now passing over the Pacific cable and in

Supply-Post Office
this way still further reduce the revenue of the cable which it is anticipated will be then operating at a deficit.
This seems to vindicate Canada's attitude in opposing the duplication of the cable. Just here, in further explanation I might say that when the contracting parties undertook to duplicate this cable Canada was either not consulted or, if she was consulted, protested. The cable was duplicated in spite of Canada's protest, which was entered at that time by the then Postmaster General, Hon. Charles Murphy. Canada, especially urged that the duplication be at least deferred until the beam wireless was given a trial, but to no avail.
In the circumstances all that remained to be done was to arrive if possible at a working arrangement between the wireless and cable interests. Accordingly in November, 1927, Canada made representations to the partner governments of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, urging the immediate appointment of a special committee to consider the commercial policy of the cable, including its relation to the wireless system. Such a committee was endorsed by all contracting parties, but the inquiry was extended by the British government to include the eastward cable route from Great Britain to Australia and the competing wireless, so that it has not been limited to the Pacific cable and competing wireless alone. A special conference was therefore held at London composed of representatives of the governments concerned, namely Great Britain, Canada, the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and India, and also a representative of the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates with terms of reference empowering them to examine the situation which has arisen as a result of the competition of the beam wireless with cable service, to report thereon and to make recommendations with a view to a common policy being adopted by the various governments concerned.
Canada nominated Sir Campbell Stuart as its representative at the conference and sent Mr. L. J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General and Mr. C. P. Edwards, director of radio telegraphs, Department of Marine and Fisheries, as advisors. One result of the conference was a merger which was affected between the Eastern and associated telegraph companies and the Marconi Wireless Company of Great Britain. Under the proposed settlement there will be returned to Canada in ca^h an amount substantially equivalent to her outlay on the Pacific cable
iMr. Veniot-l
during the twenty-five years of government control. No future payments on Canada's part will be necessary as would certainly have been the case had a settlement not been reached. Control over the rates will be retained in the interests of the public, this feature having been specially safeguarded during the negotiations. A trans-Canada or all red cable route will be continued with provision for its being taken over by the government in the case of emergency.
That is a short outline of what has taken place. The correspondence which has been tabled includes some further telegrams and the complete report of that conference. The British government has passed an enabling law which has attached to it, perhaps as a schedule, a tentative agreement. I understand that that agreement has not as yet been concurred in but it will be shortly. The question now arises whether it will be necessary for Canada to pass enabling legislation as was passed in Great Britain. I am not quite definite on that point but the matter is now receiving the attention which its importance deserves.


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister mean that he is making inquiry of the Department of Justice as to what the position is in that respect?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, the Department of
Justice has the matter in hand.


George Halsey Perley: Would the minister be good enough to tell us who first suggested that this conference should be held, in regard to the cable service?


Peter John Veniot: I think the first suggestion.
came from Canada, when it was seen that this competition was beginning to get keen


Ernest Lapointe: Only in regard to the
Pacific cable.


Peter John Veniot: I hope I am not being misunderstood; I am only referring to the Pacific cable. I think it was in 1926 when Sir Campbell Stuart was over here that my attention, was first drawn to this matter. I think that was the year of the imperial conference and I was in constant communication with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) while he was in England. It was impossible for me to go over at that time, in fact I preferred to stay here because I did not know very much about the matter having only been in office a couple of months. I preferred that it be handled directly by our representative over there, Sir Campbell Stuart, in consultation with the right hon. the Prime Minister, and by means of cable consultation: with the officials over here.

Supply-Post Office


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who controlled
the beam system at that time?


Peter John Veniot: The beam system was just coming in at that time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think the
hon. minister is correct in that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It was long before that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Could the minister tell us who controlled it?


Peter John Veniot: I had nothing to do with
that.


George Halsey Perley: The minister
mentioned that one of the reasons for this conference was the competition from the beam system.


Peter John Veniot: That is correct.


George Halsey Perley: 
Peter John Veniot: We are trying to reach an
agreement, but I am informed that it will be somewhere in the vicinity of $700,000.


George Halsey Perley: That will be
Canada's share?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Fault cannot be
found with the present Postmaster General because he was not in office at the time, but it seems to me very extraordinary that the Pacific cable should have been duplicated all the way to Bamfield just at the time the beam system was coming into use. I have seen the report made by the former Postmaster General in regard to this, but I am not prepared to admit that that duplication could have been proceeded with against the wishes of Canada.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Murphy claimed that
he was never consulted.


George Halsey Perley: I understand Mr. Murphy claims that and the attitude he took with regard1 to the wisdom or otherwise of duplicating the cable was quite satisfactory, but as a matter of fact the Pacific cable board had no power of itself. Is that board still in existence?


Ernest Lapointe: It will be until the new law comes into effect.


George Halsey Perley: The Pacific cable board never had any real power in itself.
That board represented four different governments and there were directors appointed by the four governments; I think three were appointed by Great Britain, two by Canada, two by Australia and one by New Zealand.


Peter John Veniot: With the treasury board
in Great Britain handling the whole thing.


George Halsey Perley: I was a member
of the board for a long time and I know something about their ways at that time.


Peter John Veniot: I am prepared to accept
the hon. member's version of it.


George Halsey Perley: I am not prepared to admit that the cable board could have duplicated this cable against the wishes of the Canadian government. The British representatives on the board were appointed by and were subject to the authority of the British government. The fault I have to find in connection with this matter is that at the time it came up the Canadian government did not take it up with the British government in order to stop the duplication of the cable. I have read the papers prepared and the report made by the former Postmaster General and' in the main I agree with his attitude, but I consider that this government slipped in that they attempted to deal entirely with the Pacific cable board instead of going over the head of the board to the real authority. I submit to the Postmaster General and to the members of the-government who had fo deal with the question, that if a representative of the Canadian government was doing something which was objectionable to the British government that government would appeal to the Canadian government and the government here would promptly hold an investigation to ascertain the facts and if the complaint were well founded they would apply the remedy. If the Canadian government had appealed to the British government, as I feel they should have done, this extraordinary thing would not have happened and we would not have had the Pacific cable duplicated in its entirety just a few months before the competition of the beam system reduced its traffic by one-half. That is where I find fault with the government. The present Postmaster General has nothing to do with this, but I say that, in effect, the government did not understand the situation and they appealed to the Pacific cable board instead of appealing to the British government when they found they could not get any satisfaction. If they had taken the matter up properly, this would not.
Supply-Post Office

have happened. In effect, this large sum of money that was spent on the last long duplication of the Pacific cable was practically wasted.
There is one feature with regard to the sale of the cable that, I presume, has been given consideration by everybody, and that is the fact that this link of communication within the empire is now out of the hands of the government; it is no longer under their control. It is quite true there are in the act certain provisions whereby the different governments can bring influence to bear upon the Communications Company, but previously in the war this was a government owned cable and well I remember many meetings of the Pacific cable board during the war and particularly during the early part of it when it was demonstrated what a great asset this sable was to the British commonwealth and the allies in general. This was a cable completely controlled by the allied governments which were at war, and whatever they chose to do they could do in the way of confining the messages to those connected with the war or to those that they considered were the most important. Under the present arrangement the government are losing that control.
I suppose they have considered that fact.


Ernest Lapointe: They saw to it that
British control would be assured.


George Halsey Perley: That is British
private control, which is very good, I admit, but it is not government control.


Peter John Veniot: There are two government directors on the board.


George Halsey Perley: How many
directors are there altogether?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know.


George Halsey Perley: Canada had two directors on the Pacific cable board and that did not prevent this extraordinary duplication of the cable. I suppose that feature of the case has been very carefully considered. The trouble was largely accentuated by the action of the Pacific cable board in duplicating this long cable and the inaction of the Canadian government in not preventing the duplication.
I find that there is a great deal of difference of opinion in Great Britain in regard to this subject. I have under my hand the report of the proceedings in the British House of Commons of Thursday, November 22 last, when Mr. Ramsay MacDonald took strong exception to the report of the commission and to the action that the British government is taking in regard to it. He moved this motion in the British house:

That this house declines to assent to the second reading of a bill which sacrifices public utility to private gain by disposing of valuable state undertakings to private interests, and is of opinion that the introduction by the government of such a measure in the last days of a dying parliament violates sound constitutional practice.
Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is a very important man in the old country and he may be even more important yet; one does not know. But it is a pretty serious amendment for him to move on a matter of this kind which is not a public question except in regard to the use of the cable in case of necessity.


Ernest Lapointe: Was he not an active
leader of a strong opposition when he moved that amendment?


George Halsey Perley: That is perfectly true.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Have oppositions no rights?


Ernest Lapointe: He thought he would oppose.


George Halsey Perley: Oppositions are often right.


Ernest Lapointe: Sometimes.


George Halsey Perley: I will not go further into the debate in the British house except to say that there was a speech made by Sir Hamar Greenwood and according to the report in The Times, which is usually very accurate, he said, referring to the conference :
It owed its existence to the competition of the post office beam system with the Pacific cable board, which was subsidized by Canada, Australia, and other parts of the empire.
The post office was_undercutting the imperial cable, and the position became so acute and ridiculous that the prime ministers in Canada and New Zealand insisted upon this conference being convened.
I would like to ask the minister whether Sir Hamar Greenwood spoke in any sense officially for the Canadian government?


Peter John Veniot: My recollection is that Canada asked for the conference.


George Halsey Perley: Did Sir Hamar Greenwood speak in any way officially for the Post Office Department?


Peter John Veniot: He had no authority from me. He may have been stating what he thought was a fact or something like that.


George Halsey Perley: I am quite sure he said w'hat he thought was a fact, but I

Supply-Post Office
was wondering whether it had any foundation.
I asked some questions about this matter and on February 20, this reply was made by the Postmaster General:
Negotiations are in progress.
That means, as I understand it, that they had not been completed, but in the file which the minister laid on the table yesterday, I find that there was a cable last summer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps the Postmaster General has it under his hand.


Peter John Veniot: I have one dated July 19, 1928. Would that be the one?


George Halsey Perley: It said that the proposal was acceptable to the Canadian government. I have not the wording.


Peter John Veniot: 
George Halsey Perley: I think so. It says earlier in the cable the terms were acceptable.


Peter John Veniot: 
George Halsey Perley: Quite so, but may I say that whoever prepared this answer
to me which was given on the 20th of February was not very frank, because this was not information which needed to be held back at all.


Peter John Veniot: What does the answer say?


George Halsey Perley: After explaining about the Imperial Telegraphs Act, which received the royal assent on February 5, 1929, providing for so and so, it says, "Negotiations are in progress." That is not a frank answer.


Peter John Veniot: We have not accepted it yet.


George Halsey Perley: What is the date of the agreement which the minister is reading?


Peter John Veniot: July 19, 1928. There is no hard and fast agreement, if I may use that term, which has been signed as yet.


George Halsey Perley: Whoever prepared this answer that was given to me was not very frank, because there was no necessity for withholding that information. I would suggest that they might have said:	The
terms have been accepted by the government. The government had accepted the terms months ago.


Peter John Veniot: No.


George Halsey Perley: Your government accepted them in July of last year.


Peter John Veniot: They were acceptable but the whole thing is not concluded yet. We do not know what the other contracting parties may do. This thing may have to be gone over somewhat further yet.


George Halsey Perley: In other words, the government is bound, but the Postmaster General does not think it is bound. The government has agreed to accept it, but the Postmaster General thinks there must be something more to be done about it.


Peter John Veniot: Oh no, nothing of the kind.


Ernest Lapointe: The Postmaster General is right. The bill which has passed the British house to give effect to this agreement says that the agreement will have to receive the assent of the various government-partners. so consent either by the government or by parliament is necessary on our part.


George Halsey Perley: Your government gave consent last summer.


Ernest Lapointe: No, not to the agreement.
220S
Supply-Post Office


George Halsey Perley: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; your government accepted the agreement. The Postmaster General has just read the despatch of last summer.


Ernest Lapointe: That was in the course of negotiation. My hon. friend surely knows that when the bill sets forth that there must be formal assent by Canada and all the other governments, that assent must be given after an agreement is finally reached.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: The words are " approved generally by us."


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly. That was during the negotiations.


George Halsey Perley: That is one of
the points I am trying to get at. I asked last session whether it was the intention of the government to introduce into parliament any legislation in connection with this matter, and the reply was, " The necessity for concurring legislation is under consideration." I take it that the despatch of the 19th of July last definitely commits this government.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


George Halsey Perley: It states the
amount that is to be paid, and the terms, and it says that the recommendations are approved generally by us. In business that would be something that would have to be lived up to. Has this government the power to sell this cable without reference to parliament? I would like to know what the exact position is in that regard. This is a great public undertaking, and without criticizing the arrangement, which I am not doing at the moment at all, it is quite evident that everybody on the other side of the Atlantic does not agree that it is a wise thing to part with this government-owned property, which in the late war was of inestimable value to Great Britain and all the dominions, as well as to our allies. Everybody in Great Britain does not think it is wise that this government-owned cable should be operated by a private company.


Ernest Lapointe: The government there
is a pretty safe government so far as loyalty to the empire is concerned.


George Halsey Perley: Absolutely;
there is no doubt about that, and I do not think that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is disloyal to the empire either.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree.


George Halsey Perley: But there is a difference of opinion about this matter. Now has this government the power to agree to

part with that cable without coming to parliament? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it has not. It does not seem right that this great public asset could be disposed of by the government without special legislation. That is the point I want to be enlightened on to-day. It does not seem like a simple, ordinary executive act which is all that a government, I take it, is empowered to do, unless they have special authority under some statute. This is not a simple executive act at all, and I question very much whether it was fair of the government to go as far as they have done without having some discussion in the house and letting us hear something about the matter. I take it that the government is now committed, and if they bring down legislation their supporters could not oppose it without expressing non-confidence in the government.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure my hon. friend will support it.


George Halsey Perley: I would first
like to get a little more explanation than I have received to-day. I would ask the Minister of Justice, does he consider that the government has any power to part with this cable without the authority of parliament, and does he not think that the government has gone too far already in that direction in agreeing to the terms of this arrangement? What does the government intend to do about it?


Ernest Lapointe: With regard to the
first part of the remarks of my hon. friend in which he stated that the government of Canada should have opposed the duplication of that part of the cable from Fiji to British Columbia a few years ago-


George Halsey Perley: They should
have prevented it.


Ernest Lapointe: I may say to my hon.
friend that the Postmaster General at that time took not only a firm stand but what I heard described as a very aggressive stand against that duplication of the cable. He pointed out-


George Halsey Perley: To whom?


Ernest Lapointe: To whoever was concerned in the old country. There were communications-


George Halsey Perley: Quite so, but
may I put it this way? He pointed out to the Pacific cable board and to the chairman of that board-	[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: I know he did.


George Halsey Perley: But I say that
there was an authority higher than the chairman of the Pacific cable board, and that is the place where he should have made his protest.


Ernest Lapointe: 
George Halsey Perley: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: The Postmaster
General was not in a position to give us information as to who controls the beam system.


Ernest Lapointe: The Post Office Department in Great Britain, and the Amalgamated Wireless-I think that is the name-in Australia, the Australian government owning half of the property.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is, the competitor in this case was the government-owned and controlled system, the beam system.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
Supply-Post Office


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who controls the beam system now under the new arrange-nent?


Ernest Lapointe: This company.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then we have deliberately given away a publicly-owned beam system of a very superior nature to a private company, and this government has lent itself to one of the grossest scandals that has ever been before the British public.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know where the Minister of Justice gets his figures. I have been looking up the British Hansard to find out about the question, and I hoped when the papers were tabled in connection with the merger we might have had some information avaiaible for the house. These papers were not tabled until eleven o'clock last night, and except for two or three minutes this afternoon I have not had an opportunity to study their contents. It is rather unfair, Mr. Chairman, to ask the house to discuss a question of this importance when we have so little information before us. It was at the end of February when I asked for the tabling of these papers, but not until eleven o'clock last night were they available. I asked the question be laid over until Monday for discussion,, 'but the Postmaster General preferred to proceed this afternoon.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will admit that we are discussing the question simply because it has been raised. We could wait until the bill has been presented.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I asked the Postmaster General to-day to allow the matter to stand over until Monday, but he said he preferred to go on this afternoon.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman will have plenty of time to discuss it again when the bill comes up.


Abraham Albert Heaps: system, but instead of that the weaker system took over the government system and unfortunately Canada became a party to that transaction, I am very sorry the government. have taken that stand; I think they should have insisted that the various governments own and control this beam system together with the cable services, so that the profits which will be made by the private company would have been obtained by the governments.
Just to illustrate how this works out I would like to quote one or two instances. Before the beam system was perfected Marconi shares in Great Britain slumped to about 13 shillings each. Immediately it became known that these systems were about to be transferred to private ownership, with the Marconi Company having a large interest in that ownership, these shares jumped from about 13 shillings to 72 shillings per share. Those are the figures according to the London stock exchange. That was not a bad bargain for the private company; the government practically gave away one of their greatest assets to a private corporation.


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend saying that the Pacific cable was at that time an asset to Canada?


Abraham Albert Heaps: With the beam system it
would have been an asset; I do not think the contrary can be proved. This act of giving away the property of the people of this country for one-third its cost is a serious matter, involving both the question of the bargain made by the government and a question of principle. I claim that the government made a poor bargain, and I further claim that on principle the ownership of communications such as these should not have been relinquished in favour of a private corporation.
I am very glad to have the assurance of the Minister of Justice that a bill in connection with this matter will be introduced in this house; I hope when it comes before us it will be sent to one of the standing committees of the house in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing the contract entered into by this government with this private corporation which in future, if the bill goes through, will own and control these assets. I hope the minister will assure the house that when the bill is brought in it will go to one of the standing committees, where the matter may be thoroughly investigated.


George Reginald Geary: There is one matter to which I would like to direct the attention of the Postmaster General; I refer to the case of a man named Kirk, who was a letter carrier

in Toronto. Some little time ago Kirk was arrested and charged with theft; he was tried and acquitted. However, the department dismissed this man, and in this connection I would like to read a paragraph from a letter dated July 27, 1928, written by the Postmaster General to Kirk's father:
This case has been discussed by the officials of the department, and while your son was acquitted by the jury of the offences with which he was charged, there is no doubt Whatever that he mistreated mail entrusted to him for delivery. In the interests of the public service, therefore, the department cannot do otherwise than remove his name from the list of employees.
There is just one other letter which I would like to read, dated March 2 of this year, also written by the Postmaster General to Kirk's father after Mr. Kirk apparently had written the Prime Minister:
In reply I beg to say that I have gone carefully into the matter and while it is true that your son was not convicted by the court of the charge of stealing letters which was made against him, he was only discharged on a legal technicality.
I do not quite see how the Postmaster General could make that statement; after Ml, the man was found not guilty by the jury, and it was not a technicality in the sense of the man being charged under a wrong name or something of that sort. I gather that what the Postmaster General meant was that it was a question of the balance of doubt, or something of that kind.
I am not suggesting that the minister may not have had cause for dismissing this man; apparently Kirk had taken some letters on his second delivery in the morning and, finding himself unable to deliver them on that round, put them in another pocket on the bag he carried intending to deliver them in the afternoon. I do not know anything of the circumstances of the case; I do not know whether this man gave satisfactory or unsatisfactory service. Nothing of that kind appears m the correspondence, but the unfortunate result is that while the Postmaster General no doubt was within his rights in dismissing the man, Kirk contributed to the superannuation fund, from which he will not derive any benefit, and he is out of pocket to the extent of such contribution. The case seems a little hard; this man actually stood trial after the department elected to settle the case in court. This man was brought before a jury; no doubt he was properly prosecuted and properly defended and the jury found him not guilty. So I would submit that as far as one can see from the file, that should have been the end of the matter.

Supply-Post Office
Kirk might have been kept under surveillance for a time, or something of that sort; at all events a jury of his peers said he was not guilty, and unfortunately he has lost his position, which naturally carries with it a certain amount of odium, even after his acquittal. He is out of pocket not only to the extent of his salary but also to the amount of something like $250 which he contributed to the superannuation fund. From what fund that amount could be returned to him I do not know, but his father is pressing the matter verj'' strongly. I do not happen to know these people personally; they are at least close to my constituency, if not actually within it; perhaps I should know them but I am quite content to take the correspondence as it is without pursuing the matter further personally. However, I would suggest to the Postmaster General that on paper the rights in this case seem to be with the man, who now finds himself in a most unfortunate position. I would like to feel that the Postmaster General could make the matter right in one way or the other.


Peter John Veniot: I remember that case
quite well; I went into it quite thoroughly on the report of the superintendent at Toronto. When I stated in my letter that Kirk was not found guilty owing to a technicality I may not have used the proper term, but these are the circumstances: It was proved before the court that this man did have letters in his possession which he had no right to have.


George Reginald Geary: We admitted that.


Peter John Veniot: He had mail matter in his
possession which he had no right to have. We had been conducting a survey of certain routes in that vicinity and it was discovered that this man was not delivering his mail matter as he should have. He was taking the mail matter to his home or to some other place and not delivering it and we felt that we had a case against him and he was arrested.


George Reginald Geary: He did not take it to
his home; he had it with him in another pocket of his bag.


Peter John Veniot: He had no right to do
that.


George Reginald Geary: That is quite right.


Peter John Veniot: The officials had him
arrested and he was tried. I understand that there was not sufficient evidence to prove intent and he was dismissed. There was sufficient evidence in the possession of our officials at Toronto to convince them that this man should not be continued in the 78594-140
service; that decision was reported to me and I approved of it. So far as the retention of the retirement fund payments is concerned,
I did endeavour to see if it would be possible to have returned to him the amount which he had contributed to the fund. However, I have been advised that where an individual is dismissed from the service for cause, the payments cannot be returned. That seems to me to be rather harsh and severe but I cannot do anything else than abide by the law.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there any discretion
on the part of the treasury board?


Peter John Veniot: I think there may be some way of doing it and I intend to see if it cannot be done. There are four or five similar cases and I intend to see if it cannot be done by way of a compassionate allowance approved by the treasury board. I think they have that power and an order in council could be passed.


George Reginald Geary: Do I understand the minister to say that he will use his efforts to obtain that?


Peter John Veniot: I am looking into these
cases to see if there is any way of doing that.


George Reginald Geary: I trust the Postmaster
General will bear in mind that there was some suspicion against the man and he could have been dismissed after the investigation by the department. You elected to charge him before the court; you took the course which seemed to you to be the right one; it was not successful, but you dismissed him notwithstanding the decision of the court. The grounds for dismissal had not been proved at his trial and you did not choose to dismiss him before you had him charged with theft. It seems to me that there is very little against him in the department.


Peter John Veniot: It was in the hands of
the law before I knew of it and I could not interfere.


George Reginald Geary: I think it can be arranged
in some such way as the minister suggests and I assume I may say that the minister is taking it up with a view to obtaining reimbursement in the amount of the contribution?


Mr. LADNER:: I presume we are still
under the heading of salaries and allowances. The other day I rose to make some observations with respect to the mail service by air and I would ask if such discussion is now in order?

Supply-Post Office


John Frederick Johnston: Strictly speaking, I
do not think it is in order. When this resolution was first moved in the committee it was decided by the committee that we should take it item by item. The discussion got along this afternoon to the third item and I suggest that we consider and pass the first item.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I desire strongly to support the stand taken by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) with respect to the minimum wage for civil service employees no<w receiving under $100 per month. The merit of the claim and the justice of the case has been thoroughly discussed in the house and I cannot add anything further to the discussion, it speaks so plainly for itself, but I desire to support the plea which has been made here.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Last session I drew the attention of the house to the dismissal of some nine or ten postmasters in the vicinity of where I live. I have no intention of opening up these cases again, but I was not able to place all the facts before the house during the forty minutes allowed me and I desire to ask the Postmaster General a question or two.
I made a motion for the production of the files regarding the various dismissals but I find that they contain nothing whatever to indicate the reason for the dismissals. The Postmaster General told me at the time that he had the letters indicating the reasons in a private file, but there was nothing in the papers produced and the postmasters do not know why they were dismissed. I would like to ask the Postmaster Generali if -the letters which he received in connection with certain post offices and making recommendations for changes are considered private or if they should not be public letters and become part of the file which could be produced in response to a motion carried by this house.


Peter John Veniot: Up till about two months ago I did consider that that type of letter was private and could not be produced, but from discussion in the house and from the consensus of opinion expressed and the interpretation of the rules given I must acknowledge that perhaps I was wrong. From that time on I feel certain that that class of letter was placed on the file but last year f was not treating such correspondence in that way.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think thie minister will recognize that if that -is the rule to-day it

was the rule last year, and I would like to know if he would produce the letters now to complete the files which were laid on the table last year.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. member state just what files he has reference to? I do not think this is the proper way of putting the question.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will the minister say that he will deliver the letters?


Peter John Veniot: You name the files and I will see what I can do.


Milton Neil Campbell: I will do that. In at least one of the cases I had reference to -the postmaster asked for a hearing. Certain charges were made against this man. and he demanded a hearing which was refused him; in fact, his letters were never replied to. I would like to ask the Postmaster General what his -policy is -in a case like that. Is he prepared to give the -man a hearing before some official?


Peter John Veniot: That depends entirely upon whether or not it is an official report upon which I am acting. If it is not an official report, I would certainly feel disposed to grant a hearing. If it is an official report from one of our superintendents, I do not consider I have any right to grant an investigation after one of our sworn officials has inspected an office, gone into all the circumstances and made a report thereon.


Milton Neil Campbell: In this particular case
no inspection of the office was made, and the file that has been produced shows mo report from an official upon the conduct of the postmaster or the operation of the office.


Peter John Veniot: Why does the hon. gentleman not give the name of the post office so that the Postmaster General may have an opportunity of dealing with the matter? He has been talking about several post offices and he has not named any.


Milton Neil Campbell: This particular one is
Nut Mountain, Saskatchewan; but I just wanted the minister's ruling so as to know where he stands in regard to similar cases in the future. Do I understand that the Postmaster General will give a hearing in a case of that kind?


Peter John Veniot: I will deal with every case on- its merits and if I feel that any particular case should have a hearing, I will grant it. I think I ought to be left to be the judge on a report that comes from an inspector. If I cannot trust my inspectors, I can trust nobody

Supply-Post Office


Milton Neil Campbell: In this particular case
there is no report from the inspector at all.


Peter John Veniot: Why does the hon. member not name the post office?


Milton Neil Campbell: I did name it. It is
Nut Mountain, Saskatchewan.


Mr. SPENCER:: I should like to get some
information from the Postmaster General not in regard to dismissals this time, but in regard to appointments. I understand that all positions that receive a payment of less than $200 per annum do not come under the Civil Service Commission. We have heard a good deal during the past week in, regard to the fact that appointments made by the Civil Service Commission are sometimes accepted and sometimes not, but with regard to those positions for which the payment is less than $200, what is the usual practice in the matter of finding out who are the proper people to fill such positions? Is this done either directly by the minister or indirectly through his officials? Does he usually apply to the members representing the particular constituency, or what is the practice?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: There are several ways of
finding out who is the proper person to fill a position. I do not think I should be called upon to reveal my ways of finding out whom I should appoint to a small office of that kind. Sometimes we do it through a report of the inspector. For instance, I will cite a case in point that has just reached me. I will not give any names, but it is in connection with a post office in the western country. The postmaster makes up his mind all at once to resign and he notifies the superintendent. The superintendent gets in touch with the department by wire stating that a vacancy is going to occur at that place. He notifies us that he is going there to see how he can straighten things out. He gets there and he places a man temporarily in charge until the appointment is made, even though the position is not under the Civil Service Commission. That temporary appointment is made because the retiring postmaster wishes to get away. That temporary appointee is left in charge until a decision is reached to make a permanent appointment. There are cases where I might consult individuals whom I know in the district. I do not know whether I should really have to call upon and consult members representing constituencies who are not favourably disposed toward the administration of 78594-140i
which I am a member. I do not think our hon. friends opposite would do that. I do not say that I would not do it, but I do not think that I should be called upon to say whether I would or would not do it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is unnecessary to say
so, is it not?
Mr. iSPENCER:	Although the Postmaster
General did not deliberately tell the committee that he preferred to fill those small positions through political appointments, at the same time he went pretty nearly that far.
1 am not interested from a patronage point of view; that is the last thing I want to have anything to do with. What I am interested in is in seeing that service is given in the rural districts, especially where postmasters are appointed to those small positions. I have in mind a position that was to be filled by such a man who was to give service to a rural community. This position was held open for a considerable time and no service was given to that community because the officials of the Postmaster General, no doubt under authority from him, did not allow anybody to fill that particular position, and instead of getting in touch with the local member, myself in this case, who might have been in a position to give the Postmaster General some information and who would not be interested in filling the position from a partisan point of view-


Peter John Veniot: No; my hon. friend would not!


Henry Elvins Spencer: I would like to remind
the minister that not only did he not consult the sitting member, but he went back, not to the last election but to the one prior to that, in order to consult the defeated Liberal candidate. That defeated Liberal candidate happened to live eighty or ninety miles away from the place; he knew nothing about the district; he happened to be busy with his own affairs and he did not reply. The result was that the position was left vacant week after week until the people at last became desperate and wrote to me, their member, to find out what was wrong with the department. I am not interested in filling this position from a political point of view, but I am interested in seeing that service is given to that community, and if the Postmaster General, through his officials, wants to fill a position where they know of nobody in particular and have no reason to ask for any special candidate, they should find ways and means of
Supply-Post Office

filling it quickly to the best of their ability instead of going to a candidate in an election of three or four years ago, a man who lives ninety miles away, does not know the district, and cannot give advice.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Wihat is the name of the
post office to which my hon. friend refers?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Morecambe. I have the file of correspondence on my desk and I know all about the matter.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I will look into it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I might say that the
position is now filled, but it was held up for a considerable time before it was filled.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Under this item
there has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the Pacific cable board. That discussion was interrupted by some of these other oases. There are certain-facts that I should like to bring out in connection with the matter, but I shall not insist on doing it now if it is understood that the action of the government will come under review in connection with the presentation of a bill and that we shall have an opportunity, by reference of the bill to a committee, of going into the details of the case.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend will
have another opportunity, on the third item in this very resolution, to discuss the Pacific cable.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The discussion has been started.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say this to my
hon. friend; no formal decision has been reached. I am inclined to think that a bill is necessary, but in any ease my hon. friend will certainly be given the opportunity he desires. I think I may safely say that it will be by way of a bill.


Grote Stirling: Can the minister tell the committee how long the vacancy in the postmastership at Summerland, British Columbia, will continue? The answer to the inquiry that I made to the Post Office Department is that, although the Civil Service Commission has selected an appointee, the appointment is held up on the instructions of the Postmaster General. Could he tell the committee why it is being held up and when the appointment will be made?
(Mr. Spencer.]


Peter John Veniot: I have not the file here and I could not say offhand because, of course, I cannot carry all these details in my head, but I assure the hon. gentleman that I will go right into the question of the Summerland postmastership and see that there is no further time lost.


Grote Stirling: And will the minister be good enough to communicate with me?


Peter John Veniot: I will let the hon. gentleman know when there is a decision taken in the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $16,305,000.
Leon Johnson Ladner: May I inquire whether any portion of this $16,305,000 is to be expended in British Columbia in connection with the mail service by air?


Peter John Veniot: Not this year. At the present time we are having surveys made by the Department of National Defence to see the best way of reaching Vancouver or some part of British Columbia from Winnipeg.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has a survey not been made?


Peter John Veniot: It is not yet completed. They have to get over those mountains and through the passes. Our intention is to extend the air service to within twenty miles of Banff, and connect up there with the train service, rushing the mail across the continent to the coast, but it will be impossible for us to connect up this year with Vancouver or any part of British Columbia beyond the mountains.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister be able to connect up next year?


Peter John Veniot: That is the intention; that is part of our program.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How much of this $16,-
305,000	is to be expended on mail service by air?


Peter John Veniot: 


Leon Johnson Ladner: According to Mr. Yarrow, who is engaged in the aircraft business and apparently understands it, 458 air passenger miles were travelled in Canada in 1925 and 3,000,000 miles in 1928. That indicates the great increase there has been in aeroplane transport. In British Columbia, and on Vancouver Island in particular, a number of companies have undertaken aeroplane transportation. The service is established there, and although the minister may require a survey so far as crossing the mountains is concerned,

Supply-Post Office
I submit that an air mail service can be carried on over the existing aeroplane routes because the system is already established. Have any inquiries been made along the line of taking advantage of the existing aeroplane service which operates between Vancouver, Victoria and Seattle? Why could not an air mail service be put on the system already in operation and in connection with which no survey would be required?
Mr. VEN'I'OT: My hon,. friend is a little mistaken when he says that no survey would be required, because we never start an air mail service in any part of Canada until we have first had a survey .made by the Department of National Defence as to its feasibility, and we are thoroughly informed as to the conditions to be met in regard to landings, and so forth. The only air mail service that we have pertaining to British Columbia is the one we had with the British Columbia Airways Limited, to whom we gave what, is known as the sticker privilege, allowing them to carry .mail for people who desired to send their mail by the company's aeroplanes, and allowing the company to charge at the rate of five cents.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does that still exist?


Peter John Veniot: That privilege still exists.


Leon Johnson Ladner: And will continue?


Peter John Veniot: Oh yes, we will not take away that privilege.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Between the cities of Vancouver and Victoria, for example, where there is an aeroplane service in actual operation carrying passengers, and with the capacity for carrying mail 'bags, how would a survey be required in connection with that service?


Peter John Veniot: It would not be required there because the company is giving that service on its own initiative. They have no contract with us, but only the privilege of carrying mail for people who desire to use that service.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is any portion of the $800,000 which is to be expended on air mail service to be used by way of subsidy or aid to airports?


Peter John Veniot: No. We have nothing at all to do with that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In Vancouver, the city
council has submitted a by4aiw to the people, which we believe will pass, to provide $300,000 for the purchase of a property in or near Sea island, which has been found to be suitable by some of the officers of the Department of National Defence for an aeroplane field. The city itselif has submitted that bylaw to the people, and if it is passed the field will be acquired. I believe that the Minister of National Defence has announced that as a matter of policy the government is willing to provide a sum u.p to $10,000 for beacon lights. Can the Postmaster General through his department take any action in aiding in the establishment of airports?


Peter John Veniot: There is no amount in our estimates for that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I wish to place on Hansard for the consideration of the minister a few paragraphs from the editorial columns of the Vancouver Sun, dated the 18th of April last.
I might say to hon. gentlemen opposite that the Vancouver Sun, generally a champion of the interests of the city of Vancouver in preference to its party affiliations, nevertheless always supports the government in an agres-sive and vigorous manner at election time.


Ernest Lapointe: Nohle conduct.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The conduct has noble aspects, but it does not always result so nobly.


Ernest Lapointe: Unforunately.


Leon Johnson Ladner: For the Liberal party, but not for the country.


Mr. McPHEE:: Was there not a reduction from 2,000 to 80 in a by-election?


Henry Herbert Stevens: You are ninety miles out.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The cause of justice and righteousness did prevail in Victoria notwithstanding the visit of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and some of his supporters. The editor of the Vancouver Sun describes the attitude of the government in these words:
The federal government, according to the estimates of Postmaster General Veniot, will spend $34,926,639 on air mail services in the Dominion.
That is an error; the amount is $16,305,000.
Toronto will be connected with Buffalo and Windsor, and nearly all sections of the east will be linked together by air mail routes.
This is a fine progressive program worthy of a progressive government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It falls upon sympathetic
ears.
But why is there nothing in it for British Columbia?
That is what I am inquiring of the Postmaster General.
Mr. Veniot says that air mail service to the Pacific coast ports cannot be considered this year because surveys of mail routes have not yet been made.
Why should Mr. Veniot not spend part of his appropriation making those surveys at once?
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I cannot.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why not ?


Peter John Veniot: Because my department
has nothing at all to do with the surveying.


Leon Johnson Ladner: He can call on other departments to do it.


Peter John Veniot: Let the department of
militia speak for itself. I have enough to do to defend my own.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I presume the hon. minister has fully realized that he has a job defending his own department. This article continues:
The primary purpose of this appropriation is to improve Canada's mail service. The secondary purpose is to aid and encourage commercial aviation.
Why should the encouragement of commercial aviation be confined solely to the east of the roekies?
Will the Postmaster General answer that question?


Peter John Veniot: I think I have already
answered it, with all due respect to the hon. gentleman's opinion. I stated the reasons why we cannot go to the Pacific coast this year. In the program I brought before this house some time ago I went fully into all the contemplated routes. I went from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, and I gave reasons for every one of those routes. I eannot go any further than that. All I can say is, it is impossible for us to get to the Pacific coast this year. The Pacific coast will be in our program just as soon as we can get from the department that is looking after the surveys word that they have discovered a suitable route over the mountains or through the passes, I do not know which; but whenever that is decided upon we will undertake to carry out our program in British Columbia so that we shall have a complete service from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have one more question. What is the $1,200,000 to be expended on which is now provided in the estimates?


Peter John Veniot: It will be expended on
all the contracts for routes: Halifax to Montreal; Montreal to Rimouski, meeting the ocean liners and taking the transatlantic mail to Montreal, and then despatching it from Montreal to Toronto. After we get the Winnipeg route working we will continue on to Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg to Banff, or to a district within twenty miles of Banff- Canmore, I think.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Canmore.


Peter John Veniot: So as to catch the fast
transcontinental trains at that point. There is now a contract for air mail between Montreal and Toronto, and we are considering a contract for a similar service between Toronto and Windsor. After the Toronto-Windsor route has been in operation we expect to link up with the American net work of air mail service by means of the connecting link that the American government is undertaking from Fargo to the border of Manitoba; this will give us a direct connecting link with Winnipeg. We have routes laid out from Winnipeg to Regina as a junction point, and from there to Moose Jaw, Medicine Hat, Calgary and Canmore. From Regina on the other leg of the course there will be routes to Saskatoon, North Battleford and Edmonton. Those routes are now being considered for the contracts that I have just spoken of. Those contracts will be let within the next three or four weeks. A good deal of night flying will have to be done on the route I have just named, but in the beginning we will have to use day flying until the lighting towers are placed. It takes about one month of day flying for the aviators to become acquainted with the territory. Night flying is dangerous until the aviators are thoroughly familiar with the route, and we do not want to take any risks.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are those government or
private planes?


Peter John Veniot: All contract.


Leon Johnson Ladner: This money actually goes
to the contractor for the service of carrying the mails?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Not for the purchase of
planes or anything of a capital nature?


Peter John Veniot: No. The Post Office Department have two or three planes of their own, but we are not using them for those long distances. We pass them over to the department of militia at times, and they use them in the surveys.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But if there is a service
established as between Victoria and Vancouver, then arrangements can be made with the department for the carrying of mail if such arrangements do not already exist?


Peter John Veniot: Yes; that system could be
put in practice at any time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Peter John Veniot: It is on a mileage basis at the present time. I think it is a dollar a mile.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That would be about six
hundred dollars a day?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I think the distance
is about 310 miles.
. Mr. STEVENS:	How much mail was
carried by air from Montreal to Toronto this year?


Peter John Veniot: I have the figures here.
Perhaps I may be permitted to read the full list. This is a statement showing the weight of mail carried over the various air mail routes up to April 30, 1929. For the 1928-29 season we carried 62,830 pounds of mail from Montreal to Rimouski.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can you give the number of trips?


Peter John Veniot: That is three trips a week there. It is only for the transatlantic mail. Then we have the Montreal-Ottawa route and the Montreal-Toronto route, showing the amount of mail carried for 1928-29.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is for the year, is
it?


Peter John Veniot: No, that is not the complete year. I forget when we started the Toronto-Montreal service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can you give me the date approximately?


Peter John Veniot: I have not the cate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Could the minister put
the whole list on Hansard?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, how would it be if
I handed it to Hansard now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.
Statement showing the weight of mail carried over the various air mail routes up to April 30,
Route
Year
Montreal-Rimouski	
Montreal-Ottawa	
Montreal-Toronto	
Montreal-Albany	
Quebec-Seven Islands	
Seven Islands-Anticosti	
Moncton-Magdalen Islands	
Moncton-Charlottetown	
Summerside	
Leamington-Pelee Island	
Sioux Lookout-Gold Pines	
Red Lake	
Narrow Lake	
Jackson Manion	
15 April, 1929	
Lac du Bonnet-Wadhope	
Bissett	
Cranberry Portage-Kississing	
end of March.. ..
St. John-Halifax	
Ottawa-Montreal-St. John	
Winnipeg-Calgary-Edmonton	
Canadian National Exhibition	
Mackenzie river district up to 13/3/29
1929
1929
1929
1929
1927-	28
1928-	29
1927-	28
1928-	29
1927-	28
1928-	29
1927-	28
1928-	29
1927-	28
1928-	29
1929
1928
1929 1929 1929 1928
1929
Weight of	mails
62,830 pounds
4,365	"
44,250	"
771	"
4,899	"
5,652	"
15,447	"
26,360	"
6,447	"
3,808	"
3,017	"
7,444	"
2,390	"
59,712	"
17,470	"
20,876	"
57.566	"
25,510	"
23,722	"
3.071	"
5,461	"
2,022	"
3,161	"
4,820	"
900	"
4,914	"
Grand total
416,885	"


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister says that when he proposes to initiate a new service he asks for a survey by the Department of National Defence. In determining whether or not that service will be granted do military considerations prevail or is the matter decided purely on the ground of commercial needs?


Peter John Veniot: No military consideration whatever; so far as my department is concerned the matter is decided purely from the standpoint of commercial service.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I did not catch what the minister said, but I am anxious to know what routes have been decided upon between the
Supply-Post Office

prairie provinces and the coast. I have a telegram from Calgary in regard to the matter, and I may say that the mayor of Calgary is anxious to know. An item appeared in one of the papers to the effect that it had already been decided to go by a particular route.


Peter John Veniot: I do not yet know what route they will go by.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister could not give the exact number of days on the Mont-real-Toronto route, but taking a full year of 365 days it would represent a cost of about $5 a pound to carry the mail; and as I presume they do not run more than half the time it would mean $10 a pound. That is an enormous price.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman may have heard me make the statement on a previous occasion that we are not receiving the encouragement we should from commercial and industrial concerns so far as the Montreal-Toronto route is concerned. I think it is now improving considerably since I made that statement about three months ago and repeated it about a month since. It is not to be expected that our air mail service will give us any revenue that will meet expenses in certain sections of Canada until it has operated for a year or two. I may say however that with the average rate of 5 cents, and figuring on so many letters to the pound, it gives us around $3.60.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course, very often a letter would not be of maximum weight. But what I am pointing *ut is this. There are three mails a day between Toronto and Montreal by fast rail and consequently there is little inducement for the merchants and others to use the more expensive mail. I am not objecting to the air mail service, but I think that before paying the subsidy of $600 a day, which is a pretty heavy one, there ought to be some ground for the establishment of the service. Rather, in my opinion,
an effort should be made to stimulate the carrying of mail by air over long distances so as to provide a service which will be of value. There is no advantage in a short service.


Peter John Veniot: That is why the Toronto-Montreal link was established, in order to have it connect up with the further long distance route to the prairie provinces. I believe it has been carried on daily since November last.


James Houston Spence: I was going to ask the minister how the air routes were paying, but now I understand they are not paying. Let me ask the minister this question: Deep down in his own heart does he think there is necessity for the air routes operated at the present time?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I do.


James Houston Spence: Does the minister think there is real necessity for the one between Toronto and Montreal considering that there are three trains a day on this route? The fact is that letters written between five and six at night in Toronto will be delivered in Montreal as soon as they can be received by air.


Peter John Veniot: Toronto is not the only
place in Canada.


James Houston Spence: It may be a connecting
link, I admit. I d;o not want to deprive Toronto of an air service but we should carry on these services to pay; everything should stand on its own feet. The air service is for the accommodation of the jazz element of the country who turn night into day.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can the minister give us a list of the contracts, together with the names of the contractors, for these different routes, the prices they are receiving, and the services that each of these contractors is rendering?


Peter John Veniot: These are the services:
Present Services
Rimouski-Montreal	 2
Montreal-Ottawa	 1
Montreal-Toronto	 6
Montreal-Albany	 6
trips per week, each way, 330 miles-$1.25 per mile. Contractors-Canadian Transcontinental Airways, Limited, Quebec City.
trip per week each way, 110 miles-$1.25 per mile. Contractors-Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited, Quebec City.
trips per week each way, 330 miles-$1.00 per mile. Contractors-Canadian Airways Limited, Montreal, Que. trips per week one way, 200 miles-$1.25 per mile. Contractors-Canadian Colonial Airways Limited, Montreal, Que.

Supply-Post Office
Present Services-Concluded
Sioux Lookout, Gold Pines, Red Lake, Narrow Lake and Jackson Manion	
Lac du Bonnet to Bissett and Wadhope
Kississing and The Pas	
Leamington-Pelee Island	
La Malbaie-Seven Islands-Anticosti. Moncton-Magdalen Islands	
Moncton-Charlottetown	
Weekly-320 miles per round trip, $160 per trip of 400 pounds and 12 cents per pound for next 350 pounds and 19 cents per pound for all in excess of 750 pounds. Contractors-Western Canada Airways Limited, Winnipeg, Man.
Semi-weekly-82 miles. $6,000 per annum and 10 cents per pound for all mail over 400 pounds. Contractors-Western Canada Airways Limited, Winnipeg, Man.
Weeky-100 miles. $50 per trip, limit of weight 100 pounds. Contractors- Western Canada Airways Limited, Winnipeg, Man.
6 trips per week, 22 miles, $32.00 per trip. Contractors-London Air Transport Limited, London, Ont.
La Malbaie-Seven Islands-weekly, 260 miles, limit of weight 1,500 pounds per week.	_	_
An extension of 120 miles to Anticosti four times per season, with a limit of weight of 1.500 pounds per trip. Moncton- Magdalen Islands-weekly, 200 miles, limit of -weight per trip 700 pounds. Contractors-Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited, Quebec City.
Weekly, i 10 miles, limit of weight 300 pounds per trip. Contractors-^-Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited, Quebec City.
The Moncton-Charlottetown service was instituted in an emergency as a result of an accident to the ferry boat and it was kept on for six or seven weeks until the mails got regularly going again.
Proposed Services
Toronto-W indsor.
Toronto-Buffalo.
Calgary-Winnipeg.
Edmonton, North Battleford, Saskatoon- Regina.	*
Winnipeg-Fargo, U.S.A.
Mackenzie River.
For the information of the committee I may say that last winter we sent mail from the head of steel, nearly 400 miles from Edmonton, 775 miles into that frozen Mackenzie river region I think once a fortnight, where previously they never had received mail except once each winter.
Halifax, Saint John, Megantic, Montreal.
Special exhibition or experimental flights.
We made a special exhibition flight from Montreal to Toronto last year and did not lose any money by it; we also established a special western provinces service during the holiday season and came out very well. That is about all the information,


James Houston Spence: About what is the flying
time between Montreal and Toronto and between Ottawa and Toronto, and what time do the planes leave?


Peter John Veniot: I have not that information, but I know that under the contract they travel at a cruising speed of 110 miles per hour.


James Houston Spence: And at what time of the
day do they leave Montreal and Toronto? I do not think the public know very much about this air mail service, and this is the way to give them the information.


Peter John Veniot: I am told they leave about 1.30 in the afternoon, in order to make the last delivery.


James Houston Spence: That mail would arrive too late to be delivered to business offices either in Montreal or in Toronto. Should they not leave at 11 o'clock in the morning?


Peter John Veniot: You cannot very well do
that; you must make connection with trains coming from other directions. We are not carrying on this service for the benefit of Toronto alone.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Were these contracts let after tenders had been invited?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In each case?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: To the lowest
tenderer in each case?
Procedure in Divorce


Peter John Veniot: I think the only case in
which there was not a competition' was at Leamington, A company was doing business there and the people of the island, the company and the department made a three-cornered arrangement, so no tenders were invited.


William Gordon Ernst: Are these tenders advertised publicly, or are tenders requested privately?


Peter John Veniot: They were not public
tenders.


William Gordon Ernst: I think the minister should put on record the names of those who were asked to tender in each case and the amounts of the tenders.


Peter John Veniot: That can be done.


William Gordon Ernst: I will ask the minister to
do it.


Peter John Veniot: I will not be able to do
it to-day; I could not secure the information so soon.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 96, for the relief of Calvert Mitchell Ca.rruthers- Mr. Sanderson-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: There are two
questions of procedure in these cases to which I desire to call attention. When this question was up before, the Chairman declared out of oidier an amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans). On May 1 of last year when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair I moved an amendment in precisely the same form, but which was voted down by the house. I must confess that the house is left in a very awkward position when an amendment regarded a year ago as being in accordance with the rules is now declared out of older. If I should introduce an amendment to-night I should like to know whether it will be in order; whether the precedent of Monday night or of May 1, 1928, is to rule.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member will have to move his amendment and send it in writing to the Chair to be passed upon.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The other day the Chairman ruled the amendment of the member for Rosetown out of order on the ground that it was not in harmony with the British North America Act, and we tried at the time to get from the Minister of Justice some statement with regard to this whole situation which might possibly clear the air. Is the Minister of Justice prepared to-night to make a statement in regard to this very important question?


Ernest Lapointe: and provision for the children and the wife, there is no doubt the provinces have also that right and it is certainly bettor to leave the field clear for the provinces in this matter.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister allow
me to ask him another question? I should like to have this cleared up. In authorizing the remarriage of the petitioner, are we obliged by law to give the guilty party, so declared, the same right of remarriage?


Ernest Lapointe: No; I think that is
different.


Charles Marcil: The other point is this:
once the divorce is granted by parliament, have the divorced parties any standing before the courts if they apply to them for alimony or for care of the children?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no doubt that
they have in both Ontario and Quebec.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister be
prepared to say whether the guilty party could remarry?


Ernest Lapointe: I think parliament could declare one way or the other because there it is a question as to marriage itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed, on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 165, for the relief of Florence Jane Sheppard- Mr. Sanderson-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
John Evans: I think there are two children in this case, and I wonder whether we have the right to grant divorce without providing for the children of the marriage. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill will explain the circumstances.


Mr. SANDERSON:: My hon. friend is
quite correct; there are two children in this case, one twelve and the other nine years old. The evidence in the case is not very long, and I presume that most hon. members have already gone through it. Briefly, the petitioner in this case is the wife. She was married on the 9th day of November, 1915, in a village in the county of York, in the province of Ontario. The evidence can be read in five minutes, and any hon. member who will take the trouble to read it will 
agree that the case is not complicated in any way. The senate committee after careful consideration have recommended that this divorce be granted. I would therefore ask the house to agree to the passing of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed, on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Frederick Rutherfoord Zoppi.-Mr. Kay.
Motion for second reading agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. M. EDWARDS (South Waterloo) moved the second reading of Bill No. 154, for the relief of Agnes Victoria Leader.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we ought
to have some explanation of this bill because the case is of quite a different order from those hitherto presented.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: The petition is from Agnes Victoria Leader, praying for the passing of an act to annul her marriage with Robert Elmer Leader, the claim being that the marriage has not been consummated. Evidence was given before the senate committee by Mrs. Leader, by her mother, Mns. Watson, and by Doctor Buchanan, physician and surgeon.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to point
out that this illustrates another of the anomalies of our present .practice of granting divorce. We are asked to grant a divorce in this case simply because of a physical defect. Were this man hopelessly insane, a divorce would be refused. If he were a criminal, absolutely immoral in every conceivable way, a divorce would be refused. But simply because there is a certain physical defect, we are proceeding to grant this divorce. I call attention to it on this occasion simply because there has been an impression prevalent that divorce was granted1 in this country solely for moral delinquency, that always adultery was the ground. That is not true, as this case goes to prove, and I think we ought to consider the bill very carefully. In fact, as the Minister of Justice was enumerating the matters connected with marriage that came within- the jurisdiction of this house, it struck me that it is quite doubtful whether, if he is correct in his statement, parliament is competent to

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
deal with this case. The Minister of Justice says that "the respective duties, liabilities and privileges as between married persons" is entirely a provincial matter. If that is so, there being no charge here of adultery, the petition is based on certain privileges as between these two married persons. I should like to have a statement from the Minister of Justice as to whether or not parliament is competent to deal with a case of this character.


Ernest Lapointe: I must admit that I have not read either the bill or the evidence. I could hardly be expected to answer my hon. friend's question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then, Mr. Speaker,
I would request that this bill stand until we can have some statement from the Minister of Justice as to the power of this house in regard to this bill.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, from a purely legal standpoint I can see some merit in the argument of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The parliament of Canada has jurisdiction in questions of marriage and divorce. If I understand the statement made by my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards) there has never been a marriage in this case. There has been a solemnization of marriage, that being, as I understand, within the jurisdiction of the provincial authority; but there has never been a de facto marriage. Therefore it is not within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada to act. If there has been no marriage the parties need no divorce. They have absolutely no standing before this parliament. We may dissolve a marriage, but we cannot deal with something that is not a marriage. I think that is the argument set forth by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, and I am under the impression there may be considerable legal merit in it.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
already spoken. Is the house ready for the question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Those in favour of the
second reading will kindly say "aye".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Hewitt Bostock: Those opposed will kindly say "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Hewitt Bostock: The ayes have it. I declare the motion carried on division.
Bill read the second time on division and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.



DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin) moved that Bill No. 75, respecting the domicile of married women in proceedings for divorce, be committed to committee of the whole.
Hewitt Bostock: This bill was given second reading on April 23. The motion now is to commit the bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Ernest Lapointe: I have some remarks to make, but probably it would be just as well that I should do so in committee.


Hewitt Bostock: According to standing
order 38 no debate is permissible on a motion to commit a bill unless it be an order of the day.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this bill was given second reading on division, and that there was opposition to the principle when it was so passed. I was absent at the time, but now I want to register a strong protest against the bill and to dissent from its provisions. I believe that it seeks to enact a principle which is absolutely contrary to British law and British doctrine, and that if enacted into law it will create difficulties and complications, which perhaps have not been foreseen.
When I saw that the bill was being introduced I went to the library to peruse a judgment of the privy council in the case of Cook v. Cook and Attorney General for Alberta, which is referred to in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill. In that case it was decided that the domicile of the husband was the only place of jurisdiction for divorce proceedings. The case will be found at page 751 of the Western Weekly Reports, 1926, and there will be found the following

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
views by two or three eminent judges of the British Privy Council. Lord Haldane said in Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey:
Since Le Mesnrier v. Le Mesurier .	.	.
nothing short of a full juridical domicil within its jurisdiction can justify a British court in pronouncng a decree of divorce.
And then:
There can be only one real domicil.
And further:
There is no authority for the proposition that the husband and wife can have, while they continue married, distinct domicils .... If it were otherwise .... proceedings for dissolving the status of marriage might be carried through in two jurisdictions, possibly with different results.
Lord Cave said:
I doubt whether the rule as to a wife's domicil following that of her husband is founded only upon her obligation to live with him. It appears to me to be more correct to say that it is a consequence of the union between husband and wife brought about by the marriage tie. . . . The rule is no doubt abrogated by a divorce a vinculo and possibly (although this has not yet been finally decided) by a divorce a mensa et thoro or a judicial separation. . . . (As to a possible exception in a) case where a husband who, having been guilty of desertion or some other matrimonial offence in this country, endeavours to deprive his wife of her remedy by changing his domicil; and there is no doubt authority (which it is not now necessary to examine) for the proposition that in such a case the husband will not he allowed to set up his own wrong as an argument for prejudicing his wife's rights.
Anri Lord Shaw said this:
I must not myself be held as assenting to the view that it has ever yet been decided bylaw that even a judicial separation properly and formally obtained would operate as a change in the so-called, and, in my opinion, very doubtfully named domieilium matrimonii.
I see the greatest difficulty in any invasion of the principle which appears to me to be fundamental-namely, that that unity which the marriage signifies is regulated by one domicil and one domicil only

i.e., that of the husband.
I am quite sure that Lord Watson in Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier treated the matrimonial domicil as the real domicil and nothing but the real domicil, but considered that as the real domicil of one person-namely, the husband. Much confusion may be caused by the introduction of the idea of there being two domicils of the marriage or two domicils of succession while the marriage tie continues.
In a later pasage Lord Shaw adds:
In the great fundamental issues of status and succession the domicil of the wife is the domicil of the husband until divorce a vinculo matrimonii has been obtained.
If this bill becomes law there will be two domiciles, even before the divorce is granted and while the marriage bond between the two parties still exists. As I have said, even in England and in other British countries where 
the principle of divorce is recognized and where divorce courts function they have never so far accepted the principle which this bill seeks to translate into law.
If we adopt the principle of this bill I see certain difficulties. The effect of the bill on persons residing in Quebec and Ontario, for instance, would be peculiar. Any husband residing in either of these provinces could obtain a divorce only by application to parliament, but the bill would enable his wife, in the cases mentioned, to acquire domicile in any of the provinces where there are divorce courts and to obtain a divorce from him, which divorce would be effective in Ontario and Quebec just as though it had been granted by this parliament. Indeed, as I read the bill, I think it is even wider than that so far as its language goes. It sets no limitation, and it would enable the wife to acquire domicile in any part of the world and to obtain a divorce from her husband which would be recognized as valid in Canada.
I may say that I have no experience in this matter inasmuch as I have not practised law in other provinces where there are divorce courts; but I am told that under the present practice the courts go a long way towards trying to ascertain the facts in any given case, and in cases of desertion the matrimonial domicile has not been changed. It is only in a clear case that they will hold the husband to have changed his domicile so effectively as to defeat the wife's action.
The question of domicile as well as that of nationality and naturalization is one which is very difficult of solution, and there has been no practical scheme to meet all the difficulties which are presented. If the provisions of the present bill were given their full effect the result would be that in some cases two actions for divorce might be pending in relation to the same parties and at the same time, one in one province at the suit of the husband and one in another province at the suit of the wife; and there is the possibility that there would be a race to see which would be tried first. And the same thing would happen before the appeal court if the first judgment were appealed from.
I think we ought to adhere to the old British doctrine, which is also the doctrine of natural law, that there should be only one matrimonial domicile for all purposes. It is not a question, as one hon. member suggested when the bill was before the house for second reading, that now that women _ have equal rights with men we should pass this legislation. It is not a question of equality or

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
rights; it is a question of one marital tie, of one matrimonial domicile. Whether it be the domicile of the husband or of the wife, I care not; but I contend that so long as the marriage continues, so long as that marriage has not been dissolved, there is but one domicile and there should remain but one domicile for all purposes.
Those who believe in divorce may consider that there are at times deserving cases which at present cannot be relieved by reason of certain difficulties. But to redress possible grievances in a few cases you are apt to create troubles and difficulties in a large number of others; and apart from the principle of divorce itself, to which I am opposed, I am for these reasons opposed to the present bill.


Charles Marcil: I wish to quote from the civil code of Quebec the law regarding this matter, seeing that divorce, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, is a matter of special legislation in each individual case. The civil code of Quebec, article 52, provides:
A married woman not separated from bed and board has no other domicile than that of her husband.
Clearly, therefore, the passage of the present bill would be a contravention of provincial rights.
Sir G-EORGE PERLEY: If a wife has been deserted by her husband, who has gone to live in a foreign country, has she no domicile?


Charles Marcil: It makes no difference in the eyes of the law if she has not obtained a judicial separation.


George Halsey Perley: Then her domicile might be in any part of the world-in Peru or Chile. If she is deserted by her husband and he is a foreign country, what is her position? Is her domicile then in the foreign country?


Charles Marcil: According to the code, when judicial separation has taken place then the wife has a domicile of her own; but until that occurs her domicile is the domicile of the husband.


Ernest Lapointe: She has a domicile of her own when the husband has really established a new domicile. If he is going around the world, not being settled anywhere, the last matrimonial domicile still exists.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: There is a great deal of force in the remarks of the Minister of Justice in regard to this bill, and it does appear that the bill possibly goes too far in the endeavour to provide a remedy for the married woman. The first subsection of section
2 relates to any woman who is judicially or otherwise separate, and living separate and apart from he;' husband. That makes the
bill very broad indeed.


Mr. WARD:: I had intended moving that those words "or otherwise" be deleted.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Even with that change there is still possibly an objection to that clause. Where a judicial separation has been granted, the parties have chosen the remedy which they desire. They make application to the courts for a judicial separation and when that is granted-or if you go further in the paragraph and take the case of those who have entered into a separation agreement* which would be included within that section as I read it-the parties have agreed between themselves upon the nature of the remedy. So far as I can see, that first paragraph goes too far; I should like to see it eliminated altogether. As to the second section of it, regarding the case of desertion, I believe there-is much merit in the language of the bill in this respect.
The Minister of Justice says that as he understands the situation in the courts the judges are always very careful to bring out all the facts regarding any offence by reason of which divorce is sought and that if possible, presuming the facts warrant it, they will endeavour to find that the matrimonial domicile is the domicile of the parties for the purposes of divorce. I want to give just one illustration of what might happen even if the judges were favourable to accepting the matrimonial domicile. A short time ago my attention was drawn to the case of a couple who were married in Ontario twenty years ago. At the time they were married they intended going to the west; immediately after the wedding they did go west, where they homesteaded and preempted land. Their family of four were bom and raised on that farm. Through some misfortune the husband lost part of his land and subsequently rented land and continued farming for a few more years. One fall he thought he would come back to Ontario to work in the bush during the winter months, which he did, leaving his wife and four children on the farm of a neighbour, where his wife kept house and the children were cared for by the neighbour. The husband did not return in the spring, although during the winter he sent her a very little money from time to time. Later on she found he was living in Ontario with another woman, and the evidence disclosed that children were born to that second union in Ontario. Notwithstanding the fact that
Divorce Proceedings-Domicile

these people married with the intention of going west, and in fact did go west where they took up land and brought up their family, that woman's domicile was in Ontario. The husband deserted her; she was left with these four children to support, and in order to get a divorce it would be necessary for her to come to Ontario and follow the husband in that domicile. Ontario is not so very far away, but supposing her husband had gone to Florida or some place in South America. The situation would be exactly the same; she would have to follow him and would have no right to take action in the west or in Ontario after he left Canada. It is to provide for cases of that kind that the sponsor of this bill has been endeavouring to secure legislation which will do justice to all, and in a case such as I have mentioned I see no danger in changing the law in order to permit a woman to acquire a domicile. In that particular case there would be no more danger than in allowing her to acquire a domicile under a judicial separation or under a separation agreement, which is not legal now. With the elimination of that first subsection I think the bill should go through in order to do justice to people who are placed in the position I have mentioned.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: As the bill is drafted I find myself altogether in support of the position taken by the Minister of Justice;
I believe some of us do not know just to what extent this legislation may go. The Minister of Justice instanced a case involving the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and then he went on to state a case which I believe to be equally appropriate. He pointed out that if this legislation were adopted by this house a married woman could go to Nevada, take up her residence and obtain a divorce upon grounds which are not recognized in any part of Canada; then she could say that she was entitled to choose her domicile and entitled to a divorce on the basis of that domicile under a statute of the Dominion of Canada. A woman could go to Peru or Chile, she could go to Paris, as has been done quite often recently. As this bill is drawn now it does not limit the woman's domicile to Canada and does not provide that she may acquire a domicile for herself within Canada; it allows her to acquire a domicile in any part of the wide world. Those who support this bill should at least provide that after the first line of section 2 should be added the words "living within Canada" and that the words "within Canada" should be added after the word "herself." That would make the bill read as follows: fMr. Both well.1
For the purposes of this act a married woman living within Canada .... may acquire a domicile for herself within Canada. . . .
I have no sympathy with the man who disregards the obligations he took upon himself in contracting marriage, obligations which I am glad to say most Canadians are proud to observe; I do not believe he should be allowed to treat his wife inhumanly, contrary to the law, and then move away and so prevent an action being brought against him. I am in favour of divorce on the statutory ground; when that ground exists I believe divorce is a duty. I know there are others who take a different view, but I do not think divorce should be granted on other than the recognized statutory grounds which obtain in this country at present, so I am not prepared to support anything which will permit a woman to go away and obtain a divorce on other grounds. I believe these people should remain within Canada and have their cases disposed of by a competent court or by the senate.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: It seems to me that a great many of the objections which have been raised to this bill are made on the presumption that the sponsor of the bill intends to try to put it through the house in its present form.


John Frederick Johnston: Nine o'clock.
Progress reported.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mail service, including mail service by air. $16,305,000.
James Charles Brady: As this estimate greatly concerns the constituency which I represent as well as the larger part of northern and central British Columbia, even at the cost of detaining the committee for a short time I feel that the matter is of sufficient importance to justify my speaking on it in the hope of enlisting the sympathy of the Postmaster General and also in order to bring before this house the importance of a good mail service in the isolated parts of Canada. As we all know, efficient mail and telephone service is very important to the settled parts of our country, but it is particularly important to the sparsely settled portions of this Dominion. I do not believe there are two other factons which tend so much to solidify the rural population and to give courage and confidence to the people who are filling up the big spaces which need

Supply-Post Office
population as good mail and telephone services. The greatest handicap that people in the rural districts have to overcome to-day is the lack of an efficient mail and telephone service. As the Postmaster General knows, various requests have been sent to his department, not merely by representatives but by every board of trade sitting individually as a board and by the associated boards of trade from Prince George on the east to Vancouver on the west, a distance of over five hundred miles. After looking through the estimates it seems to me that those that have get more and those that have not geit nothing. I notice that, in the big centres, where there is undoubtedly and necessarily a good service, there is a duplication with an air mail service, but in the places wdiere the greatest need exists we find very often that only a partial or an irregular and uncertain service exists.
I do not intend to offer any criticism which might be considered as adverse to the Postmaster General's department, but I desire to show a picture of the actual conditions which prevail throughout the northern and central parts of British Columbia. There are four methods of handling mail in Canada. The first and latest is the air mail service. I am sure that every member of the house who has listened to the story of the development of the air mail service in Canada during the last few years must look forward with great optimism to the future of this service. The report of the Deputy Postmaster General shows that there is air mail service now to the Magdalen islands and to the island of Anticosti. These places have had a very infrequent mail service in the past but they are now being brought in touch with' the outside world. I regretted very much to hear the Postmaster General say that he did not intend to inaugurate any air mail service this year in British Columbia. I regretted that still more when I read the following words in the report of the Deputy Postmaster General with respect to the air mail service to the Magdalen islands and Anticosti:
Both from a mail service and a humanitarian point of view, the successful operation of such a service it was thought would do much to ameliorate the conditions under which these islanders existed during the winter months.
This service was inaugurated not merely to give them mail communication but also from a humanitarian, point of view. I wonder if the Postmaster General's humanitarian point of view could extend at this moment across the prairie provinces, through the rockies and dip over into British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: To Prince Rupert?


James Charles Brady: The hon. Minister of Justice is quite right, yes, and I will refer to that in a moment. I intend to give the house two or three striking instances by mentioning some districts which have practically no mail service. When I asked a question this afternoon as to the sources of information which the Postmaster General had as to the need for rural mail services, I was pleased indeed to find out how the Postmaster General was notified of the districts where mail service was required. I spent the four and one-half months between the closing of the house last year and the month of November in travelling through my constituency but even though I spent that length of time in practically continuous travelling I was not able to complete the circuit of three-fourths of the country. When I went up the Naas river I found a large settlement of people there and they complained that the mail service had been so infrequent that parcels mailed before Christmas had not reached them until the month of April. I do not directly blame the Postmaster General for that but I do say that as long as the district postal supervisor is - living in Vancouver and is not in touch with the conditions which prevail in the northern part of the country, it is hopeless for me to come here and try to give an accurate description of the conditions which prevail there. When I went to Mill Bay to start up the Naas valley, I hoped to be able to get the little mail boat going from Mill Bay to Aiyansh. If that little boat, which was supposed to take the mail up the river fifty-two miles-and it was a mail day when I reached there-had been in operation and at my disposal, I could have gone up that river for $7.50. The boat was lying at the wharf, but the man who was taking the mail was drunk.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh I


James Charles Brady: He was not a white man;
he was an Indian. I went up chat river, but in order to do so I lmd to pay $60 out of my own pocket. No hon. member here representing a city like Ottawa, or Montreal, or Toronto, or Vancouver, can realize what it means for a member of parliament to have to travel over practically half an empire in extent and under very difficult conditions m order to come into contact with the people who are working against difficulties. Ontario and Quebec for hundreds of years back were known as Canada; indeed, it is not many years ago when the word "Canada" meant Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces. In British Columbia we find a young country and we shall find one day that Canada will be proud of the great wealth of that province

Supply-Post Office

and particularly the northern part of it. I believe nothing can stop the development of British Columbia, but to-day what we need to give the people there is good mail service and telephone communication wherever we can possibly do so.
I have on my desk resolutions from the associated boards of trade of British Columbia assembled. They travelled hundreds of miles in order to formulate these resolutions for presentation to the department. I will not read them because I think the Postmaster General knows what they are. What are they asking? They ask, first; that better mail service be inaugurated in the rural districts, and, second, that Prince Rupert east to Edmonton be given a daily mail service.
What has been done by the Post Office Department this year? I find that a daily mail service has been introduced between Quebec city and Cochrane, and the explanation is that on account of the great lumber and mineral resources through which that line passed, it was necessary to put on a daily mail service. There is also a daily mail service into Rouyn. I do not object to these; I think they are essential; but let me direct the attention of the Postmaster General to this: if a daily mail service is essential between Cochrane and Quebec, and into the mineral fields of Rouyn, it is equally important that a daily mail service be inaugurated between Edmonton and the port of Prince Rupert. From Prince George to Prince Rupert the Canadian National travels through, I think, one of the largest mineral, lumbering and agricultural areas in northern British Columbia. Rather than trouble the house with a lengthy description of that section of the country, I will simply read the resolution of the associated boards of trade. This was the result of a long study and visits along the Canadian National line from Prince George west to Prince Rupert. This resolution, which *was sent to the Postmaster General and also to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), reads:
I beg to inform you the following resolution was duly passed at the last regular meeting of this board of trade:
"Whereas, owing to the inadequacy of the present mail service between Prince Rupert and Edmonton, great inconvenience is caused to merchants, farmers and those engaged in mining and other industries;
and whereas, this inadequate mail service is the cause of serious loss of business and time to all those enumerated above;
and whereas, recent inquiry by a special committee of the Prince Rupert Board of Trade into the whole situation revealed the inadequacy of the present mail service west to and east from Prince Rupert;
and whereas the Prince Rupert Board of Trade has been petitioned by the various 
boards of trade in northern British Columbia to lend their full support to their demand for a daily mail service;
and whereas the Prince Rupert Board of Trade fully realize that the development and best interests of this district urgently demand a daily mail service to and from Prince Rupert
east;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Prince Rupert Board of Trade urge that the Hon. P. J. Veniot, Postmaster General, take immediate action whereby a daily mail service will be established between Prince Rupert and Edmonton."
As this is a matter of the most vital importance to the welfare of Prince Rupert and the country lying to the east of it, we sincerely trust that you will give the matter your very earnest and immediate consideration, in order that the daily service might be inaugurated upon the resumption of the daily passenger train service.


Peter John Veniot: What is the date of that?


James Charles Brady: January 15, 1929. The last time that we took this matter up with the Deputy Postmaster General and we asked that he should, at least on alternate days, put on a baggage service, the reply, after some weeks, was that the cost would be prohibitive. I went to some trouble in order to find out what it would cost to put on a baggage car service three days a week during the summer schedule, and I believe the cost would be nothing like what the dteputy minister said it would be. Furthermore, I think there is a daily mail service from Vancouver down through the Okanagan to Calgary. If any part of British Columbia deserves consideration in the matter of a daily mail service it is the port of Prince Rupert, and the country lying contiguous to it east to Prince George. Why the department has refused to grant that legitimate demand is beyond me. I feel assured that if the Postmaster General realized the great need of this country for a daily mail service he would not fail to see that it was inaugurated this very year. A great number of the people in the east are ignorant of the west. Very few' people that I meet, I am referring particularly to people in the eastern provinces, are aware of the great future and of the splendid strategic position which the port of Prince Rupert occupies on the Pacific coast. I am not speaking to^might in a way that can be construed as having the slightest political tinge, but I do want to bring home to the Postmaster General and his department the fact that outside of Canada the port of Prince Rupert has received very high recognition indeed. Just as in the east we find in Montreal the great -powerful and central lever which dictates and guides to a great extent the movement of commerce, so in the west I

Supply-Post Office
say, even though there may be Vancouver members present here, that Prince Rupert on the Pacific coast has not had a square deal. An elevator was built there, and left lying idle. Vancouver got over eighty million bushels of wheat, and the wheat is going there still, while Prince Rupert got only two million bushels, and then the elevator was closed down.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Who was to blame for that?


James Charles Brady: Never mind about the blame just now.


Malcolm McLean: Who can remedy it?


James Charles Brady: That situation can be remedied easily, and I may have a few words to say on this subject when the elevator items are up for discussion. I was saying that Prince Rupert is recognized by outsiders as occupying a strategic position on the Pacific coast as a base for an aeroplane service. In that connection I would like to quote just a few words from Captain McCarthy, the cousin of Captain Kingsford Smith, of the Southern Cross, the famous hero whose deeds in the air have won for him immortal fame. Captain McCarthy, representing the International Airways Company of Seattle, in his biplane made a survey flight from Seattle to Alaska prior to an ambitious air service being inaugurated between Seattle and Alaska. He landed in Prince Rupert on March 18th of this year on his way to Nome, and it is very interesting to note what he had to say of the port of Prince Rupert. Here are his exact words:
In any event air service between Seattle and Alaska or to the Orient, Prince Rupert will through its location have to be a base of call or departure. This port is in a strategic position and will eventually have to be equipped with a radio beacon and other aids to aerial navigation.
He went on to say that Prince Rupert today was fully ripe for an air mail service between Prince Rupert, Telegraph Creek, Atlin, Dawson and Mayo, and every bit of that line would be within Canada. I do not expect after what the Postmaster General has said that we can have that air mail service inaugurated at this time, but the hour will come, and come soon, when such a service must be established. What I am asking the Postmaster General to do is to have a survey made of the conditions that prevail in the great constituency of Skeena, and find out the actual needs for rural mail delivery. I noticed in looking over the returns that have been laid before the house 78594-1411
of applications for rural mail routes, that there has been no demand from the constituency of Skeena. The Postmaster General admits that that is correct? Very good. I went through the whole Skeena country last year, travelling through it for four and a half months, and I want to assure the Postmaster General that the time is ripe in all sections of the Ominica and Skeena country for the inauguration of rural mail delivery. Here is what I saw. 1 saw farmers come in to Smith-ers, a distance of sixteen miles-sixteen miles, mark you-to get their mail at the Smithers post office, and when they reached there, owing to some difficulties with which they met on the way, the post office was closed. They had to wait over the whole of that night or else go home without their mail till the following morning when the post office opened. I am not going to blame the Postmaster General for that because it is quite evident from this report that has been tabled that no recommendations have been made to him for the establishment of rural mail delivery in that country. At Telegraph Creek to-day the mail service is very inadequate. It is very difficult to get a decent mail service in winter. The mail is brought in by dog sled, and from October until June, the people are supposed to get ten deliveries and the maximum that the dogs can haul is 125 pounds weight. What happens very often is that the people do not get anything like that number of deliveries, and what I want to drive home to the Postmaster General to-night is that the time has come when these needs for rural mail delivery in very difficult country must be met in some way. We should at least do for these people what has been done so well for the inhabitants of Anticosti and the Magdalen Islands. To my mind it is much better to be able to guarantee seven deliveries of mail to these people living in these outlying places, seven mails that they are sure of getting, than offering them fifteen deliveries and actually giving them only two or three. The people in the rural districts of Ontario know nothing of the difficulties that beset the people in northern British Columbia. It would be impossible*for them to know what the conditions there are like. It is a young country among the mining camps, the great lumbering camps and fishing places, and the big need of these people is a mail service. I ask the government and the department of the Postmaster General to attack honestly and courageously that problem of giving an efficient mail service wherever the needs of the people demand it. I do not agree with
Supply-Post Office

those who say that the Post Office department should always show a credit balance. Of all the departments of government the Post Office department most intimately affects the well-being and happiness of the people by providing a proper mail service. Whenever we are considering the installation of a mail service we should not say: that is going to cost too much. I think the federal government should follow where the provincial government leads, where the latter constructs roads, opens up land and brings in the people. In such cases I contend that the federal government should follow close behind the provincial government in the matters of mail service and telephone communication.
As regards the geography of Ontario and Quebec, and the maritime provinces, I would not take second place to any man in knowledge of the climate, the conditions, the people, and the resources of those provinces. I should like the same thing to be said regarding the country whence I come. Sir, to reach the Naas valley I had to navigate a river where you took your life in your hands. That river is the only way in and the only way out. Now, sometimes in this house we have a rather poor sense of humour. I used to be very humorous but I have lost all sense of humour since I entered this house. When I am outside in the broad fields, where I can talk to men who are willing to understand, I have no difficulty in telling them a good story; but in the House of Commons it seems to be really futile, and for this reason-oh, I sense it from the psychological standpoint-I know that anything I say by way of pleading is given by hon. members opposite, the political tinge. That is the sad part about our proceedings here. Now, I do not think that of all hon. gentlemen across the way, but I believe there is in this house to-day a spirit broad enough to interpret the wishes of the people. Up in that valley a mother broke her leg in the fields where she was working. The only one who could succour her was her husband. He set her leg. There was no medical aid. She had to endure the agony. Now, I wonder how many hon. members here could do that? What I want to drive home is this: It is all very well for us to be sitting in comfort here; we do not realize what pain is.


An hon. MEMBER:: We only think we are sitting in comfort. We are not so comfortable.


James Charles Brady: Oh yes, you are. For two months or more this woman suffered intense pain, for it was impossible to give her medical attention; the nearest doctor would be a little over 150 miles away. She would have had to go down to Prince Rupert, and in her condition the journey was out of the question.
[Mr. Brady.3


Mr. HEPBURN:: You do not blame that on the Postmaster General do you?


James Charles Brady: No, I am not referring to the Postmaster General. I am just giving the conditions that prevail, to show the necessity of a sympathetic understanding on the part of the government. To the people in these isolated places the government should give a mail service-not a daily service, they do not ask for it, but a good weekly service. I do think that the two most important requirements in western Canada to-day are proper mail service and proper telephone communication.
Now, sir, I am going to ask the Postmaster General one or two questions before taking my seat. First, is there any chance that the wishes of all the people at Skeena as well as of the Cariboo, in which district Prince George is situated, will be met, and that a daily mail service will be inaugurated between Edmonton and Prince Rupert?


Mr VENIOT:: The only answer I can give the hon. gentleman now is that this is the first time the case has been placed before me so cleanly, and I will certainly go into it in a serious way.


James Charles Brady: Thank you, sir. Would the Postmaster General give me the cost of the baggage mail service between. Quebec and Cochrane that was introduced last year?


Peter John Veniot: I could not tell the hon. member offhand, but I could give him the rates we have to pay.


James Charles Brady: Has not the deputy minister the information?


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps he has the details. We have to pay for baggage car service the following rates: three-feet unit space, four cents per mile; seven-feet unit space, 6.5 cents per mile; fifteen-feet unit space, thirteen cents per mile; thirty-feet unit space, twenty cents per mile. Those rates are regulated by the railway commission.


James Charles Brady: I have some figures on the subject. I found that we could get a baggage car service three times a week during the summer months at the following rate: seven-feet space from Edmonton to Prince George, serving ,points en route, would cost $45.50 a trip; a. fiftyrfeet space from Prince George to Prince Rupert, $18 a trip. Multiplying the whole thing it would give us a summer schedule of twenty weeks for about $6,109.


Peter John Veniot: I will go into the matter. I should not like to take the hon. gentleman's figures.

Supply-Post Office


James Charles Brady: I would not expect the minister to do that. I mentioned1 them just to give him an idea.


Peter John Veniot: I shall go into it.


The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fiset):: The hon. gentleman's time is up.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three small items I should: like to clear up.
Some hon MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am serious about it-if you do not get too gay.


Eugène Fiset: Order.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At six o'clock the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, who is not here now, asked for certain information in connection with the tenders for air mail services. On his behalf I want to request that the Postmaster General lay on the table a list of the parties who were asked to tender for these various services, the amounts of their tenders, the names of the successful tenderers, and copies of the contracts. I do not expect that this information can be given to-day, but perhaps it can be brought down soon.


Peter John Veniot: It will take at least three or four days to get that information together, but we will get it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With reference to the Mackenzie river mail service, what was the volume of mail carried over that route?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know whether I can give that information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It could be obtained?


Peter John Veniot: I have not the information; I did not expect it would be asked for, but I will get it. I think we can get the poundage. One thing I do know is that considerable mail gathers there, and I know we had to make several trips with 750 to 1,000 pounds of accumulated mail. That gives some idea of what was carried, but we will get that information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That will be satisfactory later on. When did that, service up the Mackenzie river begin?


Peter John Veniot: During the winter; I think it was around January or December.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it still being
carried on?


Peter John Veniot: No, I think it has been
discontinued now; it was only a trial.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Who had the contract for it?


Peter John Veniot: I gave the name this afternoon; I think it was Western Canada Airways.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the Department of National Defence provide airplanes in connection with these mails?


Peter John Veniot: No. The Department of National Defence did provide some of their planes in emergencies for eastern services this winter, but only for a short time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is one other matter to which the Postmaster General referred upon the request of my leader, who is not here to-night. He requested some information in connection with the complaint of the Commercial Airways Limited and the Great West Airways Limited, that when tenders were asked for the transportation of mail between Winnipeg and Calgary these companies were given no opportunity to submit tenders. The Postmaster General promised he would look into the matter and give the information.


Peter John Veniot: I did give some information and I said I thought Captain McCall was on the way; he had been wired to and had replied he was coming to town to discuss matters with us. He has been here with Mr. Sick and has been in conference with myself for a short time and with the superintendent of air mail services for a considerable time. He was given further specifications required for such services and has left his memo. I did not have an opportunity of discussing it further with him and I understand that both Captain McCall and Mr. Sick have gone home.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Give us the figures allowing the amounts paid the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway for the carriage of mails.


Peter John Veniot: The Canadian National
Railways received $3,133,767.67; the Canadian Pacific Railway, $3,822,983.94, and other railway lines 8481,140.52, making a total of $7,437,892.13 for rail service for mail.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is there not a discrepancy between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway figures when one considers the mileage of the two systems?


Peter John Veniot: What was that?
Supply-Post Office


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If I have the figures correctly the Canadian Pacific Railway, with
16,000	miles, gets about $3,800,000, while the Canadian National Railway, with about 20,000 miles, gets about $3,100,000.


Peter John Veniot: 


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the reason for that discrepancy?


Peter John Veniot: The only reason I can see for it is that the Canadian National Railways do not give the same mail accommodation.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: And is it not clear that
the Canadian Pacific Railway territory has more frequent mail sendee?


Peter John Veniot: No, I do not think so.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is one of the cases of which we had an illustration to-night in connection with this service between Edmonton and Prince Rupert, as against the service further south on the Canadian Pacific Railway line west of Calgary.


Peter John Veniot: They may have more frequent train connections between those places than on the Canadian National between certain other places; I do not know.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is preference shown to railway mail clerks in the appointment of district superintendents?


Peter John Veniot: There is no preference
shown.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is it not a fact that more railway mail clerks than others are selected as district superintendents?


Peter John Veniot: I would not say that. Whenever there is a vacancy it is advertised and railway mail -clerks as well as other permanent employees have a right to contest for the vacancy. Their applications are received, and they go before the rating board, which judges as to their ability, capacity and seniority. They are given examinations each year during a period of years; the results of those examinations are placed before the Civil Service Commission, and their rating decides who geits the position-. There is no other preference at all.
Mr. RO-SS (Kingston): Who compose the rating board?


Peter John Veniot: The district superintendent is a member of the rating board, and in other cases we take mentbers of the board from the head office of the department.


Arthur Edward Ross: It may be that the district superintendent, in most cases being a former railway mail clerk, does show a preference in the rating.


Peter John Veniot: I would not want to say that; it would be expressing want of faith in the honesty of the officials.


Arthur Edward Ross: But there is criticism among inside men that they are not getting a show in the matter of these positions.


Peter John Veniot: I have heard the criticism and I have had one or two cases pointed out to me, but I found no ground for such criticism.
M-r. ROSS (Kingston): It does seem that a post office clerk would have more experience than a railway mail clerk for such a position.


Peter John Veniot: Not always.


George Black: I would like to
ask what is included in the item of $150,000 for the Yukon Territory. What service does the government get for that amount?
Mr. VENIOTThere is no increase over last year; that amount covers mail service in the Yukon Territory and the salaries of postmasters and staffs of Dawson and White Horse, also telephones, rentals, telegrams and so on. The staff of the Dawson post office consists of one postmaster with a salary of $5,000, plus $900 rent allowance, and three postal clerks. The staff at White Horse consists of one postmaster with a salary of $3,120 and -two postal clerks, one of whom is temporary. The salary range for postal clerks at Dawson is from $2,520 to $2,640. Owing to the unusual conditions existing in the Yukon Territory salary ranges are higher than those in other parts of Canada, and that salary range is approved by the Civil Service Commission. The balance of that amount provides for the transportation of mails.


George Black: Does that include
the amount paid the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways -for hauling mail up the west coast of British Columbia and Alaska and into the Yuk-on. They carry the Canadian mails north as well as the Alaskan mail, a large quantity of which goes north through Yukon.


Peter John Veniot: I will- secure that information for my hon. friend.
Mr. SPEAKMA-N:	Under this item I
would like -to direct the attention of the -Postmaster General to a -matter of local service within my own district, at a point

Supply-Post Office
with which I am very familiar. As some of the members of this committee may know, the little city of Red Deer lies midway between Calgary and Edmonton on the C. & E. branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and acts as a distribution centre for the settlements in that locality. The service on the Canadian Pacific Railway is excellent; and I have no complaint to make upon that point. Their service with regard to passengers, freight and mail is as good as it possibly could be, but Red Deer is also situated on the Brazeau branch of the Canadian National Railways, the branch running out to Brazeau and terminating at Nordegg. On the west side of Red Deer and on that branch of the Canadian National there are a number of small towns and villages, situated between Red Deer and Nordegg. These villages are provided with a baggage car service from Red Deer west. The small villages east of Red Deer are without that service at the present time; the two villages are Joffre and Haynes. Baggage car service is carried on between Red Deer and Nordegg and that provides for the small towns west of Red Deer, but the towns east of Red Deer situated on the Canadian National Railways are served by rural mail routes running from points on the Canadian Pacific Railway and providing the farmers and the residents of these small towns with mail service. The service is bi-weekly, and it has been felt for some time by the business men and residents of that locality that the service is hardly sufficient to meet the needs of that productive, well settled territory.
I stated that Red Deer formed a distributing point for most of these small villages, and as a matter of fact these places east of Red Deer on the Canadian National railway get most of their supplies from Red Deer. They have found it extremely difficult to carry on business and are greatly handicapped by the fact that any business correspondence eomdng to them from Red Deer or other points must travel north to Lacombe by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and in one case must be transferred to the Stettler line, and from a point on that line the mail is hauled to the villages. The result is that while they can order their goods from Red Deer easily enough the business correspondence in connection with these supplies arrives two and sometimes four days later than the supplies themselves. That situation affects not only the business men in these places where a good deal of business is done,
but also a large number of farmers and settlers who are not upon the present routes, but who get thedr mail at the post offices in these villages.


Peter John Veniot: They are back from the
railway?


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Yes. These people request that a baggage car service be given them on the same terms as it is now given to the towns lying west from Red Deer. The Postmaster General is somewhat familiar with the situation, although I do not expect him to carry all the details in his head. However, he has had some correspondence with me in this regard and apparently the difficulty is the additional cost involved, because it is fairly well understood that it would be impossible to discontinue the rural mail routes in favour of the baggage car service. Once you have the rural mail route established it is a difficult thing to take away that service, to which the farmers have become accustomed. So I am not suggesting that that be done, but I do suggest that it would be worth while to give the additional service by rail. I have here an estimate as to the additional cost, provided by the Post Office department. As a result of the proposed change the estimated additional cost would be something like $725 a year, which is considerably more than the revenue derived from these two points at present. However, there is a fact which never had been considered by the department, namely, that we will not get revenue until service is provided, and it is impossible to compute the loss involved or the revenue involved unless the additional business that will be done through the establishment of better service at these points is considered. I have asked the Postmaster General to give this service; I have gone into the matter carefully and my estimate is that the additional revenue wliich will be produced through the sale of stamps, money orders and so on, which cannot now be carried on at these two points, will go a long way towards meeting that suggested deficit. I am not asking the Postmaster General to give me an immediate promise in this connection; I do not think that would be fair to him, because he should have an opportunity of again considering the matter before making any definite announcement. However, I do ask that he again consider establishing this service, taking into account the fact that the districts are old and well settled, and already provide quite a good deal of business and quite a heavy freight tonnage.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I will go into the matter
fully.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I would like to
ask the Postmaster General to give me some particulars in connection with the St. John post office. Ini the list of post offices I notice there is a decrease in the estimate for St. John amounting to SI 1,640. I would like to ask the Postmaster General why this estimate has been reduced.


Mr VENIOT:: The decrease of $11,640 is made up as follows:
Difference between salaries of
employees promoted or who have left the service and the salaries of persons appointed or promoted to replace them.	$ 4,200
Eight positions not required.. .	11,400

Less:
Twenty-nine statutory increases
of $120 each	$3,480
Eight statutory increases of $60
each	 480	3,960

The following are the positions which have been vacant for some time and are no longer required:
One senior postal clerk	$ 1,980
Seven postal clerks:
One at $1,740 Four at $1,320
Two at $1,200	9,420


Leslie Gordon Bell: If there is a reduction in the staff is it on account of decreased business?


Peter John Veniot: No, reorganization and
superannuation; new persons coming in from lower positions and receiving the minimum salary. There has been no great decrease in staff.
Mr. BLAjCK (Yukon):	Would the Postmaster General be good enough to inform the house if the total vote of $150,000 for the Yukon territory is required for mail service?


Peter John Veniot: Just a portion of that vote is required for mail service. The main service in the Yukon is the winter service from White Horse to Dawson which is arranged for by the tender and contract system. The summer service is a monopoly, the British Yukon Navigation Company being the only company operating boats. The other services are quite small and are arranged for from year to year.

I know of no transportation costs which are paid to the Canadian National or to the Canadian Pacific Railway in connection with that service.


George Black: I notice that the
Postmaster General is now calling for tenders for the winter mail contract, the present contract expiring at the beginning of navigation this year. It is rather disappointing to see that a better service is not being contemplated. I think we should get a better service for the money which is paid, a rather generous amount for this winter mail service. The route covers about four hundred miles, with a branch line of eighty miles, and the contract provides for a weekly delivery of mail each way between railhead at White Horse and Dawson, the northern extremity of the route. During the broken period between the closing of navigation and the opening up of winter travel the contractor is only required to haul 1,200 pounds per week. During the winter period he is obliged to haul 2,500 pounds per week and under the regulations the contractor is obliged to haul merchandise paying first class mail rates in preference to newspapers and reading matter. The consequence is that the mails are cluttered up with tons of merchandise and the newspapers and periodicals are left at railhead and accumulate there all winter until there is almost a boatload of them in the spring, when they are not worth moving. I think that should be remedied by allowing merchandise to go forward to railhead at parcel post rates and it could be hauled into the interior at freight rates that would cost the consignees less than the present rates and would not congest the mails. I think the contract for the future should require that more tonnage be hauled per week.


Peter John Veniot: I am glad the hon. member has drawn my attention to that; I will go into the matter immediately.


George Black: I bel icve you
should ask for more than 2,500 pounds per week. I notice that the specifications permit the contractor to haul the mail by aeroplane. The present contractors have been enterprising enough to install an aeroplane service and they are hauling the mail by that means without any extra cost to the government.
I do not think that has occurred anywhere else in Canada.


Peter John Veniot: They asked for that permission some four months ago and we granted it to them, saying that it did not make any difference to us how they got the mail in.

Supply-Post Office


George Black: I believe the Postmaster General could get that extra tonnage hauled at the same contract price, as there will prbbably be a number of bidders for the contract. The present specifications cover only the same tonnage as the old contract, that is, the 1.200 pounds during the broken period ' and 2,500 pounds during the winter period. That is not enough.


Peter John Veniot: I thank the hon. gentleman for calling that to my attention.
Mr. 8POTTON: I intend to take up only a few moments of the time of the house, but I have been asked by friends or oy people who were friends of the government for particulars regarding the Walton post office.
I gave the Postmaster General notice that I would be asking for these particulars, and I d'esire to know why a returned soldier was passed over and the post office given to a civilian who had just moved into the riding a few months before and had purchased a store there. This is not a case where the Postmaster General disapproved of the action of the Civil Service Commission-I am not laying that charge at all-but if the Postmaster General's sympathy is as great as he says it is for the returned soldier, this is a case which he might have held up until he went into the matter. Let me quote-I will be very brief-from a letter of the district superintendent dated November 23. 1928, as follows:
The applicants given in order of merit from a postal service standpoint, irrespective of military or residential qualifications, are as follows:
William Clarence Bennett
John McLeod
Richard Wright Hoy
Carl William Oakley
John McLeod had just moved into the riding and purchased a store there. He seemed to have the good offices of the member for North Perth (Mr. Hay) and consequently received the appointment. It may be said that Mr. Bennett was not residing within the village, but I find a letter on the file from W. J. May, the district superintendent, dated December 1, as follows:
Having reference to his report of the 23rd ultimo, on the applicants for the position of postmaster at the above mentioned office, the district superintendent now begs to advise that he has been informed by Mr. W. C. Bennett one of the applicants for the position that he has now purchased the Cooperative store in Walton in which the Walton post office would be conducted were he to receive the appointment. In this event Mr. Bennett should now be placed in class B.
I may say that while the post office is in South Huron, it is just on the boundary line.
In the riding of South Huron there is just this store in which the post office has been located for many years, and three or four houses. The village consisting of a few hundred people is entirely in my constituency of North Huron as is all the rest of the business section, and the United Farmers' co-operative store would be very central. I am making no attack on the Postmaster General; I have no knowledge that he has in any way interfered with the Civil Service Commission, but this seems to be a case where for some reason or another a returned soldier was passed over who, ninety-nine per cent of the people of the district believe, should not have been passed over. If he was not a resident there for the full length of time, he was a resident there on December 1 and had a store and this matter could very well have been left in abeyance for a while until he had the necessary length of residence. I have been asked to bring this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General. I am making no attack upon his administration in the matter, but it seems to be a case where the Civil Service Commission has passed over a returned soldier and where the Postmaster General might very well have used his influence.
I should be glad if at some time the Postmaster General would give the house a concise statement of what the air mail service has cost the Dominion of Canada to the present date, and what revenue we are deriving from it. This matter of " keeping up with-the Joneses " and trying to have an air mail service equal to that of a country with a population of 120,000,000, is very fine, but I have to struggle to get mail boxes for a few farmers and I cannot get them on account of the cost, while at the same time we are placing an item of $800,000 additional in the estimates for a play-toy running between Toronto and Montreal which the Postmaster General says very few appreciate and very few are patronizing. I would plead with the Postmaster General to get away from the big interests and the moneyed classes and get his ear to the ground. Let him listen to the hon. member for Skeena and other members and grant some of the requests of those who are rolling back the map of this Dominion. Let him listen to those in the far-flung parts of Canada and to bona fide farmers who have to go a mile or a mile and a tenth for their mail. Let him get down and serve the masses before he spends millions more each year in the interests of the classes, and in trying to "keep up with the Joneses" with this play-toy, the air-mail service. As regards the air mail service between Montreal and Toronto, I really think it is a joke where there are
Supply-Post Office

three fast trains a day each way with an excellent mail service. Canada has prospered wonderfully under the old system and I am sure, if the question is one of an order coming in, it does not take long when you have three fast trains a day, and if it is a dunner that is coming in, the slower it is the better.
I would ask the Postmaster General, since I have brought the matter to his deputy's attention, to give me some little explanation for our people in the village of Walton, if he has it at hand.


Peter John Veniot: I have no explanation at
all to give if the Civil Service Commission-


Mr. SPOTTON:: Some future time will be all right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
controlled wireless beam service linking Great Britain with the dominions-is reaching a crisis.
There followed a great financial merger, together with a threat to the government that unless it agreed1 to surrender the beam service to the companies, they would .cease operations and let their cables go dierelict. To quote:
The government promptly surrendered. Up soared the market. Marconi shares, which had fallen as low as 13 shillings, rose to 71 shillings. "Buy Mareonis" was the tip. "The government is going to sell out, competition will be squashed, and we have a world to conquer".
There was in connection with that transaction a very considerable scandal: in fact, there was in certain quarters more criticism of the Postmaster General in Great Britain and of the Post Office Department generally than there lias been of the Canadian Postmaster General in the last few days.
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.
James Shaver Woodsworth: This afternoon my colleague from North Winnipeg introduced the question of the (beam system and we were interrupted1 by some other .matters relative to local post offices. Since the Minister of Justice has intimated that a ball will be introduced giving confirmation to the action of the government along this line, I do not want to spend any length of time in discussing this question to-night, but I should 'like to call attention to some of the outstanding facts in the case. I note, according 'to a resume which I find in the New Leader of November 23, 1928, that the beam system was in reality owned and operated by the post office in Great Britain. The beam system, as I understand it, is a very great ad/vantage over the ordinary cable means of transmission, kt possesses both secrecy and economy and it is aoped that with these advantages it will mark a great 'advance in communication. The beam system was instituted as ia state service by the Labour government and it compelled the cable companies to reduce their rates by an average of fourpence a word. Then the various cable companies began to protest that their business was being undermined and the Daily Mail, for example, stated:
The fall in the revenue of the cable companies due to the growing use of wireless telegraphy-more particularly the government-


Peter John Veniot: I am glad 'to hear that somebody else is getting it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Peter John Veniot: We are in pretty good company when we are in the company of Great Britain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may be, but it
seems to me rather curious that the Postmaster General, representing a Liberal government, should be so anxious to be found in the company of Mr. Baldlwin in the Conservative government in Great- Britain.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: No, it is because it is a
British government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: to yield.	.
I may say in passing-I do not care to develop this at this particular point-that certain great Canadian corporations are involved in this matter. Under those circumstances I do not think we have any right to pass this item so readily. It is true that we are dealing simply with one particular item that does not involve the whole transaction. It may very
Supply-Post Office

well be that on account of our connection with the cable companies we have a right to demand better terms of the British government. But I would repeat that our action has apparently assisted the reactionary forces in Great Britain to gain a very decided victory, and we find ourselves, as a part of the British Empire, giving over very largely the control, and certainly surrendering the profits, of this wonderful beam wireless system, I would ask the minister to give us even at this stage a little further information concerning Canada's part in this transaction.


Peter John Veniot: I gave all the information this afternoon that I could possibly give, and so did the Minister of Justice. The agreement, while generally accepted by Canada has not yet been entered into, nor has it been entered into by the other contracting parties. When we have word from the home government that there is certain information that should not be given out to the public because it is still confidential, I do not think i.t is fair for the hon. gentleman to press the Postmaster General to give any further information than he has been able to give under the circumstances.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it possible, then, that this whole matter could be deferred until the Postmaster General is in a position to give the information to this house?


Peter John Veniot: What does the hon. gentleman mean? Under this heading of "miscellaneous" is an item of $1,500 for somebody who is looking after certain interests that Canada may have in connection with the old cable service, which will be done away with after this year. Does the hon. member mean that until a full explanation is given in connection with this transaction, which to a considerable extent is still confidential, my estimates should be held up because there is a $1,500 item for one of the officials of the old cable sendee? I do not think it is reasonable.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I frankly admit,
Mr. Chairman, that the practice which has prevailed for a long time of discussing general policy in connection with particular items is an absolutely absurd one. But on the other hand here is a very large matter involved.


Peter John Veniot: 


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, not the $1,500. But there is a very large transaction involved) that of the transfer of our interest in this cable company.


Peter John Veniot: What has that got to do
with this item? Nothing at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: So far as the cable company transaction is concerned this is the very first opportunity this house has had for discussing the matter. The matter has not in any way come before the house, notwithstanding that questions have been asked and we have tried to get at some of the facts of the case. Early in the session we asked that the correspondence be placed on the table, and, as my colleague said, some six weeks have passed by and at last, on the eve of the discussion on the estimates, the correspondence is tabled-and very little of it at that.


Peter John Veniot: Simply because we have
been in communication with the British government, the Australian government and the government of New Zealand, and just lately we got the information we required, that is, that they were not in a position to permit us at the present time to place certain correspondence on the table. The hon. gentleman is not fair to throw the blame on the Postmaster General for holding back that record. It is not fair criticism.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It would seem to
me, Mr. Chairman, that we are facing a still bigger question than that if indeed business transactions of this kind are secret in their nature-business transactions that have involved a very heavy expenditure on the part of the Canadian government, and in which national policies are involved. Surely before such transactions are finally completed there should be the very fullest discussion in this house.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman will
have every opportunity for such discussion. The Minister of Justice guaranteed that this afternoon. He gave his word of honour that even if it was decided that a bill was not necessary, the hon. gentleman would on another occasion have ample opportunity of discussing the whole situation. I am sorry he did not hear the Minister of Justice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Postmaster
General understood that the Minister of Justice gave a definite undertaking that if a bill were not presented, there would be ample opportunity for discussion?
Mr. \ENIOT:	Yes, and I repeat it.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH: Under -those circumstances I am quite satisfied to let this item pass.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Post Office
Post Office
Salaries, including amount required to pay allowance to office appliance _ operators, grade 2, operating mechanical audit card punching machines in accordance with provisions to be approved by order in council, $1,375,039.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: I want to bring to the notice of the Postmaster General the discrepancy existing between the position of the superintendent or post office inspector in Prince Edward Island and that in other districts in Canada, and to ask why the classification for one district should be different from that of others.


Peter John Veniot: That matter has been up for consideration by the department for some time, on the application of the inspector himself. Mr. Whear, I think, cannot expect to have the same salary classification as inspectors in the larger districts. The district of Prince Edward Island is a limited district in comparison with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and he has been notified that he cannot expect to have the same salary rating as the district superintendents of those two provinces. Further than that, the matter has been laid before .the Civil Service Commission, and their decision is that they will not consent to an increased salary at the present time, based on the reasons I have given.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I quite understand the reasons as given by the Postmaster General, but .there are other considerations that I should like to bring to his notice. The post office inspector in that district has probably more work to do, involving greater responsibility than have inspectors in the other districts, for the reason that he alone of the inspectors has no assistants.


Peter John Veniot: I will go into it further with the commission, but that was their decision.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: For a great many years that district was recognized as being on the same footing as the other districts. It is true that when the classification came into effect in 1921 the district was abolished altogether and attached to New Brunswick for a short period. However, during the fall of that same year the arrangement was found to be so very unsatisfactory to the island people that the district was reinstated, but left in a different classification. I am not particularly interested in the official at all, but I do feel that as a matter of provincial rights the province should at least be on the same footing in this regard as the other provinces. I feel that further consideration ought
to be given to this matter. We are recognized in other respects. For instance, until this year the same discrimination existed with regard to taxation, but the Island has now been established as a separate district with an inspector of taxation. I think the Post Office department in conjunction with the Civil Service Commission should find some means of establishing a similar condition in regard to our post office inspector. Our supreme court judges and others in the provincial service are on the same footing as similar officials in other parts of Canada. Is there not same means whereby this district may be dealt with similarly as a matter of provincial rights?


Peter John Veniot: I will give it my attention.


George Halsey Perley: There is one item I think we should call attention to,-


Peter John Veniot: Which one?


George Halsey Perley: -and that is regarding the increase to the deputy. The policy has been adopted by the government of increasing the salaries of some of the deputies and not of others. Some have been increased $2,000, others $1,000, while others again have not been increased at all. This is the first department of civil government that has come up for discussion, and that is why I am mentioning the matter here, not with the intention of objecting to this vote, but in order to reserve our right to discuss the whole question at some suitable time.


Peter John Veniot: That will be all right.


George Halsey Perley: I do not understand how the government can justify the line they have taken. There are some deputies for whom no salary increase has been provided. I think they should be given an increase. I want to reserve the right to us on this side of the house to discuss the general question, which I think we ought to be given an opportunity of doing at some suitable time.


Peter John Veniot: I think there wild be no objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
South Bay, Ingonish-purchase, reconstruction and extension of Corson's wharf, $6,000.
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: No. 131.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have done enough work for the day. The Minister of Public Works will make better headway if he takes up this item next week.
Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps we might go this far. I know that one hon. member on the other side of the house has something to say in regard to this vote. It will not be convenient for him to be here on Monday. I suggest that we hear him and so make a little headway.


George Halsey Perley: All right.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I desire to bring to the attention of the minister some very important harbour and river improvements in the public service in the county of Cumberland. Last session I mentioned to the minister that at Port Greville, on the bay of Fundy, a good deal of money a few years years ago was spent in improving the breakwater. The information that has come to me-and I am sure it must be in the possession of the department-is that the breakwater does not extend far enough out to prove of sufficient advantage to the shipping interests at that point. In addition to that, during a very severe storm last fall the beach protection, which joins the breakwater at a certain point, was completely washed out, making harbour conditions at this point very hazardous. I appeal to the minister again to give immediate consideration to this matter, because Port Greville is not served by a railway. A great deal of shipping is carried on at this point, particulars of which I gave the house last year, and this port is in the centre of a lumbering district. I think the 3onditions there should be brought up to a standard which will enable people using that accommodation to carry on their regular jusinesss with efficiency.
There is another point along the shore of the bay of Fundy where improvements are also necessary in connection with a wharf;
I refer to Spencer's Island. I am not going into particulars to-night but merely mention this case in order that the minister might make a note of it and possibly include an item in the supplementary estimates to take care of this work.
Another matter to which I will direct attention is a wharf which has been requested by the citizens of Northport. This village is on the Northumberland straits, and I believe a petition was forwarded to the minister within the last few months urging that a wharf be built. This is a very important fishing district and there is no accommodation at this point of any kind. The people there feel themselves justified in requesting that some assistance be granted them by way of a wharf; it need not be an expensive affair, but 
a small wharf will enable them to carry on their regular business much more efficiently.
I also spoke to the minister in connection with the wharf at Pugwash, which is also on the Northumberland straits. That wharf is in a very dilapidated condition. As a matter of fact there are two wharves at this point, one owned by the railway company and the other by the government, and my information is that both these wharves require immediate attention. This is also an important port, and I believe petitions have been forwarded requesting that this accommodation be brought up to a certain standard.
The last matter about which I wish to speak concerns the dredging in the inner and outer harbour at Parrsboro, which is on the bay of Fundy. I believe the minister has received communications from the board of trade in this town and from other prominent citizens urging that immediate action be taken to dredge the harbour in order to enable the business of this .port to be carried on freely and to the general advantage of all concerned. I wish to impress upon the minister the importance of this port, which also needs a government wharf in the town. There is a government wharf a Short distance outside the town but it does not properly serve the shipping interests, since a great deal of lumber and other material is shipped from this centre. There are some privately owned wharves at this point but they are in a run-down condition and are not properly serving the shipping public. That is all I have to say; I appeal to the minister to give these matters his immediate attention and, if possible, to place amounts in the supplementary estimates this year to bring these works up to a proper standard and in order that the shipping interests to be served may be able to take full advantage of the accommodation offered.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest to the minister that the house adjourn now, because a number of the Nova Scotia members on this side thought we would not get through the Post Office estimates in time to deal with anything else to-night, and they particularly requested the hon. member for Argenteuil and myself to ask the minister not to take up anything else to-night. There is only ten minutes left, anyway.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no objection. I would say to my hon. friend, with regard to the matters of which he has spoken, that I know some of them have been receiving consideration, and the others will be given attention. If my hon. friends saw fit to pass

Questions
this item, reserving the right to anyone to refer to it again, I should be very glad to get it through, but I am not going to insist upon it.


George Halsey Perley: We will be satisfied with that reservation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, May 6, 1929