1929-04-18

[Stage Direction]
First report of the joint committee on the printing of parliament.-Mr. Marcil.
Second report of the select standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe).

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. WT. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it is seldom that this House of Commons has witnessed a more sudden passing of one of its members than that which has taken from our midst the Honourable Dr. J. W. Edwards, member for Frontenac-Addington. Not twenty-four hours ago, honourable members on all sides of the house were glad to have the opportunity of expressing their pleasure at Dr. Edwards' return to his accustomed seat in this chamber, after an absence of but a day or two, occasioned by what at the time was regarded by many as a severe though not serious indisposition. It is now but too evident that Dr. Edwards must have known, even on Monday last, that his days were numbered. In the circumstances his coming back into the house yesterday afternoon was but one more example of great personal courage and of a sense of public duty which were characteristic o>f the whole of his public life.
That the House of Commons has been deeply touched by the death of one who has had a long association with its affairs, was apparent this morning when, despite the lack of opportunity of having public intimation made of the funeral service which was held in the forenoon, most of the members of this house, and, I venture to say, all who were aware of the service, were present in person to pay their last tribute of respect to his memory. That tribute, and the one which was paid by his fellow-members yesterday, is much more real and adequate than anything which it would be possible to express in words.
At the same time, I may, perhaps, be permitted, speaking more particularly for those of us who sit on this side of the house, to say how much we, in common with hon. members opposite, feel the loss which our country has sustained in the death of one who, though still in his sixty-fourth year, had had a long career of public service, in the course of
1674	. COMMONS
The late Hon. J. W. Edwards
which recognition of his abilities found expression in his appointment as a minister of the crown.
As one who was a graduate in arts and medicine of one of our leading Canadian universities, and who 'had followed the profession of teaching as well as that of a physician, Dr. Edwards with his native ability was well qualified to take an important part in the public life of this country. That those who knew him best were of this view is evidenced by his return to parliament in 1911, 1917, and 1925 and 1926, and by his appointment as a minister of the crown in 1921, to which I have just referred. We who were his fellow members in the House of Commons also shared that knowledge.
I confess that those of us who sat immediately opposite to our late friend felt, at times, that some of his criticisms and censures were unduly severe ; that they proceeded from a sincere motive and from an undaunted courage, none of us doubted.
There was, however, another side to the doctor's nature which was apparent to us all, and by which I am sure he would most wish to be remembered; it was his wide knowledge of public affairs, his ability and fearlessness as a public speaker, and, above all else, a great faithfulness in the discharge of his public duties as a member of parliament.
While his loss to the commons will be great, it will be particularly felt by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I detsire, on behalf of the members of the government to extend to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition and to those who sit about him, our sincerest sympathy in the loss which he and the Conservative party have sustained in the passing of one of its foremost members.
There is one other expression of sympathy which I know all hon. members will wish to have made at this time, and which perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, will be kind enough to convey, and that is a mesage of profound sympathy to Mrs. Edwards and to her son and daughters in their overwhelming bereavement. I am sure few things we have witnessed have touched any of us more than the constant devotion, one to the other, of Dr. and Mrs. Edwards. Through all the storm and stress of his political life she was an ever faithful companion. I can see them now as they walked together toward these parliament buildings but a day or two ago, and I shall always recall the kindly smile which greeted me as we passed.
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
It was that greater mellowness which came with years and which helped to reveal in increasing measure a keen sense of humour and a genuine kindliness of heart that won for Dr. Edwards the place which he had in the esteem and regard of members of this house. It will be remembered more and more as we leave behind the harsher aspects of the conflicts of party debate which, after all, are but of the day.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the very touching tribute which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has paid to our fellow' member is greatly apreciated by those who sit to your left. Doctor Edwards was our colleague, and perhaps we who were more intimately associated with him better understood his nature and appreciated his merits, but the observations of the Prime Minister leave no room for doubt that in this house he had made the influence of his personality strongly felt, and as the yeaTs passed, his true wTorth was but the better recognized. We mourn Doctor Edwards as one of the stalwarts of our party, one whose exposition of the principles of the party with which he was associated was at all times given with conviction, with earnestness and sincerity, and for that reason our grief is more than mere passing sorrow.
While we have lost a great party leader and might say with one of old, "A Mighty Prince has this day fallen in Israel," the loss to his constituents and to his country must not be under-estimated. No constituency was more loyally or more faithfully served by the member representing it in this house than the constituency represented by Doctor Edwards. His profession enabled him to have a very singular hold upon the affections of his constituents, for every medical man who is a member of the house realizes that he has a great advantage in being able to speak to bis constituents in terms denied to many others of us. That Doctor Edwards was greatly beloved by those he represented many of us have reason to know, for we have seen manifestations of their affection in more ways than one.
While the loss to our party and to his constituents is great, I feel that the loss to this Dominion is greater still. I know of no man who had a greater love and affection for his country and a more real devotion to its well-being than Doctor Edwards. He had a firm faith and a profound conviction that

The late Hon. J. W. Edwards
this country was destined to play a very great part, among the peoples of the world. He yielded to no man in his confident faith and belief that our true destiny was to be found within the empire of which he was so devoted a servant, and at all times, whatever might be the matter engaging his attention, he made reference to that fact.
I think you will agree with me, sir, when I say that in losing Doctor Edwards we have lost a great member of parliament. I cannot recall of whom that observation was made, but certain it is that it was made with respect to one who about two centuries ago played a great part in the parliamentary history of England. Doctor Edwards was a great House of Commons man.	He believed in our
traditions. He had faith in representative government; he 'believed in the institutions of parliament, and respected and revered them. He had regard for forms, not for form's sake, but because he believed as most of us do, that in the maintenance of those forms we have the best guarantee for the preservation of the institution which we call parliament.
Then there was that side of his life which was so little known to many of us until we knew him more intimately-he was a great friend. His loyalty to his party was known to all, but his devotion to his friends was little understood. He was honoured by thousands of his fellow-Canadians by being placed in a position of very great authority in a powerful organization in this country, and yet I recall his saying to me that no man could point to a single observation that he had ever made in which he attacked any man's religion or denied to any one of his fellow-citizens the right to worship his own God under his own vine and fig tree. He had that tolerance which sometimes was denied to him. He had it to a singular degree. His love for his friends was very strong, and in this House of Commons, though sometimes his courage and the strength of his convictions found expression in terms that some of our friends took exception to, yet upon analysis, stripped of the surroundings under which the words were uttered, I think few could find cause for complaint or for just criticism.
We have indeed lost a friend, loyal, devoted and faithful friend, one whose service to his country cannot be measured by the accumulation of material possessions, but who has left behind him by his example and by the magnificent addresses which he delivered from
the Atlantic to the Pacific a feeling of faith in his country, based upon a stalwart Cana-dianism, coupled with a firm belief in the destiny of our empire and of this Dominion. These things will not easily nor soon be forgotten and as the years pass on I am satisfied that the feeling which was manifested yesterday when he returned to this House will be recalled as indicating the true measure of esteem and regard in which he was held by his fellow members. I recall, as the Prime Minister has mentioned, the words he spoke to me in the hospital only two days ago, and his appreciation of the manifestation of interest in his well-being shown by those whom he regarded as his political opponents, their inquiries as to his health and the hopes they expressed for his ultimate recovery, touched him greatly. I feel certain that his coming back to this house yesterday was influenced largely by a desire to express to those who had been so kind and had taken such an interest in his well-being his appreciation of their interest in his recovery.
I can say nothing more except this, that we do sincerely appreciate the observations that have been made by the Prime Minister, and we grieve with the devoted wife and family in the loss they have sustained. I should like to join with what my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has said in that regard, for only the day before yesterday I saw sitting beside the doctor's bed his devoted wife. Such relations are indeed an inspiration to every man who sees in them the development of the best in family life which, after all, is the foundation and the strength of all the institutions of our country. Love of wife and family, devotion to the companion of his life and to his children, were strongly manifested in our deceased colleague. It might be said of him, that though dead he still liveth amongst us. While there may be acute differences about many matters, there can be no difference of opinion as to the sincerity of his motives, the singleness of his purpose, the probity of his conduct, the integrity of his character, his great love for home and wife and children, his generous affection for his constituents and kind-hearted regard for his fellow men, his devotion to his country, his love for his empire and respect for this house of which he was so long a member.
We will long mourn him as a faithful and devoted friend whose loyalty was beyond question, whose devotion was beyond cavil, and whose single purpose in life was to serve

The late Hon. J. W. Edwards
his country well and who loved his fellow-men to the fullness of his great heart. I am sure too that we had too little appreciation of the breadth of his vision, the greatness of his intellect, and the power that he wielded throughout this country for the wellbeing of the commonwealth. Perhaps the words of a great poet truly express our sentiment:
He has outsoared the shadow of our night;
Envy and calumny and hate and pain,
And that unrest which men miscall delight,
Can touch him not, and torture him again.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last evening at six o'clock we did not anticipate that we would 'be called upon to mourn the loss of one of its prominent members. When we saw Dr. Edwards in the chamber yesterdhy afternoon we all hoped that he had fully recovered from his indisposition of Monday, but unfortunately we are now called upon to mourn his death.
The late Dr. Edwards had taken a very prominent part in the public life of this country for many years past. He was a man of strong convictions, and he was not afraid to voice those convictions on all occasions, and he showed a fearlessness in debate which it would be well for most members of this house also to display.
He was a great humanitarian. Those who had an opportunity of knowing him only slightly became aware of the tremendous interest that he took in the inmates of our penitentiaries, and it was one of his life-long ambitions to see that the men and women who for the time being were restrained of their liberty should be given a better opportunity to become useful members of the community than had been accorded them in the past.
Primarily, on behalf of the prairie provinces, may I express our appreciation of the deep interest which the doctor took in our welfare. We have heard him many times in this house debate the question of the return of our natural resources, and he discussed it on many platforms. I am sure that the western people appreciate very fully the tremendous amount of labour which he expended on our behalf in order to see to it that the western provinces were placed on an equality with the other provinces of the Dominion. I am sure we all regret that he had not lived to see the fruition of his labours.
We in this corner of the house desire to be associated with the remarks of the Prime Minister and of the leader of the opposition in conveying to Mrs. Edwards and to the family our sincere regrets on this occasion.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	How many cases for infringement of the Customs and Excise Acts were prosecuted in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, during the last fiscal year?
2.	What are the names of the justices of the peace before whom such cases were heard?
3.	How many convictions were procured?
i.	In how many cases was an attorney employed by the department, and what are the names of the respective attorneys?
5.	What remuneration was paid to each of such attorneys for services?
6.	How many customs and excise officers have been employed in Prince County during the last year, and what are their names and respective salaries?
7.	Was any payment made to said officers out of moneys received from the sale of seized liquors? If so, what amount and to whom?
8.	How many appeals were taken to superior court, and what wrere the results of such appeals?
9.	What attorney was employed by the department in prosecuting such appeals, and what amount was paid to such attorney for his services ?


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Speaker, in order to give the information asked for in this question a great deal of time and labour would be required, as the records of the information desired are not kept according to counties. We could give the information for the whole province of Prince Edward Island. If the hon. member would be content with such information we would be glad to give it to him in the form of a return.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.


WILFRED D. BOURGEOIS
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	How many years' service did Wilfred D. Bourgeois have to his credit, as fishery-guardian, in Cocagne district. Kent county, New Brunswick, and also on fishery patrol boat Pontiac, on Northumberland straits?
2.	Were his services satisfactory? If not, why was he permitted to continue?
3.	Did he apply for appointment as fishery overseer for Kent county and did the Civil Service Commission recommend him?
4.	What information was laid against him, if any, of what nature was the complaint and by whom was the information laid?
5.	On what grounds was he rejected and upon whose recommendation?
6.	Did Wilfred D. Bourgeois serve in France during the war?

Questions


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	He was not employed on a yearly basis. He was engaged the following number of days in the following years:-
Days
1920-	21 May 24-Mar.	31	2651921-	22 Apr. 1-Mar. 31	2881922-	23 April 11 daysAug.-Nov. 65	"	
761925-	26 Nov. 21-30	
81926-	27 Aug. 13-Nov.	7	
87
Engineer on C. L. " Pontiac "
1927-	28 Sept 1-Oct. 9	 39
2.	Though they were so regarded by the fishery overseer for the district, a commissioner who inquired into the efficiency with which he discharged his duties in 1921 and 1922 did not find that they were efficiently performed.
3.	Yes.
4.	The report of the commissioner referred to in No. 2, was on record. Also the member for the constituency stated that the appointment of Mr. Bourgeois would not inspire cooperation on the part of the fishermen and would not be in the best interest of the service.
5.	The best interest of the service. Answered by No. 4.
6.	It is understood he did. The man selected is also a returned soldier and was equally rated by the civil service examiners with Mr. Bourgeois for the position.


WARDEN SHIP OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	When did the position of warden of the British Columbia penitentiary become vacant?
2.	When did Inspector Jackson assume duty as acting warden?
3.	Has the said Inspector Jackson while acting as warden been residing at night at the Georgia hotel or any other hotel in Vancouver?
4.	What expenses have been incurred by the said Jackson since becoming acting warden?
5.	Did the said Jackson make the investigation and report on which the late warden. Lt.-Col. Cooper, was asked for his resignation?
6.	Was the warden's residence at the said penitentiary burned at night while the said Jackson was in charge of said penitentiary but at a time when the said Jackson was sleeping in the said Georgia hotel in Vancouver?
7.	Was the said residence a total loss?
8.	What was the value of same?
9.	How did the fire originate?
10.	W'as any insurance carried?
11.	How many escapes have there been from the said penitentiary during tlie^ time the said Inspector Jackson has been acting warden ?
12.	When did the position of deputy warden become vacant?
13.	When was the Civil Service Commission
asked to fill the said vacancies?	_
14.	Will appointments be confined to residents of the province of British Columbia?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	February 17, 1928.
2.	February 25, 1928.
3.	Yes, Inspector Jackson resides at the Georgia hotel in Vancouver, at night.
4.	Total expenses-five thousand four hundred and thirteen dollars, and fifty-five cents ($5,413.55).
5.	Inspector Jackson made reports in connection with two investigations held into the management of the penitentiary at New Westminster by ex-Warden Cooper. Ex-warden Cooper was not asked for his resignation.
6.	The Warden's residence at British Columbia penitentiary was discovered to be on fire at about two a.m. on February 7, 1929. Inspector Jackson was sleeping at the Georgia hotel, Vancouver, that evening. He was at the fire before it had assumed serious proportions.
7.	Yes.
8.	It is difficult to place a fair valuation on the warden's house. It was built early in the nineteenth century, and was for a time the residence of the governor of British Columbia when same was a crown colony. It was condemned many years ago on account of " dry rot." British Columbia newspaper accounts value it at about five thousand dollars ($5,000).
9.	The fire is believed to be of incendiary origin.
10.	No. The general policy of the government is not to insure any of its properties.
11.	Inspector Jackson has not been deputy warden. During the time he has been in charge of the prison as acting warden, there has been one escape.
12.	May 31, 1928.
13.	The warden, 26th March, 1928:	The
deputy warden, not yet.
14.	No.


RADIO COMMISSION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	When will the report of the radio commission be presented to parliament?
2.	Will any legislation be introduced this session based on the recommenation thereof?
3.	Will there be any change in the granting
of station licenses which expire the end of April ?	_
4.	What steps will the government take to eliminate the advertising nuisance which now exists ?
5.	What regulations to protect the public will be afforded during the coming year?
6.	Does the government propose to continue the present system on May 1st next, re the granting of those iicenses?
7.	Have any complaints been received from radio fans about the advertising nuisance, and regarding what stations, and will the complaints be tabled?
8.	What has been the cost of the radio commission, and what salaries, living allowances and travelling expenses have been paid each member of the commission and officials?
167S
Questions


Mr. CARDIN:: 1 to 7. The royal commission to inquire into the radio broadcasting situation in Canada which is composed of Sir John Aird, Chairman, Mr. C. A. Bowman and Dr. A. Frigon, with Mr. D. Manson, an officer of the department as secretary, has not yet completed its inquiries. It is not anticipated that the commission's report will be received in time to present to parliament at this present session. It is not expected that there will be any change in policy regarding broadcasting until the report has been considered. Complaints about advertising have been received from time to time. This matter is being considered by the commission and will be covered in its report.

Sir John Aird .	JS Remunerate t.ion	Living g allowance	<X>
to So Travelling OO ^ expenses toMr. Bowman .	. 3,185	1,380	753 06Dr. Frigon .. ..	. 3,080	1,460	920 84Mr. Manson, secretary .	1,080	934 96Office expenses: Stationery, telephones, etc	telegrams,	$1,478 43
Total to 31st March, 1929.. $21,010 41
Mr. Manson is paid as an officer of the department.


WELLINGTON BARRACKS
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Did the government or any members of the government receive a copy of the resolution passed by the city council of Halifax, the Commercial club and the Progressive club, in connection with the restoration of the Wellington barracks?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to make the necessary repairs to the Wellington barracks, injured during the explosion of December 6, 1917, in order that the same may be used again by the military authorities?
3.	Is the government contemplating the return of the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Regiment to Halifax?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under consideration.
3.	Any movements of troops from time to time will be governed by existing need and the interests of the service.


CALL LOANS
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	What amount of money was loaned by the
Canadian banks in call loans during the year 1928, and for the months of January, February and March, 1929:	(a) in Canada; (b) elsewhere than in Canada?
2.	What proprtion of the amount so loaned ivas the property of the depositors?
3.	What rate of interest was received by the
banks on the amounts so loaned:	(a) in
Canada; (b) elsewhere than in Canada?
4.	What rate of interest was received by the depositors on their money so loaned?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	(a) Call and short loans in Canada outstanding at December 31, 1928, were $265,799,886 as compared with $241,964,697 at the end of the previous year, an increase of $23,835,189; at January 31, 1929, the total was $268,037,092, being an increase of $2,237,206 over the figure for the previous month and at February 28, 1929, the total amounted to $268,422,281, an increase of $385,189 in the month. March returns not yet received; (b) Call and short loans elsewhere than in Canada outstanding at December 31, 1928, amounted to $292,693,175 as compared with $290,584,174 at the end of the previous year, an increase of $2,109,001; the amount outstanding at January 31, 1929, was $326,763,021, being an increase of $34,069,846 over the figure for the previous month, and at February 28, 1929, the amount outstanding was $328,133,789, being an increase of $1,370,768 in the month. March returns not yet received.
2,	3 and 4. Not reported under Bank Act.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Were any additional units to the powder magazine, at or near Bedford in the county of Halifax, constructed during the calendar year beginning January 1, 1928?
2.	If so, was the construction -work done by contract or otherwise?
3.	If by contract, to what person, partnership or company was contract awarded?
4.	If not by contract, what person, partnership or company did the construction work?
5.	Were tenders asked for in respect to such construction ?
6.	If so, were they asked for by public advertisement, and in what newspapers?
7.	If not asked for by public advertisement, by what method were tenders called for?
8.	What persons, partnerships or companies submitted tenders and what were the respective amounts of such tenders?

Supply-Post Office
9.	What amount has the person, partnership or company which did the construction work actually received as payment or part-payment in respect of the same?
10.	Are any further sums payable, or claimed, in respect to such construction?
11.	If so, what amount or amounts (a) as balance of contract price; (b) as extras?


SALARIES OF DEPUTY MINISTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) to an answer made to a question yesterday. The question is as follows:
What are the names and salaries of all deputy ministers, and of all acting deputy ministers for the fiscal year 1927-28?
You will note, sir, that I asked for information respecting all of them. I find in the answer brought down that the names, for example, Dr. Doughty of the Archives, the Clerk of this house, and the Civil Service Commissioners, are omitted, and there are very many other omissions which are quite apparent. I now desire to ask the Secretary of State to bring down this additional information.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I may tell my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, that there is a distinction between deputy ministers who serve under ministers, and superior officers having the rank of deputy ministers. If in a new question my hon. friend would specify the officers that have been omitted I will see that he gets the proper answer.


SIMCOE ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General if he will lay on the table the opinion of the Department of Justice to which he referred yesterday; also the correspondence upon which that opinion is based?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: Yesterday I laid on the table what I had read; but I have not the correspondence. If there is any I will table it.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: Vote 314, page 71 of
the estimates. When the committee had this vote before it yesterday it was decided to take it item by item.
Outside Service - Salaries and allowances, $17,295,464.40.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can the minister furnish the committee with an estimate of the revenue and expenditure of his department for the year expiring March 31, 1929? The last report which we have is for the year ended March 31, 1928, which report has been printed and distributed. I think the committee would be glad to have the figures, either complete or estimated, for the year just closed.


Peter John Veniot: The returns for the fiscal year 1928-29 have not yet been completed and it would be quite difficult to submit those figures. We may be able to give partial figures up to the 31st of January. However, I will have the matter looked into with a view to submitting all the figures we have. When a quarter is completed it generally takes a couple of months to get in all the returns from outside, compile them and have them ready; my secretary tells me it requires three months. Any information we have I will certainly try to have ready.


Mr. HEAPS:: When a similar item in the estimate's was being discussed last year the question of wages paid to postal employees was brought to the attention of the committee, and on this occasion I wish again to discuss that question. I believe the wages these employees are receiving run from $90 to $120 a month, and out of this sum there is deducted 5 per cent for superannuation. This is in itself an actual reduction in pay, because in a. great many cases no equivalent is given to the postal employees for the money they pay into the superannuation fund. I believe the Postmaster General has placed on the records of the house certain corespond-ence that passed between himself and the Civil Service Commission, and it was indicated that he was favourable to giving an increase to the postal employees but that the Civil Service Commission stood in the way of the proposal. Somehow or other, while I appreciate the efforts made by the Postmaster General to give to the postal employees an increase in wages such as they are entitled to, and which I believe is endorsed generally by members in all parts of the house, I do not think he has gone quite far enough. I believe that if the government were determined to give to these workers increases in salaries, ways and means could be found to do it. During the past few days there has been done by the government something which in my opinion places the question now in a completely new aspect. I understand that

Supply-Post Office
parliament created the Civil Service Commission for the purpose of determining the salaries and the conditions under which employees of the government should be engaged; and if the government have confidence in the Civil Service Commission then I presume it is quite right and proper for them to accept all the findings of that commission. Within the past few days, however, the Minister of Finance has intimated to parliament the appointment of a special commission which, so far as I can see, is brought into existence for no other reason than that he has no confidence in the findings of the Civil Service Commission. If such is the ease with regard to professional and technical employees of the government, I want to know why the same action should not be taken with regard to the postal employees. If a special commission is to be appointed to investigate the salaries of professional and technical employees, in my opinion there is a thousand times more need to investigate the salaries of men receiving less than $100 a month. The Minister of Finance informs the house that he has appointed three big business men to constitute that commission. My opinion is that the appointment of this commission by the government amounts to a vote of want of confidence in the Civil Service Commission. If the government had confidence in the Civil Service Commission it would not be necessary to appoint a special commission to review their findings; and if the government had no confidence in the findings of the Civil Service Commission with respect to professional and technical employees, I cannot understand how they can have confidence in the commission's findings so far as postal employees are concerned. In spite of the fact that the Postmaster General and members on all sides of the house recognize that the salaries paid postal employees are too low, no action is taken by any responsible minister to appoint a commission to investigate the salaries of these employees. I would offer a suggestion to the Postmaster General. There is certain legislation on the statute books in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and I see no reason why the government, having appointed one commission to investigate matters with regard to certain employees, should not put that act into operation and appoint a board representative of the postal employees and the government, with a third party, to investigate salaries in this connection. I do not want to discuss what has been in the past the policy or platform of the Liberal party with regard to employees of the government; that I think is well known to minister themselves, but I do say that, 
living as we do in an era when it is claimed there is so much prosperity in Canada, the employees of the government have a night to expect a decent living wage. No minister of the crown, no member of this house, can stand in his place and claim that $90, or $100, or $110, which is being paid to postal workers, is anything approaching a living wage. Therefore when the salaries of postal workers are under discussion I think the Postmaster General should make an explicit statement as to the attitude of the government and of himself towards these employees.


Peter John Veniot: In reply to the hon gentleman, or rather hon. member-


Abraham Albert Heaps: Gentleman too.


Peter John Veniot: Of course-both. I cannot give any explanation about the appointment of a special commission touching technical officers; that- is not in my line. All I can say is that the postal department has followed as closely as possible the act in its recommendations, where it thought fit, in the matter of increased salaries to postal workers generally throughout the department. There are some technical men in my department, but they come under another class; and so far as I am concerned, as head of the department, I have always felt that wherever it was possible, and wherever deserving, our employees should be paid adequate salaries. But the act fixes a rate, and certain regulations are laid down to be carried out by the Civil Service Commission. When an application is made to them for increases or additional help, which in some oases would mean promotion, the head of the department has nothing whatever to do with the fixing of salaries; it is entirely in the hands of the commission, and as I said before I must, as head of the department, abide by their decision.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the Postmaster General tell the house why, when recommendations were made by the commission to the government in the case of technical employees, the government did not accept those recommendations ?


Peter John Veniot: I am not in a position to
answer that question; I can only speak for my own department.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But I would point out that
the commission was not appointed by a minister but by the government; consequently the Postmaster General is bound to assume some responsibility for the appointment.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Certainly I would share
my responsibility with the other members of the government, but the answer to that question is not supposed to come from me.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Can the Postmaster
General give me any information as to why the postmaster at Rathburn was dismissed; also as to whether or not anyone has been appointed to fill the vacancy, and if so, upon whose recommendation.


Peter John Veniot: The information I have is
that action with regard to the dismissal of the postmaster at Rathburn was taken by the department following the discovery of a shortage of $196.62 in his accounts through an inspection made on October 5, 1928, and a further shortage of $63 found during an inspection of October 18, 1928. I will not say any more; I will leave it at that.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: What is the position with regard to the postmastership at Kitchener?


Peter John Veniot: An order has been issued
for the dismissal of the postmaster at Kitchener, and notice of the vacancy is to be advertised immediately.


Hugh Guthrie: What were the grounds
for the dismissal?


Peter John Veniot: On the ground of a very
grievous irregularity.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a very general
term.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman wants the information I will have to give it.


Hugh Guthrie: I have been requested
to ask for the information.


Peter John Veniot: I will give it. For some
time it was suspected that certain moneys were being lifted from envelopes, mail matter, in that office. At first suspicion was not directed towards the postmaster but towards others, but through our secret service system the postmaster was discovered mishandling these letters. On that evidence being produced to me, to my deputy and to the officials of the department I suspended the postmaster. I have gone further into the matter and found it was even more serious than at first reported, and as a consequence his dismissal has been ordered.


Hugh Guthrie: Has there been any prosecution in the matter?


Peter John Veniot: Not yet.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the government
contemplate taking steps to prosecute?


Peter John Veniot: We do not always prosecute.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there any reason for not prosecuting in a case so grievous as this?


Peter John Veniot: There are reasons for which we do not prosecute for offences of that kind.


Hugh Guthrie: I know there are a large
number of prosecutions directed against letter carriers and men occupying similar minor positions; has the minister any good reason to suggest why there should be no prosecution in this case?


Peter John Veniot: Sometimes it is quite easy
to prosecute, and at other times it is quite difficult.


Peter McGibbon: It is never difficult to dismiss, though.


Peter John Veniot: Not when they are stealing; no.


Mr. STEVENS:: Has the minister a right
publicly to brand a person with stealing when he intimates that he has not sufficient evidence upon which to base a prosecution? If there was an offence which would warrant the use of the word " theft " as applied to any citizen of this country, surely there is reason for prosecution. If there is not enough evidence for that prosecution, no such stigma should be attached to the name of any man.


Peter John Veniot: I did not use the word
" theft " in regard to this man.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Postmaster General
used the word " stealing," at any rate.


Peter John Veniot: No, I said "a grievous offence." I related the facts and hon. gentlemen can interpret them as they wish. An hon. gentleman opposite made some reference to dismissals, and I said, " Yes, when they are stealing."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the Postmaster General think he can use that phraseology in this house in answer to an hon. member and then wiggle out of the dilemma by saying he was not referring to this man? The sole topic of conversation between the minister and hon. gentlemen on this side of the house was this particular case at Kitchener, and I want to register a serious objection to a minister of the crown, under the protection of parliament, attaching to citizens of this country a stigma by telling us the offence is grievous and then going on to say that there is not sufficient evidence on which to proceed with a prosecution.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say we had not
sufficient evidence on which to proceed with . a prosecution; I said that in some cases it was
Supply-Post Office

difficult to prosecute and in others it was quite easy. That refers more to the circumstances of the offence rather than to the facility with which a prosecution could be proceeded with. It was not my object to attempt to disparage the character of any official who unfortunately has become guilty of irregularities under our system of administration, but hon. gentlemen opposite publicly asked for certain information. I would prefer not to make such statements; when an hon. member asked with regard to Rathburn I felt inclined to ask him to come over and have a look at the report instead of reading that report to the house. When the matter of Kitchener came up the questions directed at me by hon. gentlemen opposite came so rapidly that I endeavoured to give the details in order to justify my action in dismissing this official.


Mr. HANSON:: Is it not the well-defined policy of the department to prosecute in all cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft? I have understood that to be the policy for many years. I recall a case which occurred in my own constituency in the spring of 1921, before I became a member of this house; a boy, a clerk in the post office at Fredericton, whose name I am not going to mention since he has been punished and is now trying to redeem himself, was caught stealing money from unregistered letters. The mother came to me in great agony, as naturally would be the case, but on taking the matter up with the district superintendent I was informed that it was the invariable rule of the department to prosecute such offenders, and if he had been sentenced by the police magistrate to three years1 imprisonment there could be no suspension of sentence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which is the minimum
sentence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was no suspension
of sentence under the criminal code, and this man served his time, or such part of it as he had to serve until he was released on parole.
I was told that they had no recourse; that it was not up to the Postmaster General to withhold the necessary instructions for prosecution. It seems to me that this is a case which requires a little further explanation on the part of the officials of the department or of the Postmaster General.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know anything
about the details of this case, although it has been referred to me as being a very grave one. From the answer of the Postmaster General I would assume that there was some-
thing very bad in the conduct of the former postmaster at Kitchener. I gathered from the remarks he made a few minutes ago that the irregularities at least amounted to theft. If that be so, and I understand that is true, why is not this man prosecuted? Does the Postmaster General take the position, when in possession of the facts, that he can idly stand by? Surely no minister of the crown is going to hush up a criminal offence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hush, hush is the policy.


Hugh Guthrie: The law provides that a
man 'who does not take steps to prosecute under these circumstances may himself be liable for the offence of compounding a felony. I always understood that in regard to the Post Office department of Canada every offence was prosecuted. Our criminal code contains special provisions covering thefts in connection with post offices. A man who steals a dollar or two from a till may go to gaol for ten days, but if he steals one cent from a letter he must go to gaol for three years. That is the minimum sentence the law allows in the case of theft from a postal letter. I would ask the minister if there is anything in this case which precludes him from giving the facts to the house.
Mr. \ ENIOT:	No, I have all the facts.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want unnecessarily to interfere with or embarrass any person, but the house is entitled to the facts. Kitchener is one of the important cities in western Ontario, and inquiries have been made of me, and- others in this house, as to the facts of this case. I made inquiry on a former occasion and the only answer I received was to the effect that the postmaster had been suspended. I think the minister should elaborate the matter a little more than he has done, and give some reason why prosecution lias not been instituted.


Peter John Veniot: I have given all the details regarding the irregularities which would point to anything in the way of dishonesty. There was another irregularity in connection with the matter, the excessive drinking habits of the postmaster. I think that was the point which induced me rather to condone-if I may use that term-the action of which he was first accused. I am told that in the condition he was in that night he -would perhaps not be responsible for the act which was committed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not a defence in law.


Peter John Veniot: I know it is not; I a.m not a lawyer, but I know that that is not a de-

Supply-Post Office
fence. Whether rightly or wrongly, whether or not my judgment was astray, I did decide that dismissal would be sufficient punishment for the man under those conditions. When I had the matter in hand I considered his family, and also the fact that if the matter came into the hands of the court I could not interfere.
I thought it would be better to show leniency in this case, as I have shown it in other cases. I do not wish to deny that I have shown leniency in many cases where I felt I was justified in doing so, and I will show it again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked the minister to
declare the policy of the department, but he has ignored me absolutely. I do not mind that personally, but I think we are entitled to an answer.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot answer them all
at once.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to know who gives the Postmaster General discretion in cases of this kind. Does he submit them to the Department of Justice? Why should one man be singled out for leniency, and another prosecuted? Who made the Postmaster General the judge as to who should be prosecuted and who should not? I was told nine years ago that the department had a well defined rule on this point, and that nothing could be done in the case of a man who had been caught and had confessed. In this case a very serious misdemeanor-


Peter John Veniot: And who was in the hands
of the law at the time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not just sure about
that; I am rather inclined to think that that is the case. But that does not alter the principle which underlies the whole procedure. I suggest that it is a funny state of affairs when the Postmaster General can constitute himself a judge as to whether or not a man shall be prosecuted. Such discretion should not be vested in any man. If there has been thieving and dishonesty in a particular case, the man should be prosecuted. I understand that the department, undeT Mr. Murphy, laid down that policy years ago, and that it has been rigidly adhered to ever since. I am astonished to learn that the Postmaster General exercises a discretion as to whether or not any of his friends or his non-friends shall be prosecuted.


Peter John Veniot: I will say to the hon. gentleman that there is no such thing as friendship.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let me point out to the
minister-


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman had his chance and he sat down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not. I am not quite through; I have one more observation to make. It was this kind of administration which undermined the customs service of this country. We had a striking illustration of that fact in an answer given the other day by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), when he told us of the money which had been lost to this country by reason of the administration of that department under a previous minister.


Hugh Guthrie: Was a report made by
the inspectors regarding this matter?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister give
that report to the house?


Peter John Veniot: The investigation upon
which that report is based was carried on by the secret service of the department. I would not like to give that portion of the report which would reveal the name of the person making the report, because that would break down the discipline, so to speak, of the secret service.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps the report itself
will give us all the information we want. Will the minister read it?


Peter John Veniot: I have not the report here. Mr. GUTHRIE:	Let the item stand.


Peter John Veniot: I will take a note of it
and have the report here this evening. Since I have made the mistake of showing leniency in the past, I will guarantee that I will show none in the future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A moment ago you said you would.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is pure bluff.


Hugh Guthrie: Then we have gained a
point.


Peter John Veniot: Not in this discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the minister does
not mean to ask this house to accept seriously what he said a moment ago, "and I will do it again," and he was cheered by his supporters.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Not very loudly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is quite right, but
he was cheered. He now says he will not do it again; that he will see that the law is enforced.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman says
that I am not carrying out the law, and they blame me for that; I am going to carry it out
Supply-Post Office


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Postmaster General
is a servant of the people of Canadh. He is bound by statute to discharge his duty; if he fails in his duty he is subject to the censure of this parliament. He has now, from his seat in the house, told the people of the country that he plays favourites in the administration of the criminal law of Canada.


Peter John Veniot: That is absolutely not true; I said nothing of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the section.


Peter John Veniot: That section does not prove that, I said what the hon. member said I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to say what
he said. Sections 364, 365 and 366 deal with the question of theft from post offices. Section 364 reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, or for any term not less than three years, who steals,
(a)	a post letter bag; or
(b)	a post letter from a post letter bag or from any post office, or from any officer or person employed in any business of the post office of Canada, or from a mail; or
(c)	a post letter containing any chattel, money or valuable security; or
(d)	any chattel, money or valuable security from or out of a post letter.
It is the duty of the Postmaster General to place the report and the precis of evidence before the law officers of the crown. He is not the law officer of the crown to decide what shall be done. What wrecked Ramsay MacDonald^ government? It was wrecked because there was an interference with the administration of law, or there was thought to be one on the part of the law officers of the crown, and on a vote in the house the government was defeated and had to resign. That was in respect to an editor called Campbell.


Mr. POWER:: Was there not a letter involved?


Richard Bedford Bennett: ^ There was, and the Ramsay MacDonald government was destroyed on account of a lesser offence than that which the Postmaster General to-dtay said he was guilty of in this case. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) says: "What?" This is what: The Postmaster General says that an officer of this country was guilty of theft. Did he prosecute him? He says no. When he was asked: Did you put it before the law officers of the crown? he replied: I did not. He said that he exercised his discretion. He used the word "condone." Now he says: "I will do it again." Loud cheers! Now he says: "I will not do it again." Groans! I put this question to the house, and from the house to the country: Is a postmaster general, 
whose duty is as defined by law, permitted to do what an attorney general in England was not permitted to do? My hon. friend yonder is an eminent member of the legal profession.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He remembers Sir Patrick Hastings, the Attorney General, was thought to have interfered slightly with the prosecution of Campbell, and because he did that, the government went out. This country has always been jealous with respect to the administration of law. I know what is going on in, other cases and let there be no mistake; before this committee finishes with the Post Office estimates, there will be many other cases discussed. The discussion of these estimates is only starting. This is only one of a long series of matters in which the Postmaster General has marked his inefficiency and incapacity for this high office. This is not my opinion; it is the opinion of the Toronto Globe and of the Farmers' Advocate, a perfectly independent journal, which, in an editorial that came to hand this morning, reviewed his activities. I think, until we get further evidence, until the minister brings down his report, we can let the matter stand.
What is the duty of the Postmaster General? I know I can bear out what his predecessors thought their duty was. Where they had evidence of wrongdoing that might amount to theft, they understood that their duty was not to arrogate to themselves the responsibility but to place the report in the hands of the law officers of the crown, whether it be the crown prosecutor of the county or the law officers of the crown through the Department of Justice, and allow them to say whether there should be a prosecution or not.
I know two cases which were launched in my constituency. It is true they resulted in dismissal because there was not sufficient evidence on which to base a conviction, the evidence being that of an accomplice; but they were launched. Let me ask the Postmaster General:	Has he a record of any
cases in which theft has been charged against high officials and in which no action has been taken, and where they are still in the employ of the government and not dismissed? This is being treated as a joke, but it is something of the same sort as wrecked a government in England.


Peter John Veniot: I am not treating it as a
joke.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If one were selfish in
one's desires, all one would ask for would be for my hon. friend to continue what he is

Supply-Post Office
doing. That however, is not the desire. The point is not that we may reap some political benefit; but what is more important than all the political benefit there may be, is that the administration of justice should be without suspicion and without the possibility of there being dark passages in the history of judicial processes in this country.


Mr. CANNON:: Is it not a fact that in
those proceedings in England, to which the hon. member refers, proceedings had been instituted and were then stopped? That is where the trouble came in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said: there was thought to be an interference by the law officers of the crown in the case against Campbell. I referred to that because the Postmaster General put himself in the position of saying:
I am going to stop proceedings before they start. I do not think the Solicitor General was present when the Postmaster General used the word " condone." It is the duty of the Solicitor General to advise his colleague and the government. I put this question to him:	As a matter of law, is it competent for the Postmaster General, under the provisions of the criminal code, to condone a felony, to say:	We will not take proceedings? Does that not rest with the law officers of the crown, whether they be of the county or of the Dominion itself, through the Department of Justice?


Lucien Cannon: There cannot be any
such thing as condonation of felony unless proceedings are taken. My hon. friend knows that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend did not
quite mean that, or else he did not understand my question, or else he is not serious. The very essence of the provision of the criminal code is that compromising in order to prevent an offence being prosecuted, is in itself an offence. Perhaps my hon. friend has the code beside him. The difficulty is that the minister is arrogating to himself the position of a judge and of a crown officer. We are not contending that the crown officers may not report against proceedings being taken. There is not one of us who does not know what this responsibility involves, but it is one of the prices we pay for being in public life and it is one of the prices we pay for our citizenship. I know when I was actively engaged in the practice of my profession, I had, in connection with corporations, to deal with exactly the same problem that the Postmaster General had to deal with. I realize in a private company the position is one of extreme difficulty in re-78594-107
gard to compromising in the case of offences.
I know railway companies that are compelled to prosecute by reason of the responsibility involved. I know the case of a bank where a prosecution was taken and where the accused was convicted and sentenced to four or five years' imprisonment, but in two or three months he was out on ticket-of-leave. That is the executive as distinguished from the administrative side of government. The administrative side of government has to see that the law takes its course. If, after the conviction has been made, the executive sees fit, for reasons that may be good, to lessen the punishment, that is a matter of the exercise of clemency by the executive. There may be extenuating circumstances, but it is distressing, unpleasant, that men who occupy positions of authority, have these disagreeable things to do. I trust some hon. gentlemen read the speech of Mr. Asquith when the case involving Sir Patrick Hastings, Campbell and Ramsay MacDonald came up, because it is a speech every public man might do well to read. It showed how extremely determined people in England were to see that the law was properly administered; that there should be no possible suspicion. Is it putting the Postmaster General in a fair position to have him say:	In one case
I did not prosecute; in another I did. Suppose it should turn out that in a case in which he did not prosecute a political supporter was involved, and that in a case in which he did prosecute, it was otherwise; would not that put him in a very difficult position, in a highly improper position? I think he will agree that that is so. Under those circumstances I think the minister has indicated certainly a very strange disregard for what we conceive to be his duties. He says: I will do it again. He says: Just because you have said that, you watch how I will administer the law-the inference being: Some of our friends are going to get into trouble.


Peter John Veniot: No. That is unfair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why this defiant
attitude of saying: " I will do it in the future," in view of what we have said here?


Peter John Veniot: Because you felt constrained to point out to me what you thought was my duty, and if I am convinced that you are right, I do not intend that you shall in future ever find it necessary to say that I did not carry out my duty in that respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This attitude of mind
is so new and novel as to permit us to offer our hearty congratulations to the minister.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: It is a fair and an honest
one, at least.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: With regard to this
item for allowances for postmasters, I was present at the convention of the postmasters last year, and while, they appreciated very much the salary increase which the Postmaster General had granted, they felt that he was giving them something with the one hand and taking it away with the other, because the commission which they had received for many years on the sale of postage stamps and money orders was taken away from them. That was a serious cause of complaint, and I would direct the attention of the Postmaster General to it and ask him to restore to the postmasters throughout the rural districts the commission which they formerly received on the sale of postage stamps and money orders.
So far as the Civil Service Commission is concerned, I would be the last to advocate putting the appointment of civil servants and the question of their salaries into the hands of members of parliament, yet rightly or wrongly, I find that there is a great deal of discontent with the decisions of the Civil Service Commission. One class of civil servants, the postal employees, have come to me and asked that they be taken out from under the Civil Service Commission and be administered either through patronage or direct through the Postmaster General. I have had another class come to me who felt satisfied with the Civil Service Commission, and who said that under no circumstances did they want to be taken out from under it. I do not know whether it would be well to have a commission to investigate the Civil Service Commission, but some of their decisions have been unsatisfactory to a considerable number of the civil servants.
In regard to the postmasters in the rural districts, I would ask the Postmaster General to restore the commission on the sale of postage stamps and money orders so that the rural postmasters will really be getting the salary increase which they were promised.


Mr. GEARY:: I hope the point raised
by the hon. member for North Winnipeg will not be passed by. Similar representations have been made to many of us; I am not alone in that. I expect every hon. member has had representations made to him and has studied the question in regard to the pay of men such as those to whom the hon. member for North Winnipeg has referred. I would ask the Postmaster General to indicate the view of the government so that we may see if there is not some way of getting over the difficulty and getting something for 
these underpaid men. It is all very well to put up the Civil Service Commission as a buffer, but as I understand the commission's attitude, it is that if they raised the pay of this class they might have to raise the pay of another class. Well, if the other man's pay is such that it ought to be raised, that is no answer. In some way we should see that justice is done to these men, who are shamefully underpaid at the present time. For instance, some were supposed to get an increase of $120 or $240, I forget which, but as it worked out, when you take the cost of living bonus into account, they are really receiving a lower rate of pay than they were before the increase was granted. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this house should take up this matter, and in some way or other find itself able to do justice to these men. If the only objection in the minds of the Civil Service Commission is that if they give these men fair play, they will have to give the other men fair play, it seems to me the house might remedy the whole thing by giving consideration to a plan for meeting the situation.
There are men receiving $75, $80 and $110 a month. That is not enough for a man to live on. This government should have no man doing a class of work which is worth a living wage to whom it does not pay a living wage, and there are as well men in higher grades who seem plainly entitled to more pay than they are getting. I would ask the minister to take this matter up a little more fully in the house and explain the exact situation, and perhaps we may be able to find a solution that will do justice to these men. I shall have more to say when the minister has answered me.


Peter McGibbon: There is a case I want to bring before parliament and the country which I think presents the most disgraceful exhibition of partisanship that has ever been exhibited in the Dominion of Canada. I refer to the dismissal of the postmaster in the small village of Uffington, a man who had efficiently discharged the duties of this position for thirty-one years, a man who is crippled and has not walked since he was five years old. and who to-day is seventy-one. He was kicked out of office, so to speak, by this government, without even the formality of a notice, and a young able-bodied man was appointed in his place. This aged man who was dismissed has now to depend upon the charity of the people of the county. I make this indictment against the Postmaster General because he is the high executioner of officials in this country. I have asked for the correspondence. I have gone through it

Supply-Post Office
as it had been brought down by the department, presumably official and presumably complete, and there is not one single charge made in all this correspondence against that man. He drew a small salary of $220 a year, not very much it is true, but still enough to keep him from poverty. I think I can say this on behalf of the Postmaster General, that he acted in this case without a knowledge of the facts. I sent him a wire to that effect at the time, Stating that I did not believe he would be a party to this man's dismissal if he knew the facts. There has been sent to the government a petition signed by practically every resident who gets his mail at that post office, but the government has refused to reopen the question and to-day this old man is dependent upon the cold charity of his fellow citizens of the township. I say that when political partisanship is carried to such an extent that a man who has given the best years of his life to the service of his country is kicked out on the street, after thirty-one years of service, it is a disgrace to the government of Canada and a disgrace to any department of the government.


Peter John Veniot: Was that the Uffington post office?


Peter McGibbon: Yes. I could excuse the dismissal if some restitution had been made, but- no restitution has been made although as I say, a petition has been sent to the government signed by practically every individual who gets his mail at the post office. Worse than that, sir, there were three returned soldiers living in the municipality, any one of whom could have been appointed to this position if necessary. They informed me that each of them offered to take the position and hand over the salary to the late postmaster in order that he might enjoy the remaining few years of his life in ease. That was not done. The post office was moved a quarter of a mile away from the centre of population, and the position given to a young able-bodied man who is quite capable of making a living in any field of endeavour that he may select.
I feel I should be derelict in my duty to my riding and also to the principles of the Conservative party if I did not bring this case before parliament and ask the Postmaster General, even at this late date, to give some redress. Surely the poverty-stricken public servants of this country who give the youth and the mid-day of their lives to the service of their country should not be kicked out in their old age and left to the charge of their fellow-citizens. Again I ask the Postmaster 78594-1074
General to redress this wrong, and I ask also that this house urge him to take appropriate action.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member for
Muskoka has painted a very sad picture of the condition of the former postmaster as a result of his being thrown out on the street in his old age. I must admit the old gentleman was a cripple, but when my attention was drawn to certain conditions in connection with the office that fact was not known to me. However, I doubt very .much whether I would have desisted in the course I took had his condition been made known to me. My hon. friend perhaps has not all the record of this office. For years past irregularities had taken place. I am doing now what perhaps charity should prevent me from doing, but when I am forced with my back to the wall, in selfdefence I think I am justified in this action. I hate to have to expose these things to the public, but I am compelled to say that that man on different occasions was found short in his accounts. Irregularities were found in his office-


Peter McGibbon: Might I ask the minister a question?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Was that the reason he was dismissed?


Peter John Veniot: That was one of the reasons.


Peter McGibbon: I will answer that later.


Peter John Veniot: That was one of the reasons, together with complaints that the office was not in a centrally located place.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an old complaint.


Peter John Veniot: It was suggested that the
office should be shifted to the larger business centre of the district. Those considerations combined were what drove me to make the dismissal. My hon. friend says there is a salary of some few hundred dollars attached to the office.


Peter McGibbon: There is a salary of


Peter John Veniot: It was not at that time;
it was only $60. It has been raised, I think, to $100 in the ordinary way. I find the total revenue of the office is only $252.


Peter McGibbon: That has nothing to do with it.


Peter John Veniot: One moment. I am pointing out that the revenue is only $252, therefore the salary could not be $220. Now, Mr. Chairman, I regret very much to bring forth such evidence as this. It is not my fault;
Supply-Post Office

I have to do it in self-defence. Hon. gentlemen who are attacking me on these changes in office must take the responsibility. On the one hand, I am accused of not wishing to prosecute this one or that one for theft; on the other hand, I am condemned because" I am not leaving in office men who are found short in their accounts. Let me explain that I do not use the word "shortage" as synonymous with the word "theft." There are many cases of shortages where the postmaster is thoroughly honest, but a continuation of these shortages shows that the postmaster is not administering his office as it should be administered, and consequently he should not be left in charge.


Peter McGibbon: Would the Postmaster
General say that this postmaster was dishonest?


Peter John Veniot: I did not say anything of
the kind.


Peter McGibbon: I am asking the question.


Peter John Veniot: I said there were many
cases in which irregularities could not be treated as dishonesty.


Peter McGibbon: Was he dismissed for
dishonesty?


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that. I said one of the reasons for his dismissal-


Peter McGibbon: I am asking for information, and I am entitled to it.


Peter John Veniot: I will give the answer. One of the reasons for his dismissal was irregularities. I pointed out that on occasions he was found short in his accounts, and he made good the shortage.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister be
good enough to read the correspondence bearing on that?


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I-


Peter McGibbon: I have the whole correspondence before me, and there is no reference on the file to any such thing.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman will
find out that there is.


Peter McGibbon: There is not such a
thing in this file.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is an incorrect return.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The old practice-a deleted return.


Peter McGibbon: Is the hon. minister
through?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Then my first complaint is that this house has been deceived by the return tabled. I say any minister that would so deceive this house is not worthy of his office. I demand that the Postmaster General lay upon the table the document from which he quoted. It is a rule of the house. I make that demand, Mr. Chairman, and I ask you if I am not within my rights.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend is within
his rights.	*


Peter McGibbon: Very well. Then I want to know why that document was not in the return ordered by this house. Its omission is absolutely in defiance of the order of this house. I am going to insist as a matter of right that every file tabled shall be an honest and truthful file. The file produced is not an honest and truthful file if the minister's statement is correct. But let me go a step further. Again I ask him, as I asked him a moment ago, if this postmaster was dismissed for dishonesty.


Peter John Veniot: I gave the reply. I said
the word "dishonesty" could not be applied in many cases to the word "irregularities," but that this postmaster had been found irregular in his accounts.


Peter McGibbon: And that was one of
the reasons why he was dismissed?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Mr. BOYS:: How long ago?


Peter John Veniot: This has been standing
three years, and with the complaints coming in from people as to the location of the office touching-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that against the postmaster?


Peter John Veniot: No. There were complaints as to the location, that the large tourist business carried on in that section necessitated that the site be changed, the old office not being centrally located. In view of that I went into the whole record, and finding these other evidences against the gentleman I thought it was time that the change should be made.


William Alves Boys: Was an investigation held in connection with it?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, the inspector held an investigation and reported.


William Alves Boys: Surely the minister will admit that the report should have been part of the return.


Peter John Veniot: I certainly do, and I cannot understand how it is not.


IS, 1929
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Post Office
Henry Herbert Stevens: The same as happened yesterday in another case, precisely-deliberately left out.


Peter John Veniot: I may say to the committee that I did have a conversation with the hon. gentleman touching the matter. He w*ill remember. I called him aside and told him what the report would reveal; I said the report would reveal shortages. I went further and referred to another matter not connected with the post office and which I do not wish to mention here; it was between the hon. gentleman and myself. I told him I would bring the returns if he so desired, but that these returns would show that the postmaster had been found short on certain occasions. Now if that is not there it certainly is not my fault, and I will see why the full report has not been brought down.
Mr. MoGIBBON: The Postmaster General has said either too much or too little. He has indicated very clearly to-day that this postmaster was dismissed on account of shortages in his accounts.


Peter John Veniot: I said that was one of the reasons.
Mr. MoGIBBON: One of the reasons, very well. I will take the Postmaster General at his word and I will read to the committee a letter signed by him dated September 26, 1928.
Rev. John Coburn,
Room 518, Wesley Buildings,
299 Queen St. West,
Toronto 2, Ontario.
My Dear Sir:
I am in receipt of yours of the 25th instant with reference to the change of the postmastership at Uffington, Ontario, and note your representations in favour of Mr. Buckler, who, you state, is a cripple and has been so from his birth; and you further state that he has given entire satisfaction to the whole community and this action will not only inflict injustice upon him but will very greatly displease a large number of people.
For your information, I may say that it has been represented to this department that the location of the post office was in a private residence and was very inconvenient for both the residents of the place and also for a large number of tourists who visit Uffington. It became necessary therefore, in the interests of the public, to have this office placed in a better location.
I want the committee to note the next sentence:
This is the only reason for the change.
Am I to believe the Postmaster General when he dictated that letter or am I to believe him to-day? That is the question to which I want an answer. I do not believe that any man can successfully lay a charge
of dishonesty against that postmaster. The Postmaster General cannot do so. I ask therefore: Was the Postmaster General telling the truth when he dictated that letter, or is he telling the truth to me this afternoon when he is on his defence? I ask for a reply.


Peter John Veniot: I was, yes, to a certain
extent telling the whole truth, just the same as I told the hon. gentleman himself privately; I did not wish to divulge to the public the shortcomings of this postmaster.


Peter McGibbon: I am demanding it.


Peter John Veniot: I did not wish to divulge his shortcomings in a letter to a private individual; and of course, if I am to be condemned for that and an attempt made to prove I am lying-


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Why did you say it was the only ground? You did not have to say so.


Peter John Veniot: I did not want to tell the
gentleman the other ground.


Peter McGibbon: My duty to my constituents is to voice their grievances in this house. Much as I love the Postmaster General I do not pretend to be derelict in my duty. I want him to give to the committee any evidence he has as to the dishonesty of this postmaster.


Peter John Veniot: I will give it; I will have
the return. ^


Peter McGibbon: I want it now.


Peter John Veniot: You cannot get it just
now.


Peter McGibbon: Then I say it is not
in existence. Furthermore, it is not true.


Mr.   LETELLIER@: Withdraw.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Withdraw nothing.


Peter John Veniot: I want the hon. gentleman to go on record as making these statements. I did not say withdraw. I want him to go on record.


Peter McGibbon: If the Postmaster General thinks he can put anything over me like that he is mistaken. I am here to see that my people get a fair deal, which they have never got from the Postmaster General. And I am not through yet; I have other cases as well.


Mr. PARENT:: You are welcome.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am greatly interested
in what the Postmaster General has said be-
Supply-Post Office

cause it affects the whole public life of Canada. He reads a letter in which he says, " This is the only reason I take this course," and he now says it is untrue. He knew it was untrue at the time he wrote it.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. My hon. friend
said that the reason he wrote that letter in that way was that he did not desire to make public the real reason, the man's shortcomings.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He simply wanted to
protect the man as far as he could.


Peter John Veniot: Who would not in charity?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Postmaster General
talks about charity. It covers a multitude of sins, but-


Peter John Veniot: I don't see any of it over there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not the point. The Postmaster General is laughing, but it strikes at the foundation of our institutions if I cannot believe what a minister of the crown writes me with respect to a transaction-when he comes to parliament and says, " I did not tell the truth because I wanted to protect someone." That is the whole story.


Peter John Veniot: That is not the sense in
which it should be taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is the story.
The minister writes a letter to tjA Rev. Mr. Coburn of Toronto, and in a single sentence he makes the statement, "This is the only reason why this man was dismissed." Now he says that was not the reason at all; he says the reason for the man's dismissal was a shortage in his accounts.


Peter John Veniot: No, one of the reasons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the reasons, then. Therefore when he said "only" he was stating what was not true. And he says it was not true. I ask him, I ask the house, I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) whether a falsehood of that character can be justified- because that is the correct term.


Charles Gavan Power: The Solicitor General is a
law officer of the crown and not keeper of the Postmaster General's conscience.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Keeper only of the privy purse and not of the king's conscience. But my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) will admit that it is a rather serious thing. Suppose the people of Canada could get a sort of photograph of the minister's loud laugh with respect to this matter con-

ceming a falsehood told to a minister of the gospel for the purpose of trying to protect someone. That is the position now and he justifies it. That is the position he takes, and I am perfectly content that the people should know it.


Peter McGibbon: I want the minister to
tell the committee the extent to which this man was short in his accounts, and whether he made them up or did not make them up.


Peter John Veniot: I said he made them up.


Peter McGibbon: To what extent was he
short in his accounts and bow often?


Peter John Veniot: $142.59.


Peter McGibbon: On more than one
occasion, or is that the total?


Georges Parent: You could not get any
more out of the revenue of the post office.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the minister tell
us-


Peter McGibbon: I have asked a question: How many times was he short in his acoounts? I think the house should remember that in many of these little country post offices all the revenue goes into one little box, from which all payments are made and from which the postmaster also deducts his commission, so that if the inspector walks in on a certain day and does not find the amount of cash in the till which should be there, it is hardly fair to say that the postmaster is short in his cash and is dishonest.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say he
was dishonest.


Peter McGibbon: Then if he was not dishonest why should he be dismissed for dishonesty?


Charles Gavan Power: If he cannot keep his
accounts he is incompetent.


Peter McGibbon: I would point out that
he was considered quite competent for thirty-one years under Grit and Tory administrations, until the present Postmaster General took office. However, I have asked for some information and I think I am entitled to receive it. I want to know how often this man was found short in his accounts and whether he has made up the money or is reluctant to make it up.


Peter John Veniot: He made it up in part. He was to send the money to the bank the next day; he sent only 1110 and on June .2 he made up the other $20.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In what year?

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: In the year 1927, and that
left a shortage of $12.51, which I understand was made up later on.


Peter McGibbon: When was he dismissed?


Peter John Veniot: I cannot give the exact
date.


Peter McGibbon: Then I will tell the
Postmaster General:	It was last fall, a year
after he was found temporarily short in his cash.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was that information
upon the file?


Peter McGibbon: No, none of this information was on the file, although it should have been there. I say a minister is not playing fair with public servants when he comes to the house with an excuse of this kind. In the first place, if the Postmaster General was convinced that this postmaster was dishonest he should have dismissed him at the time, but this man was left in office for a year and a half, when he was dismissed at the instance of the defeated Liberal candidate in that riding. That correspondence is not on the file either. I say that when a minister comes to the house and tries in this way to justify the dismissal of a public servant a year and a half after he has been found temporarily short in his accounts; when a minister blackmails that official in this parliament and throughout the country in this way, he is not playing fair with his great office. I say that the public officials of Canada have a right to have their reputations as well as their positions protected by ministers of the crown. If the Postmaster General were consistent and honest, and if he believed what he has said here to-day, he would have dismissed this official at the time and prosecuted him in the courts. Having done neither of these things I say it ill becomes him or any other minister to come to parliament two years later with the excuse he has brought here to-day.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I would like to ask the
Postmaster General if he would answer my question as to whether he has considered giving back to the rural postmasters their commissions on postal orders and postal notes.


Peter John Veniot: That commission has not
been taken off in the way my hon. friend seems to understand it. The commission on postal orders, postal notes and stamp sales has been bulked and raised from 50 per cent to 70 per cent. In some cases we have
discovered that this has been working some injustice, and we are now regulating the matter as we receive the returns. No injustice will be done the postmasters after the procedure is all ironed out.


Mr. IRVINE:: The matter to which the
hon. member for East Calgary has just referred is one in which I am particularly interested. I know some rural postmasters have declared that they have suffered somewhat under under the regulations made last year, and I am glad to hear the minister say that he intends to look into the matter and straighten it out. Most of these postmasters give excellent service to the public; on the whole I think they are perhaps underpaid, and I am glad the minister will take up the question.


Peter John Veniot: The commission is 70 per
cent on the first $1,000 of revenue, with a minimum salary of $100; 30 per cent on revenue from 81,000 to $10,000 and 20 per cent on revenue over $10,000. That is the present scale for rural postmasters. If this scale does not give fair play, matters will be adjusted the moment we are notified, and we are considering this question to-day.


Mr. FRASER:: Could the Postmaster
General tell us the effect of the change of regulations?


Peter John Veniot: I think the previous rate
was 4 cents per order; we have done away with that.


John Anderson Fraser: What was the charge for
such an order?


Peter John Veniot: My deputy tells me that
an order up to $10 costs 5 cents.


John Anderson Fraser: And of that 5 cents the
postmaster received 4 centd? Then :what change has been made?


Peter John Veniot: The commissions have been bulked. The former commission on stamp sales was 50 per cent, and when the new regulations took effect the commission on postal orders, notes and stamps was raised to 70 per cent.


John Anderson Fraser: Then the previous commission on postal notes was 80 per cent.


Peter John Veniot: The postmaster would receive 40 cents for a $100 order.


John Anderson Fraser: I am afraid the minister
does not see the point.


Peter John Veniot: I see the point but I cannot give my hon. friend the answer just now; it requires some figuring, and I cannot do that mentally.
Supply-Post Office


John Anderson Fraser: That very point has been
brought to my attention on several occasions; it has been intimated that the amount received by the postmasters has been reduced notwithstanding the fact that the commission has been raised from SO per cent to 70 per cent on all revenues, so it is not, as the Postmaster General would lead the public to believe, an increase of 20 per cent in their commission.


Peter John Veniot: We received some complaints along those very lines, which have been or are now being looked into. We received some definite and specific complaints from postmasters claiming that their salaries had not been increased because of the action in increasing the percentage. When their specific cases were laid before the department it was shown quite clearly that they were mistaken. I do not say that it will not affect the post offices with revenues of $10,000 and upward, or even those with revenues from $1,000 to $10,000, but it does not affect those below $1,000. All the cases which have been represented to us are the subject of investigation, and if it is found that that percentage does not give them what was intended, then another system will be adopted1 which will give them what they are entitled to.


John Anderson Fraser: Following up the argument
of a moment ago, that the postmasters claim that their salaries have not been increased under the new regulations, there is another thing which has been brought to my attention in connection with the rental of post office boxes. I believe the revenue which the postmasters derive from these boxes has also been reduced, and the two things put together make a substantial reduction in their revenue.


Peter John Veniot: The rental from the boxes in rural post offices goes to the postmaster; we do not get anything.


John Anderson Fraser: The rate of rental was
lowered from $4 per year to $2.50, or something like that.


Peter John Veniot: We increased the rental of
boxes at certain places. I think I stated to the house during the session of 1928, in answer to a question as to why we had not increased the rentals in certain places, that the rentals on boxes in two hundred places were below the general rental throughout the Dominion. In order to put those places on a uniform basis, we increased the rate. In some places where the rate was $2, we made it $3; in other places where it was $3, we made it $4, and so on. There has been no reduction in box rentals that I know of.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The rental at some places was $10.


Peter John Veniot: That is for the large double box. There must be something wrong with that statement that the rentals have been decreased.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not think I am wrong. I am sorry I have no correspondence regarding the matter. I bad several discussions with one of the postmasters in my constituency, and he pointed this matter out to me. I have nothing in writing so I am rather at a loss.


Peter John Veniot: I can assure the hon. member that there has been no reduction.


John Anderson Fraser: On my side, I can assure
the minister that there has been a redaction, but I am sorry that I cannot prove my case.


Peter John Veniot: I will go into it and if I
discover the hon. member is right I will let him know.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of this discussion my colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) introduced a matter which I consider to be of very great importance. Particular cases were brought up and the attention of the Postmaster General was diverted from this particular matter. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) came back to the same question, but before he could get an answer some special cases came up again and attention was again diverted.
I refer to the salaries which are paid to postal workers. It is very generally acknowledged that these salaries are not as high as they should be. This is not a matter which concerns a few individuals, as do the cases which were brought up, however important they may have been, but it is a matter which concerns thousands and tens of thousands of employees of this government. I would suggest further that it is a matter of very great interest to the citizens generally, because there is not a class of civil employees who come into such close contact with the general public as do the postal workers.
There are two aspects of this matter which we should consider. The first is: What are the services of these postal workers worth? I submit that they are doing work of an extremely important and responsible character. There are occasional instances where theft occurs, but I am glad to say that they are only occasional; I wonder that they are not more frequent. I do not say that because a man is being paid a low salary he should yield to temptation, but when a man is en-

Supply-Post Office
gaged in a responsible position he should not be subjected to the temptations to which the low paid postal worker is subjected. These men are required to collect money on their routes; they should be paid with some regard to such responsibilities. Further, there is an immense amount of detail connected with their routine work. We are all accustomed to receiving our letters with great regularity, and it is remarkable how efficient the service is. I submit that the men who are so largely responsible for that efficiency of service are not being paid accordingly.
When the matter is considered from the angle of what is required in order to allow a man to live decently, I think we must admit that these men are not being paid a decent living wage. There are individuals receiving as low as $75 and $80 per month, and large numbers who receive less than $100 per month. I do not think that anyone in this house will say that $100 per month is a living wage for a man with a family to support. A large number of these postal employees are married men, and on account of having a steady position many of them have established homes. They should be paid sufficient salaries to enable them to occupy a decent position in the community.
I have not the statistics at hand, but they have been placed on Hansard again and again and no object would be served by having them placed on Hansard once more. We all know the range of salaries, and we all know how low those salaries are.
I think the member for South Toronto is quite right when he insists that the government should be a model employer. It is not even up to the average. When one considers the responsibilities which are placed upon the ordinary postal workers, the government is much less a model employer. I am afraid that in many instances the low salaries received by the postal workers is apt to lower the general wages paid in the community. I know of particular cases in my own constituency where postal workers have been receiving less than allowances being granted by the charity organizations of the city. A condition like that is nothing less than a disgrace, and should not be allowed to continue -simply because there is no group that has the political strength effectively to demand the rights of these poorly paid workers.
The Post Office department is a self-supporting department, in fact it is the only revenue producing department in connection with the government. WThy, then, should we be niggardly in dealing with the people who are largely responsible for producing this very large revenue? The Postmaster General has
had this called to his attention, again and again, and he tries to hide behind the Civil Sendee Commission. I do not think that is fair. Some of us have been very strongly in favour of a civil service commission. We have tried our best to prevent any return to the old patronage system, but if the Civil Service Commission is in the wrong, we should right that wrong and force action on the part of the commission. As far as I can see the Postmaster General is simply making this an excuse. Again and again this matter has see-sawed backward and forward between the Postmaster General and the Civil Service Commission, until we do not know just where the responsibility lies. The other day we had the case of the professional and technical officials of the government; the government refused to take the advice of the Civil Service Commission. Perhaps they did right, but the fact is that they refused to take the advice of the Civil Service Commission and when the commission did not advise in the way the government liked, the government took the responsibility of appointing a commission. That commission was announced the other day and I presume its report will largely override the position taken by the Civil Service Commission.
My colleague, the hon. member for North Winnipeg, urged this afternoon:	if it is
necessary or if it is possible or if it is advisable to take such action in the case of technical officials, might it not be done in the case cf these poorly paid employees? I do not think the Postmaster General can escape that responsibility. In reply he simply says that he had not the sole responsibility: that the cabinet must act. He is a member of the cabinet, and if he is in earnest about securing higher wages for the men in the employ of his department, he will ask the cabinet to do what was done in the case of the technicians. There is no reason why he should not do so. A commission could be appointed, or if the minister were in earnest the matter could be otherwise dealt with, by the government itself. I would therefore ask again the question which the Postmaster General has not seen fit to answer: Does he regard the action of the Civil Service Commission as final? Does he approve the action of the Civil Service Commission in refusing to raise salaries? I would like to have an answer to that question, and then I have one more.


Peter John Veniot: I think I laid on the table of the house the other day the correspondence in connection with that matter, and it will be found that, in replj' to the letter of the Civil Service Commission stating that they
Supply-Post Office

could not see their way clear to change their decision, I expressed my regret that such a worthy class as those postal officials, whose class had been seeking readjustment of salaries, had not been differently dealt with.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then, as I understand the matter, the Postmaster General admits that the salaries now being paid are not sufficient?


Peter John Veniot: I said so. I would not
otherwise have recommended an increase.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Further, he regrets the position taken by the Civil Service Commission. Then I ask:	Will the Postmaster
General, in the case of the men in the employ of his department, do what was done in regard to the technical men of the civil service? Is he prepared to do that?


Peter John Veniot: I have no answer to that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Postmaster
General shakes his head. Then I have a very slight regard for the interest the Postmaster General has in the matter, and I think we have to discount very largely the protes-ations he has made so far.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like the Postmaster General to state explicitly whether or not he is prepared to follow the precedent set by the Minister of Finance and appoint a commission, or committee, or board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, to inquire into the salaries of the postal employees. He can say yes or no, so that we shall have it recorded in Hansard.


Peter John Veniot: I think it is unfair for the hon. gentleman to ask me to give an answer to that. It is a question of policy with the government, and I do not think any one minister could give an answer in that way.


Abraham Albert Heaps: At an earlier stage of this
discussion, the Postmaster General said that the Minister of Finance was responsible for his actions and that the Postmaster General was responsible for his own. In other words, the Postmaster General did not wish to assume any responsibility for the appointment of the commission appointed by the Minister of Finance. If that be the case, then he assumed his full responsibility for his actions in his own department. Why is he trying to shunt that responsibility on to the whole cabinet? I am quite willing to allow the item to stand over until he has consulted his colleagues, if he wishes to do so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May we ask if the minister is prepared to make that recommendation to the cabinet?


Peter John Veniot: I will consider it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have asked a definite question and I do not think an unreasonable one. The minister has stated that the salaries now being paid are inadequate and that the Civil Service Commission is the cause of the difficulty. Is he prepared to take action and recommend to the cabinet such a course as that suggested?


Peter John Veniot: AH I can say is that I think the hon. gentlemen ought to give me some little time to consider the matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would ask that the item be held over till the minister has considered the matter.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Will the Postmaster
General define the term "postal helper"? It is not clear to me what class or classes of men it includes. For example, does it include letter carriers?


Peter John Veniot: Postal helpers are those who come into the service and begin, so to speak, at the foot of the ladder. We call them postal helpers in the city and town post offices. There is a pool, as it were, there, and from those postal helpers are taken the men who become letter carriers and so forth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that include sorters?


Peter John Veniot: Sorters may be taken from there by way of promotion, but generally from the pool go the porters, letter carriers and so on by way of promotion.


Murray MacLaren: Then the term "postal helper" does not include a letter carrier? Is that correct?


Peter John Veniot: The letter carrier would
once upon a time have been a postal helper.


Murray MacLaren: But not as such?


Peter John Veniot: No, he would be promoted from postal helper to letter carrier.


Mr. CLARK:: I would like to suggest to the minister not only that he let this item stand, but that he withdraw his estimates for the time being. It appears, to me at least, that the minister has only to do with political partisanship. Here we have a matter of government policy and the minister says that he cannot speak in regard to policy. Surely this is the first time that a minister responsible for a department has come before the house

Supply-Post Office
and stated that he has no power to speak on matters of policy. Yet he seems to have full power to indulge in dismissals and refusals to accept nominees sent to him by the Civil Service Commission. He does not hesitate to disregard the law as it stands on the statute book, but when it comes down to being a responsible minister, responsible to this house and to the people of Canada, responsible for providing a decent livelihood for his own employees, he tells us that he cannot speak for the government in such matters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who can, then?


John Arthur Clark: If the Postmaster General cannot, I think we should invite the acting leader of the government, in the absence of the Prime Minister to tell the house what is the government's policy in this regard? The minister tells us that the postal workers in this country are underpaid. If he has come to that conclusion, he has probably known it for two years, if not longer. He comes to this house to-day with that admission. Furthermore, he came to the house two or three days ago and admitted that it was possible to deal with such a situation because in a similar instance where the Civil Service Commission had failed to deal equitably, in the view of the government, with another section of the civil service, the government determined upon a different course. Here is a much worse case, in my opinion. It involves a very large body of civil servants in this country, the most poorly paid of all the civil servants. They are doing a very responsible work for the benefit of everyone of us as citizens of this country. I believe it is the duty of the government to take this matter in hand and to see that these civil servants are equitably dealt with and if it is proven conclusively to the government that they are not being fairly dealt with, not being paid a living wage, then steps should be taken immediately to deal fairly with them. If the minister cannot inform the house now how they are to be dealt with, I suggest not only that this item stand over, but in view of the spectacle we have had in this house during the last two or three days of the minister's incompetence and political partisanship, that ali the post office estimates be allowed to stand until wie can get a minister in the department, who can answer in a responsible way for the department.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to be on my feet too often, but I think it is worth my while to reply to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I want him
to understand this: Any policy which the government lays down in connection with the administration of the Post Office Department I am prepared to take the responsibility of carrying out. The question that has been brought up this afternoon arose in this way. One hon. gentleman wanted to know if in view of the fact that the Civil Service Commission had refused to recognize the recommendation which I had made on behalf of increased salaries for postal helpers, postal clerks, and so on, I would guarantee or promise to adopt some policy in that connection such as was adopted in connection with the technical and professional mien. To that I replied that was a policy for the government to determine. There has 'been no policy determined upon in that respect eo far as I know, and for that reason I said that as Postmaster General I was not able to speak for the government as to whether or not they would extend that policy to other departments. That is the whole situation. There is no attempt on my part to shirk responsibility or to excuse my actions [DOT]in the department on 'the ground of the noncompliance of the Civil Service Commission in the recommendation that I made to increase the salaries of the civil servants that we are dealing with at the present moment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have a curious triangle here. We have, first of all, the Postmaster General. On the other side, we have the Civil Service Commission. Apparently divided authority! No one knows who is ultimately responsible. No one will face the issue. The Postmaster General, in an attempt to escape blamie, now suggests a third party, and that 'is the government. Apparently he does not and cannot speak for the government. He dissociates himself more or less from responsibility for governmental action. So we have the three parties: The Postmaster General, in one corner; the Civil Service Commission, in another corner, and the government in a third corner. We would like to know how to get at this puzzle.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I can help the hon. member. If he will help me to abolish the Civil Service Commission, we will then have only two parties instead of three.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think that is the solution, and with all due thanks to the hon. member. I would suggest that it is the Postmaster General who will have to answer this question. If the Civil Service Commission has to be abolished, if it is incompetent, if it is failing to function, let us get rid of it, or at least let us change the
Supply-Post Office

personnel. We hear a great deal about responsible government. If there is an absolute division of responsibility as between the Civil Service Commission and the government and a deadlock has ensued, I think there is not the slightest doubt where we all stand for the government must be supreme, and we will have to hold the government to its responsibility.


Charles Gavan Power: That is good sound doctrine.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, it is, and I want to hold the Postmaster General to that to-day As it is now, the government declines to assume dts responsibility and simply keeps the Civil Service Commision as a sort of shield behind which it hides. I do not think that is fair to the Civil Service Commission. It seems to me that if the commission is in the wrong in this matter, the government has to assume the responsibility of setting the commission right, and it has actually taken steps to do that in this other case of the professional and technical officials in the civil service. The least the government can do is to take similar steps or such other action as may commend itself to the government, in the case we have now before us. But we must lbcate responsibility more closely than that. When it comes to post office estimates the Postmaster General speaks for the government; that is generally considered to be the case, and I think the Postmaster General is in a position even to-day to say whether the government will take action along this line. Certainly he is in a position to tell the house if he is prepared to make such a recommendation. He can clear his own skirts to that extent, by telling the house that he is prepared to do in his department what has been done in other departments. He refuses to do that. The whole country should know that it is not the Civil Service Commission that is finally responsible; it is the government. If the government will assert its control over the Civil Service Commission in this matter, I will back up the government to the extent that it is necessary. I am sure others will do the same. I am one of those who believe in the principle of the Civil Service Commision, but if the Civil Service Commission has become useless, if it has become an obstruction to progress, I urge that we get rid of it and let the responsibility rest with the government.
So I submit that the Postmaster General is confusing, or attempting to confuse, the issue here by dividing the responsibility as between himself and the government and between himself and the Civil Service Commission'. We have a right to have this matter

cleared up, and I urge again that this item should be held over until such time as we can have a definite reply from the government as to what remedy it proposes to adopt in what has become a very serious state of affairs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year and the year before, together with other members of the house, I discussed this question. To-day my hon. friends to my left have discussed it with considerable vigour and certainly with great intelligence and fairness. The minister treats their appeal with silent contempt, in part at least. He has given some answers of a very irresponsible character, answers that one might accept on the hustings, perhaps, from an experienced campaigner speaking before an audience which had no knowledge of the facts and no particular right to demand them. But I want to call the attention of the minister to this fact-and I notice he is paying no attention to me; I will direct my remarks to the Minister of Finance, who is leading the house. If the Prime Minister were in his seat I would direct my remarks to him. I *am going to point out to the government that this great body of civil servants in an official document made this statement. I am going to read the whole statement in a few minutes in order to give a resume of the history of this problem, but first let me read this passage:
In view of the above facts, are not the employees of the government thus affected justified in their dissatisfaction with the present machinery, or lack of it, for adjusting salaries?
They say there has been no response to their demands, and they continue:
We look to you as an elected representative of the people to use every legitimate means at your command with a view to remedying the conditions outlined.
That is one of the most sacred rights of any citizen of this country-to appeal to the elected representatives of the people to present his just claims before the government or before parliament. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the most sacred right that we enjoy as members of parliament is that when the house is voting money for the running of the king's government the people's grievances shall be first adjusted. Now, this is a grievance; it is a serious grievance. The minister, I am justified in saying, ignores it. He assumes an attitude of indifference-I will put it that way. To what? To the request and demands-apparently justified, because he
himself admits that he recommended them_______
to the request and just demands of a large body of the civil service.

Supply-Post Office
I have before me an appeal, signed by Mr. Knowles and Mr. Gardner, national president and national secretary respectively of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, with offices in Regina. This appeal is dated last year, and in it they present their case. I think it would be rather interesting if the committee would follow the sequence of events in connection with this matter. They say:
We are taking this method of protesting against the very dilatory and unsatisfactory operation of the Civil Service Act in respect to salary adjustments.
They are not complaining of the act. They say that the act is not being fairly and properly administered, and that they are not securing their rights under it it because of dilatoriness on the part of someone. Then they go on:
Our experience during a number of years follows, and in both the reason for our attitude and for your information.
Then they proceed, and I call the attention of the committee to this:
In June, 1923, the parliamentary committee appointed to inquire into the operation of chapter 12, 8 and 9 George V, an act respecting the civil service of Canada, reported as follows:
"Your committee therefore recommends that immediately after reorganization has taken place salary revision and adjustments be proceeded with without delay. Pending this revision the bonus to be continued."
At the commencement of 1924 fiscal year no provision was made for revision of salaries and the bonus, admittedly a necessity under the existing low salary ranges, instead of continuing as recommended was reduced 33 per cent, creating considerable agitation among civil servants generally and the lower grades particularly. The government responded by requesting the Civil Service Commission to revise salaries, commencing with the Post Office Department.
On the completion of such revision it was found that instead of removing the cause of the agitation, namely, loss of remuneration, it aggravated the loss and in a number of instances allowed less remuneration than after the bonus reduction was in operation. Protests from all over the Dominion leading to the dislocation of the postal service in some parts was one result, and the following declaration of the government policy was another:
"The government's policy is that when the Civil Service Commission has submitted its report upon the salaries for the entire civil service that opportunity will be given to the representatives of the employees of the Post Office Department or in other departments of the government who have objections to file against the salary revision proposed by the commission, to fully present their views to a sub-committee of the government and to discuss such matters of differences as fully as may be necessary to insure a thorough understanding, and it is hoped a final and satisfactory agreement on the points in dispute."
That is the quotation of the government's own declaration. Then the letter goes on:
Accordingly representatives of the employees met a sub-committee of the government on June 5, 1925, giving their evidence in writing. The sub-committee of the government did not attempt to come to any agreement, contenting themselves with listening to the evidence submitted and asking questions, subsequently notifying the delegation that no decision could be arrived at till the balance of the civil service had been consulted.
On September 14, 1925, an order in council known as P.C. 1644, wherein the minister recommends that such report be forwarded to the Civil Service Commision with a view to having that body make an upward revision of the salaries in question. Despite frequent appeals of the staff side the report of the revision was not brought before parliament until 1927, allotting a -widely advertised flat rate increase of $120 with certain exceptions, the exceptions being in the majority.
Customs, postal and other employees found themselves in a position, through the manipula-ton between bonuses and salaries, of being told that having received an increase in salary in 1924 of $240 per annum, that they would now only receive $60. No cognizance was apparently taken of the loss of remuneration by bonus abolition, a loss that bore most heavily on those who received the most bonus, the lower paid positions.
What is the result of the salary adjustments under the Civil Service Commission since 1919? One illustration will suffice, and be it understood that though this illustration is taken from the postal service, we could quote others from other departments who are in exactly the same predicament. Minimum salary on entrance to postal service as letter carrier, now postal helper, in 1919, $780, plus bonus of $480, making a total of $1,200 per annum. At present, salary of $1,020, no bonus, making a loss of $180 per annum, despite so-called salary increases of $240 in 1924 and $60 in 1927. Maximum in 1919, salary, $1,260, plus $396 bonus, a total of $1,656. Now receives $1,500, maximum salary, a reduction of $156, and takes a longer time to reach the maximum. As before stated, postal clerks and other grades in other departments in similar positions, especially in the lower grades, are similarly affected.
The position was brought before parliament last session and created some debate, during which the Postmaster General on behalf of the employees of his department promised to recommend to the Civil Service Commission a higher classification as a means of overcoming the difficulty. We are now informed that he made such recommendation and that the Civil Service Commission refuses to acquiesce, for reasons that up to date we have not been able to ascertain.
In view of the above facts, are not the employees of the government thus affected justified in their dissatisfaction with the present machinery, or lack of it, for adjusting salaries?
Where to put the blame for these conditions we do not know, as we are continually buffetted from department to commission, from commission to government, and vice versa, w-ith no recourse not even that of an arbitration board.
Our requests, in view of present-day living costs, are reasonable. They are $300 increase
1G98
Supply-Post Office

on the salaries of 1924, and a minimum salary of $100 per month for- all full-time adult occupations in the service.
There should be no debate on the latter subject after scanning the cost of living figures in the official Labour Gazette. From 1919 to 1928 is a long time to carry on one-sided negotiations and 'would not be tolerated by organized employees outside the government service. We look to you as an elected representative of the people to use every legitimate means at your command with a view to remedying the conditions outlined.
This is signed by Mr. Knowles and Mr. Gardner, as I have already intimated. There is an accompanying letter in which they also appeal for the presentation of their case. My hon. friends this afternoon have presented this case once again. The minister says, "Oh, well, I recommended it to the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission didn't do anything." Then he was asked, "Did you press the matter? What is your opinion?" He replied that he wrote to tell them he regretted that they had done nothing.
I appeal to the Minister of Finance; there is very little use appealing to the Postmaster General-I am sorry to say it, but I do not think there is much use appealing to him. But I appeal to the Minister of Finance as leader of the government in the house at the present time: Is it reasonable, is it fair that these employees should be driven from pillar to post, or, as they put it, from department to commission and from commission to department, and then back to the government again? Is it conducive to good service? Does it encourage the lower paid civil servants to give to the country that willing service which alone can make for efficiency?
I do not believe I have the figures under my hand, but the other day I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) for certain information, and again we have an illustration of what I was going to call equivocation

at least it is evasion. I asked the Minister of Labour whether the statisticians of the Department of Labour, in their estimate of the minimum amount required1 for food and the bare necessities of life, had suggested $85 a month. That question was answered, no. Yet in answer to another question they say that it was figured out at $21.36 per week. Taking that figure, you will find it will run to about $90 odd per month; and that does not include many things known to be indispensable to ordinary decent living-not essential to comfortable living but things that are bare necessities. Now, with respect to mature employees, men with families and women if you like- mature employees, I say, not apprentices-I would ask this question: Will the government consider fixing a minimum rate of $100
fMr. Stevens.!
a month? That, frankly, is the request, with of course, some advances for experienced and trained men. Is it an unreasonable request? The government ought to answer that question. Do they repudiate the grounds upon which it is based? The minister simply sits in his seat, ignores the question, shakes his head and says he expressed to the commission his regrets in the matter. I should like to know just what is behind the dispute between the Postmaster General and the Civil Service Commission. The lips of the members of the commission are sealed; they cannot reply to the government. They cannot reply to the minister, for if they did they would probably be removed from office pretty promptly; some excuse would be found to have this done. The minister can come into the house and throw the responsibility on the Civil Service Commission; and he does it obviously with effect, because the hon. member for Quebec South and others are constantly calling for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission. Now I want to say, from my experience of the last twenty years, that in my estimation the Civil Service Commission, with all its faults, is the finest safeguard which the civil servants in the country have. It is this, with all its faults and weaknesses; and under no circumstances should this country listen for a moment to the suggestion that the Civil Service Commission be abolished as an institution or that the Civil Service Act be repealed. It will not do for this government longer to permit the Postmaster General to treat this matter so flippantly.
What did the Postmaster General do yesterday? In case after case, instance after instance, he inferentially laid the blame on the Civil Service Commission. But he did not tell the house, he would not admit to me under questioning, that he had it within his own power, under section 13 of the act, to correct the very condition for which he was blaming the commission. Then I asked: What about your deputy? And he said, "I am not responsible for what the deputy does; I cannot control my deputy". That is sheer nonsense, sheer evasion, simply trimming and bluff. The minister has been lauded, and desks have been thumped on the other side, because hon. gentlemen there view him as a fighting minister, because he came into parliament last year and the year before-I have forgotten whether he did the year before thai as well-and stood in his place and thundered forth his brazen defence of his actions, when we had not the material to query him and cross-check him. We are not in the habit



[Stage Direction]
Supply-Post Office
in this house of questioning the presentation of a ease by a minister. It is historic in this house, I am glad to say, that when a minister stands in his place and gives to the house what is supposed to be a statement of fact the house accepts that statement. I regret very much to say it, but after witnessing the Whittaker-Bowyer case yesterday, after witnessing the case presented to-day, and allowing my mind to run back over the dismissals in regard to which the minister has thundered forth time after time in this house-after witnessing these and many other instances I would want to check the files very carefully before I came to any responsible decision on the presentation of any statement by the minister. It is a matter for regret that one has to say so. Take the instance, only this afternoon, of the postmaster at Kitchener. The minister said, first, that the man was suspected, that certain moneys were being lifted-he used the word lifted-from the post office in Kitchener. I pause to ask the house whether this picturesque language of the minister, this language of the gutter as a matter of fact, "lifted"-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, language which-


Charles Gavan Power: What is wrong with that?
Who made my hon. friend a censor of the English language?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not a censor of the language.


Charles Gavan Power: If "lifted" expresses the
idea the minister wished to convey, why should he not use it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am referring to the use of the word in this place-a word used in the slang of the streets.


Charles Gavan Power: I don't know that even that is out of place in this house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right; let it go at
that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It doesn't shake him at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let it go. The minister said that certain moneys were being lifted from the post office in Kitchener. He said that the postmaster was discovered "mishandling these letters". And then he said: "I have gone further into the matter and found that it was even more serious than at first reported". Then he said:	"Sometimes
it is easy to prosecute and other times it is difficult"; and my hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) said:	"It is not
difficult to dismiss", and the Postmaster General then said: "Not when they are stealing". Then, when I called him to task and said he had no right to charge a dismissed official with stealing unless he had previously taken steps to prosecute that individual, the minister said, "Oh, I did not say he was stealing." What is this house to do with a minister who will evade plain and simple language in that manner? Subsequently, during the discussion pro and con, it came out that this postmaster unquestionably bad been dishonest and had been stealing; the Postmaster General said he did not prosecute him and that he would not prosecute in the future in similar cases, and he said further that he condoned this particular case. After all this the minister expects the civil service of this country, who have appealed to him time and again, to have confidence and faith in his utterances, when he tells us that he recommended to the commission that certain things be done, and when they sent back the request unfulfilled he expressed his regret to them in writing. I want to tell the minister that that is not going to go.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have developed a wonderful sense of humour during the past few days; when these matters are brought up and we seek to bring case after case to the attention of the house we are met with ribald laughter instead of having the facts faced, the problems dealt with and the questions answered. There is no answer except this: The minister has not been administering his department on that plane which generally has been established throughout this country for the administration of such an important branch of the government. From all the mass of information we have, with much more to come, it is a fair inference that the minister has been playing politics with the most sacred rights of his department. Some may think that a pretty strong statement, they may believe it should be supported by facts. I venture to say that it will be well supported before long.
What has been the practice of the minister? A file is asked for by an hon. member under the rules of parliament. His request is passed unanimously by this house. The file is laid on the table, the hon. member goes to the labour of examining that file and in some cases asks the department for redress before bringing up the matter in the house. Then he comes here and presents his case, as my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart) did yesterday in which perhaps was one of the most moderate and gentlemanly speeches delivered in this house this session. There was not a word or syllable, not an action of a gesture
Supply-Post Office

which could be complained of in that presentation; fact after fact was brought out, and what was the answer? The minister rummaged among some papers on his desk and brought out a document from which he quoted some extracts; then he charged my 'hon. friend with an attempt to deceive the house. No more unfair and more unparliamentary reply has been given any member during this or many past sessions by a minister of the crown, especially when that member depended upon the fairness and the honesty of the department to furnish all the papers upon which he based his case.
This afternoon another hon. member presented another case based upon a file for which he moved in this house, as is his right; his request was granted unanimously, and again we had the same spectacle. The minister pulled out a paper from which he pretended to quote, but when he was asked to lay it on the table he could not do so and did not do so; he threw out the inference that there was something terrible in that paper which would wreck the life of my hon. friend's constituent. The minister has done that scores of times; he has tried to run the bluff, "Oh, my hon. friends are forcing me into this; I did not want to publish the name of this or that man." With tears in his voice the Postmaster General complains that we are forcing him to take this action. Why was not that report on file; why was it not disclosed? When it was disclosed, what did it amount to? It had reference to a poor old country postmaster, receiving a salary of $60 a year, who had kept his post office for thirty-one years. Two years ago an inspector walked into his office and found him short in his accounts. We have not the report of the responsible officer of the department; we have simply the innuendos of the minister implying that this poor old man, who has been in the employ of the government for thirty years, has been dishonest. He does not make the direct statement; he is too cute for that, but he makes an insinuation and an innuendo.


Peter John Veniot: There was no insinuation
about it; I told the hon. gentleman that if the file was not complete I would look into it.	*


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was an insinuation and an innuendo that the man was dishonest, and when we obtained the facts they disclosed nothing of the kind.


Peter John Veniot: The inspector's official report is there and it will be produced.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it will be produced, but why was it not on the file? Do not mind

us; why did not the minister place it on the file for the information of his own friends, who have as much right to it as the man who asked for it? That is a document of parliament, not a document belonging to the hon. member for Muskoka.
What were the facts disclosed by the minister? They were that this old man, thirty-one years in the government service, was found short in his accounts by an inspector who walked into his house, where the office was kept, and checked him up. Everyone knows that in these small post offices scattered all over Canada by the thousands inaccuracies of account are frequently found. I do not say, with the minister, that I condone this sort of thing; I do not condone it, but I venture to say that when the report comes down-and we have a right to see the correspondence and all the documents attached to the report; we do not want any more slippery evasion-it will disclose that the responsible officer of the department did not find this man to be dishonest. But in any case, if he was dishonest why was he not proceeded against two years ago, when the offence was discovered?
Then the minister said, "Oh, that was only one of the reasons," but we find a letter written by the minister to a clergyman stating that the sole reason was something quite different. The minister gets up before the house and says brazenly, "I did not want to ruin this man's character." Let me tell the minister that there is no safer custodian of a confidential communication about a man's character than a gentleman of the cloth, a clergyman of any church; he is the proper man to whom these things might be disclosed. The clergyman to whom that letter was written was the proper person to receive any confidential information that there was something more in this dismissal, but that was not done. These facts were hidden; the report is not included in the file, and the minister says, "I would rather not do this but you are forcing my hand." When a flagrant case of violation of the act is brought to his attention, and the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) mentions an instance where the son of a widowed mother is given three years in the penitentiary for a less aggravated case, and he is asked to explain, what does he say? He says, "In future I will observe the law; I will prosecute; I will put these fellows over the road; I will show you."


Peter John Veniot: I never used the term,
" I will show you."

Supply-Post Office


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right, I will withdraw that. There has not been an instance since the minister has been in the house where he could not slip out when he was caught in a fair argument. What did he do? He stood in his place twice or thrice and he said, " Oh, you will not have anything to complain of in the future; I will enforce this law." It is the mannerisms of the minister which convey more than his words.


Peter John Veniot: The mannerisms of the
hon. gentleman are beautiful.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is peculiarly proud
of his ability to bluff, and he has been trying to bluff this house for three years. Time will not permit at the present-there will be ample time to do it before the item passes -to show the instances where the minister has been less than frank with the house. It is about time that the government met and considered the whole question of the administration of the Post Office department under the hon. minister. His predecessor, the Hon. Charles Murphy, was not guilty of this sort of thing. When the hon. gentleman who now presides over this house was Postmaster General, he was not guilty of it. There was little cause for complaint with regard to the administration of this department until the hon. minister was brought up from the province of New Brunswick to take this high position. He has failed utterly to appreciate the ordinary amenities of this house. Not one of his colleagues does that, and I criticize-


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member said the
same thing last year regarding the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke); he will likely cover the whole cabinet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I said about the
Minister of Immigration last year, and what I will say this year when the estimates come up, is that I had a high regard for the minister's character. I think perhaps there are few men in this house who have a finer character than he has. But that did not prevent me from saying then, as I will say when the estimates come up-the hon. minister has forced me into this argument-that the Minister of Immigration is not competent properly to administer his department. During my long experience in this house I have never known of another minister who has attempted to put his estimates through in the manner adopted by the Postmaster General.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. VENIOT: Before recess, I promised to place on the table a report in connection with the Kitchener affair. I have the report under my hand and in placing it on the table. I request that it be not made public. It is a secret report with information on which we base our action, and I feel justified in asking the committee not to allow it to go to the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think it might be tabled leaving out the names of the operators, because we do not desire to make it public?


Peter John Veniot: I shall place it on the table. In connection with the Uffington matter, I endeavoured to get in touch with the various branches and as I had three branches of the department to communicate with, it was impossible to do so in the short time between six and eight o'clock. I shall therefore crave the indulgence of the house to permit me t0 place the balance of the report on the table to-morrow as soon as the house opens.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has the minister
had time to consider the question of an increase in salary for the postal employees?


Peter John Veniot: So far as I am concerned as the minister in charge of one of the departments, I have very seriously considered an increase in salary to the officials under discussion. Not only the latter part of last year, but the previous year I did what I considered to be my duty in connection with the recommendations I sent to the Civil Service Commission. It is not for me to criticize the action of the commission in refusing the request that I sent to them.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me to state whether or not it was the intention of the government to proceed in this case along the same lines as those adopted in connection with the technical employees. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the government to find whether it is their intention to proceed along those lines; but may I point out that, to my mind, the two cases are not similar. In one case the Civil Service Commission recommended an increase to the technical employees of the various departments, and when the increase was recommended by them it was thought necessary that the matter should be further looked into in order to see how those technical men should be classified. In the case referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg

Supply-Post Office

North Centre the Civil Service Commission did not recommend any increase and under the Civil Service Act, as I understand it, the matter lies there for the present. I can assure the hon. gentleman I have done what I consider to be my duty under the circumstances, and if there is any other effort I can make on behalf of those men, I am prepared to make it. I am not at this moment prepared to say in what direction that effort will be.


Mr. STINSON:: The minister has been
called by some papers of Canada "the political guillotine." Either he is entitled to that name or he is not, and the only way to clear up the situation is to take these cases individually, present the facts fairly, get all the information before the committee, and give the minister an opportunity of making his defence. If he makes an adequate defence, he should give us credit for affording him an opportunity to do so. If we bring these cases forward, present all the facts fairly, and give him that opportunity, then the country will be satisfied.
I purpose dealing with the dismissal of a postmaster at Pieton, the overriding of the appointment by the Civil Service Commission, and the appointment instead of a nominee of the Postmaster General. I have the file from which I am going to give the facts as fairly as I can and if I leave out any documents or parts thereof that the minister thinks should be included, I should be glad if he would call my attention to the matter in order that we may have the facts fairly and squarely before the public. Smith, who was postmaster at Pieton, was dismissed on the fourth day of August, 1927, for political partisanship. The order of the privy council sets forth that this was the basis of his dismissal. The case was investigated by Mr. J. A. S. Plouffe, a barrister of Sudbury, who finds him guilty, largely, in my opinion, on suspicion, and that is as set forth in>
Plouffe's own report of the matter. After setting forth the evidence that he had taken, he makes the following finding:
It is interesting to note that the mail always came regularly to the box-holders, except during the electoral campaigns aforesaid. The majority of the witnesses making complaints were known to be active partisans for either Mr. Horsey or Hon. Mr. Raney. I infer from the evidence that the delay or non-receipt of the mail, as the ease may be, was caused by either one of the postmasters at Pieton, Wellington or Milford.
Finally, he says:
I suspect that a great number of these irregularities originated at the Pieton post office and were caused to be made by the postmaster himself or by his servants. The post-

master says that he was not aware of what was going on. It might be so, but he, who is responsible for the work, conduct and behaviour of his servants during office hours cannot entrench himself behind the excuse that he does not know what is being done or said by them. If he had no actual knowledge of what took place in these particular instances, he had at least constructive knowledge of it.
And then he finds him guilty of partisanship and recommends his dismissal. That was a dismissal on suspicion rather than on an actual finding. Smith, in making his defence, denies very categorically the charges that were made against him, and even puts it up to one witness to say whether the evidence he gave was true or false. He says:
I also wish to draw your attention to the statement made to the court by Robert Purtelle, who seemed to act for the complainant. When I was being sworn I made oath saying I had not done one act of partisanship in any way or even knew of a single piece of mail unduly held in Pieton post office. I asked Mr. Purtelle if he believed what I had sworn to, and he frankly and truly stated to the court he did so believe.
The Postmaster General recommended the dismissal of Smith for partisanship and at the same time gave instructions that the office be placed in the charge and control of Robert J. Purtelle, who was the secretary of the Liberal association, and who, in his sworn evidence, stated that he had been the organizer for both Mr. Horsey and Mr. Raney in the last two campaigns. The attention of the Postmaster General or of his department was called to the fact that a man by the name of Gerald H. Way, then assistant postmaster at Pieton was an applicant for the position. He also was a soldier, with an honourable discharge given in January, 1919.


Peter John Veniot: Does the hon. gentleman
say that Mr. Way was a returned soldier?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: I said that he was a
soldier with an honourable discharge. He was not overseas, and I am making no such claim.


Peter John Veniot: I just wanted that made
clear.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: The Postmaster General
prior to the dismissal of Smith wrote asking to have Purtelle placed in charge, under date of July 25, 1927, as follows:
As the postmaster at Pieton, Ontario, has been found guilty of political partisanship and he will be dismissed by an order in council, just as soon as such an order is passed you will appoint Mr. Robert J. Purtelle as temporary postmaster.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who was he?

Supply-Post Office


Thomas Hubert Stinson: He was secretary of the
Liberal association, also the Liberal organizer for Mr. Horsey and Mr. Raney in the last two campaigns.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They being the defeated candidates?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: Yes. There is no evidence on file as to why Purtelle should be appointed over Mr. Way, who was the assistant postmaster and was an applicant for the position. Mr. Way had had some twenty-three years experience in that post office, and he was then on duty there. Apparently the only basis there was for the appointment of Robert J. Purtelle is contained in a letter written by one Masten of Bloomfield, who sets out Purtelle's qualifications in that letter. This letter was written to the district superintendent and passed on by him with his report to the Civil Service Commission. The first paragraph reads as follows:
Regarding the appointment of a postmaster for the town of Picton, I beg to present a few reasons why the present incumbent Mr. Robert Purtelle might be confirmed in the position to the advantage of the service, the gratification of his host of friends, and in recognition of his public spirit and vigorous intelligent effort in the service of the country and in promoting the cause of Liberalism.
The last clause of that letter reads:
Mr. Purtelle and his family are staunch Liberals and people of influence in this county, and I, like many others, feel that splendid service will be assured, the public pleased, and the Liberal cause advanced by his permanent appointment to the office.
That is the only thing I have been able to find on the file as a reason for Mr. Purtelle's appointment over Mr. Way, who has had twenty-three years experience in that office.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who wrote that letter?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: It was written by S. Edgar Masten, of Bloomfield.


Peter John Veniot: To whom?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: To the district postal superintendent and passed on by him to the Civil Service Commission, with a report on the parties to be appointed. Following this applications were asked for. The office was duly advertised, and the applications were in by the 18th of October. The Civil Service Commission asked for a report from the district superintendent at Ottawa, under date of November 21, 1927:
With reference to your communication of the 13th ultimo advising that the postmastership at Picton, Ontario, has become vacant through the dismissal of Mr. S. A. Smith, thie commissioners would be pleased to receive the report of the district superintendent im this connection at your earliest convenience.
7S594-1084
That letter is addressed to the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General at Ottawa by the secretary of the Civil Service Commission. The report was supplied to the Post Office Department on the 5th of December, 1927, but it never was forwarded to the Civil Service Commission until the 23rd day of December of that year.
It seems to me that if the Civil Service Act is to be fairly administered, the Civil Service Commission should have an inspector of their own to make reports instead of depending on the inspector of the department. That would ensure an independent report. The report of District Inspector Low is dated December 5, 1927. In it he sets out that the office is a class 2B office, and he classifies the applicants. I will give the particulars regarding Purtelle and Way:
Robert J. Purtelle
Educational qualifications-Good.
Accommodation offered-Government building.
Location offered-Centrally located.
Residential qualifications-20 years.
Experience-3 months post office experience.
Character and integrity-Good.
Time willing to give to post office-Full time.
Gerald H. Way
Eucational qualifications-Good.
Accommodation offered-Government building.
Location offered-Centrally located.
Residential qualifications-40 years.
Experience-20 years post office experience.
Character and integrity-Good.
Time willing to give to Post office-Full time.
The applicants rank in order of merit, from a post office standpoint, as follows:
Gerald H. Way is a man of fine appearance foTty-three years of age. He was born and brought up in Picton and has lived there practically all his life. He is well known, and bears a splendid reputation, and seems to be very popular. Mr. Way enlisted in 1918, but did not accompany a regiment overseas. He was in training at Petawawa camp, and was honourably discharged in January, 1919, He entered the post office in 1905 as a clerk where he has been employed. He became assistant postmaster in 1911, and has a thorough knowledge of post office work. He is a person of good habits, and commands the respect of all who come in contact with him. Mr. Way is single and resides with his father.
Robert J. Purtelle is widely known in the vicinity of Picton where he has resided for twenty years. He is well educated, having taught school for a number of years, thence going into the canning business, and latterly conducting a seed store. He is a clean living person and bears a good character. Mr. Purtelle was appointed acting postmaster in September, and although not yet thoroughly familiar with the workings of the office no doubt would be efficient as he is making an earnest effort to be successful.
The Civil Service Commission received that report on December 23, 1927, and issued their
Supply-Post Office

certificate of appointment to Gerald H. Way, on February 13, 1928. It is -the usual form of certificate issued in such cases. Accompanying Way's application was his discharge from the army, which shows that he was honourably discharged. On February 23, 1928, the Postmaster General wrote to his deputy telling him to reject the certificate. This is -the letter:
With further reference to the post office vacancy at Picton, Ontario, which I authorized on February 14, to hold in abeyance, I now wish to instruct you to refuse the certificate of the commission issued in favour of Mr. Gerald H. Way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who wrote that?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: That is signed 'by the Postmaster General, P. J. Veniot.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely not.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: It wild be observed that in his letter the Postmaster General simply instructs his deputy to reject the certificate, without assigning any cause for so doing.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: A law unto himself.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: However, the Deputy Postmaster General, in writing the Civil Service Commission did attempt to assign a cause. This is his letter of February 24, to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission:
Referring to 3rour certificate of February 13, covering appointment of Mr. Gerald H. Way to the above postmastership, permit me to inform you that this matter has received the attention of the Postmaster General, and to state that Mr. Way is hereby rejected as unsuitable under section 13 of the Civil Service Act.
Section 13 of the Civil Service Act, which will be found in volume 1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, deals with an entirely different matter altogether. It reads as follows:
The rate of compensation of an employee upon appointment to a position in any class in the civil service shall be at the minimum rate prescribed for the class; provided, however, that when the appointee is already in the civil service in another position, the rate of compensation upon appointment to the new position either through transfer or promotion shall be the same as that received before such appointment or, if there be no such rate for the new class, then at the next higher rate, but no appointment shall in any case be made at less than the minimum or at more than the maximum rate prescribed for a class.
There is no doubt that the Deputy Postmaster General intended to refer to section 24. I presume there has been a re-numbering of the sections and that section 13 in the old act has become section. 24 in the new one. Section 24 reads as follows:
The deputy head may, at any time before the expiration of six months, reject any person
[Mr. Stinson.1
assigned or appointed to any position under his control or direction, or he may extend the period of probation within which such person may be rejected for another six months; and the cause of rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission.
This explicitly provides that cause must be assigned for any rejection and reported to the Civil Service Commission. Neither in the letter from the Postmaster General to his deputy, nor in the letter from the deputy to the commission, is any cause assigned for the rejection, and that in spite of the fact that his own inspector had reported on Gerald H. Way as being a fit and proper person and had placed him in the category of merit as No. 1 for the appointment. There is nothing in the opinion of the Justice department, quoted yesterday by the Postmaster General:
If the deputy be reasonably satisfied upon preliminary examination of the person nominated that the latter is unsuitable or not qualified for the duties of the office or employment to which he is assigned,^ I think he may, if he thinks it advisable, reject him without entrusting him with the charge of any duties.
There is nothing in the statute that permits the exercise of any such poweT of rejection as the minister invoked in this case, nor is there anything in the opinion of the Justice department to justify his action, because Gerald H. Way was in charge -of the office -for twenty-three years, and the department's own inspector reports him as a fit and proper person to be appointed. On March 26, 1928, the commission issued a fresh certificate in favour of Robert J. Purtelle.
From the above facts it is evident that the Postmaster General has absolutely flouted the appointment of the commission notwithstanding that yesterday he stated- that these appointments are altogether under the control of the Civil Service Commission, and the Whittaker file contains two or three of his letters to the same effect. That, I repeat, is the view expressed by him in his own letters. Moreover, his inspector reported strongly in favour of Way, who has had twenty-three years' experience in postal work. Although appointed by the commission he was given no opportunity .to enter on the duties of the office, for the Podtma-ster General promptly instructed his deputy to notify the commission that the appointment had been rejected, but without assigning the slightest cause for taking such action.
Now, we have been told that the former postmaster was dismissed for partisanship. Well, the man who has been put in his place was, according to his own sworn testimony, the

Supply-Post Office
secretary of the local Liberal association, and acted as Liberal organizer for Mr. Horsey and Mr. Raney in the last two campaigns. If any substantiation of this point is needed it is to be found in the letter from Mr. Masten stating that the man has been a good, staunch Liberal and that it would please the local Liberal party if he were appointed to the office. Robert J. Purtelle, the man appointed, was the man who fathered the claim of partisanship against Smith. He files an affidavit based upon opinion and not fact, as follows:
I, Robert Purtelle of the town of Picton, in the county of Prince Edward, do solemnly declare that I heard Mr. Alexander McKee tell Mr. .T. H. Roberts, Inspector of Postal Service, on December the 27th, 1926, that he (Mr. McKee) was in Picton post office on an election day and he (Mr. McKee) saw Samuel Smith, the postmaster instructing an elector how and where to mark his ballot aind directing him to the polling booth to register his vote.
And it is on that affidavit and one or two others that the investigation is started. Now when we turn to McKee's evidence as given before the investigator we find it is entirely different from the affidavit filed by Mr. Robert J. Purtelle. McKee simply sets out in his evidence as follows:
Alexander McKee, being duly sworn, said in substance: That he resides at Picton and knows the postmaster. That he has seen Mr. Smith during the federal campaign of the year 1925 directing a man where to vote. Witness says that the man in question asked the postmaster where the polling booth was, and the postmaster told him where it was.
This is entirely different from the affidavit as sworn to by Mr. Purtelle. Now the very fact that Purtelle was the man who started the investigation, who gathered the evidence for it, and gave evidence, was sufficient to bar him from the appointment where a man was being dismissed for political partisanship. If the administration of the department by the Postmaster General were ever so good, is not Canada paying too high a price for that service if it is developing in the country a disrespect for law and order? A minister has no more right than any other man to disregard the statutes of this country; yet the minister has openly violated the statute in this case, 'because the section makes it incumbent upon him to assign the reason for the rejection of an official after appointment is made by the Civil Service Commission. And there is no pretence at assigning any cause in the present case. Way was entitled to preference by reason of the fact that he had twentyrthree years of experience in the post office; and he was entitled to preference on the part of the Postmaster General, if the statement made by the Postmaster General
yesterday was sincere, that he was anxious to look after the welfare of soldiers, because Way was a demobilized soldier. Way was entitled in any event to come under the provision of section 24 as to probation. If you accept the cause assigned by the deputy, at least he should have been given the opportunity to take advantage of section 24 of the act, which exists for thait very purpose, of trying a man, where he is appointed to office, in order that the act may be fairly and squarely administered.
Now I have read into the record the letters and documents that fairly deal with the matter and I do not think I have left out any part that really adds to the file in any way. But the whole thing is absolutely clear on its face, that Purtelle was appointed for no other reason that that he was a political partisan, and that Smith was dismissed fo. alleged political partisanship as to which there was absolutely no direct evidence; because the investigator says, "I suspect these things are true", but he does not give it as a finding. I submit, in view of the facts, that the minister had no right to do what he did and that there was no authority, either in the act or under the legal opinion from the law offices, giving him the right to act as he has done in this case.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member having treated the Picton post office question, it is but right that I should tell the other side of the story. I am charged with refusing to appoint Mr. Way because, first, he was a soldier; it is said I should not have refused him. Under the Civil Service Act Mr. Way, as a soldier training at Petawawa camp, where he was, had no preference.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: That is right.


Peter John Veniot: Then why refer to it?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: Because you said yerterday that you were very partial to soldiers.


Peter John Veniot: The second charge is that I should not have refused the certificate in his favour because of his experience as assistant postmaster. Let me point out that, according to the hon. gentleman's own statement, Mr. Way was assistant postmaster for twenty-three long years. I think that is right.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: No; he was appointed
assistant postmaster in 1911.


Peter John Veniot: But he was in the service, a regular employee in a classified post office, for twenty-three years. Will the hon. mem-
Supply-Post Office

ber for Victoria (Mr. Stinson) explain to the committee how it is that in 1912, when Mr. Petit was put out for political interference, Mr. Way was not then promoted by the Conservative party. Why was he not recognized?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: He was a much younger man.


Peter John Veniot: He had then been in the
service seven years. He was appointed to the service in 1905.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was no Civil Service Act then.


Peter John Veniot: Of course not; my hon.
friends hide their political guillotine behind the statement, "There was no Civil Service Act".


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that justify your
breaking the statute?


Peter John Veniot: I did not break the statute.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I say you did.


Peter John Veniot: I did not. While I do not wish to put my legal talents against the hon. gentleman who has interrupted me at least I can put up good sense and judgment. In 1911 W. V. Petit was dismissed because he acted as a political partisan, and no investigation was held.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certified by the member for the constituency.


Peter John Veniot: Exactly. And S. G. Smith was appointed in his place. This Mr. Way had then been seven years working in the office, and S. G. Smith had no post office experience whatever.
Then let us come to the last appointment. Mr. Smith was dismissed for political partisanship ; affidavits were produced charging him with certain offences along that line and, I believe, with interference perhaps not on his part but by employees of the post office in the distribution of certain political circulars during the election. That investigation was held according to law, and on the report of the investigating commissioner I recommended to the executive council that Mr. Smith be dismissed, which was my right under the order in council first passed by hon. gentlemen opposite, later accepted by the present government and unanimously confirmed- by the House of Commons. This position was advertised; Mr. Way was an applicant, together with Mr. Purtelle and I think one or two others. The result was that the Civil Service Commission did issue a certificate in favour of Mr. Way, but since the investigating commissioner felt satisfied, according to his 
report that responsibility should rest somewhere in the office for the non-distribution or mishandling of these circulars during the election, which circulars should have reached their destination at a certain time but did1 not, and in view of the fact that Mr. Way, the assistant postmaster, must have been a party to the non-distribution according to the evidence, I did not think I was justified in accepting the certificate of the commission, which I refused. That is the whole story.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Was there an investigation?


Peter John Veniot: There was an investigation
and it was proved that these circulars had gone astray in some unaccountable manner, and either the postmaster or some of his assistants were directly responsible.


The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fiset):: Shall the item carry?


Mr. KENNEDY:: Now that we have an
open season for complaints in connection with the Post Office Department I suppose I may as well have my say also. I wish to bring up a case in connection with a postmastership within a few miles of my own home in the Peace River country, in which it appears to me discrimination has been shown against a returned soldier.


Peter John Veniot: What is the name of the
office?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Waterhole and Fairview. Just about a year ago a vacancy occurred in the Waterhole post office through the resignation of the postmaster, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Henry Sigler, a merchant of the village, received the temporary appointment. Later on a permanent appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission, as this office carried a salary of about $900 a year. I believe Mr. Sigler applied for the position but the appointment was given to Mr. Smith, a returned soldier and a married man with four or five children. Technically there may be a way which the Postmaster General can justify -what subsequently happened, but in actual fact I believe there is no justification for what took place.
Previously the railway had reached only to Whitelaw, but later it was extended to Fair-view. Waterhole had been the centre of a farming district, and when steel was laid to within four or five miles of Watenhole the whole village was moved to Fairview, which became the new centre of the district. It was recognized by the department as well as by everyone in that district that when the rest of the village, including the bank, three or four

Supply-Post Office
stores, some garages and so on, was moved to Fairview the post office at Waterhole could not very well carry on with the bulk of its business going to the new town. Mr. Smith, who had been appointed to the Waterhole office by the Civil Service Commission, applied for the new post office realizing that the Waterhole office could not continue as a salaried office but would probably become attached to a local store and would carry with it only a small remuneration. Notwithstanding the fact that all the business moved to Fair-view, the Fairview office was opened as a new office altogether and Mr. Sigler, who had moved his store from Waterhole to Fairview, was appointed postmaster. According to the file Fairview was a non-accounting office promising a salary of $100 a year until such time as the revenue justified an increase, and Mr. Smith was informed that if the Waterhole office could not keep up the business, as everyone knew it could not and as the department must have known, the salary would be reduced.
My point is that, the whole village having moved to a new centre which was bound to take away 95 per cent of the business from the old office, the logical and fair thing was to move the Waterhole postmaster, who was giving his whole time to the post office, to the new office at Fairview. It is possible to crawl out of this situation by a technicality, but everyone who has known western Canada knows that when a railway comes within a mile or even five miles of an old village, the business moves to the new town at the end of steel.
I do not want to read the correspondence;
I think I am giving a fair review of it. Smith made a statement to me which I am going to offer for what it is worth; I have always found him a truthful man. He told me that Mr. Reilly, from the office at Edmonton, came to Waterhole and asked him if he would be good enough to sign his resignation as postmaster at Waterhole to permit of his being moved to the new post office at Fairview. He did so and on the afternoon of that same day Mr. Sigler was sworn in by Mr. Reilly as postmaster at Fairview. This is why I also feel that politics have been played in connection with these appointments, and why I believe that in this matter there has been a discrimination against a returned soldier in favour of someone who was not a returned soldier.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What Mr. Reilly was
that?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: James J. Reilly, district superintendent at Edmonton.


Peter John Veniot: I have not before me any notes on the Waterhole and Fairview offices, but from the Postmaster General's report I find that Waterhole has a revenue of $1,630 annually. When it became necessary to open an office at Fairview we did not consider that we should transfer the postmaster from Waterhole to Fairview. It is true that the opening of the office at Fairview has reduced the revenue at Waterhole, but that is no reason, from an administrative standpoint, why this transfer should take place. We followed out the regular practice in the opening of new post offices, and we appointed a new postmaster.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not ask for the
resignation of the old one?


Peter John Veniot: We did not ask for it. I have not the record before me and I would not like to make any positive statement. I will have the record here to-morrow and we can see just how the matter stands.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Will the minister also
bring the record concerning the change in postmasters at the village of St. David's, in the county of Lincoln?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: There has been a
great deal of interference by the Post Office Department with appointments made by the Civil Service Commission. There must be something radically wrong with the system when a person can be notified by the Civil Service Commission that he or she has received an appointment and should report for duty immediately, and then be informed by the department that he or she is not to receive the position. I ask the minister to be good enough to get the record of the case I am going to refer to. This occurred in connection with the post office at New Westminster, but it does not have any relation to the appointment of a postmaster.


Peter John Veniot: It is not the postmaster?


William Garland McQuarrie: No.


Peter John Veniot: I understand it applies to
the building or the surroundings.


William Garland McQuarrie: It concerns the
appointment of a stenographer. When there have been so many cases where the department has interfered with the Civil Service Commission, I do not suppose the minister can be expected to remember all of them.


Peter John Veniot: I have a pretty good
memory.
Supply-Post Office


William Garland McQuarrie: There was considerable publicity given to this case, and considerable objection made to the action of the department. Applications were called for in September of last year. A competition was duly held, after which a young lady in my constituency received a notice which I will read to the house. I will quote this in full for the benefit of the Postmaster General. It is as follows:
Notification To Reiport For Duty (Permanent Appointment)
Local Competition
AT:TM P.O.-C27-130 Date: Sept. 27, 1928.
Name:	Miss Margaret Isabella Moore.
18380-C1.
Address: 2405 Linden Ave., New Westminster, B.C.
Dept.: Post Office.
Branch: New Westminster, B.C.
Title of position: Stenographer Grade 2. Salary rate: $1,080 per annum.
Vice: Harold G. Wade.
Place to report: New Westminster. B.C. Person to whom to report: The Postmaster. Date to report: Immediately.
W. Foran,
Secretary.
Upon receipt of that notification the young lady reported for duty on October 1. She had another position, but as this was a better one she handed in her resignation. She reported to the postmaster at New Westminster but was informed that he had not yet received any notice from the Post Office Department. She was told that probably this would come in due course, and she waited until the 29th of that month before inquiring again. She was told then that no word had yet been received, and I think she had some correspondence by wire with the Civil Service Commission. After considerable delay she was informed that the department had refused to confirm her appointment and someone else had been appointed to the vacant position. The appointee was a boy under the age limit required by the department, the son of a very strong Liberal in the town.
It seems to me that there must be something radically wrong with the system when the department steps in and countermands an appointment made by the Civil Service Commission. I would be very glad indeed if the minister would bring down the file in connection with this case.
Mr. "V ENIOT:	The case related by the
hon. member is somewhat of a surprise to me. With appointments of that kind the system has been for the Civil Service Commission to establish a waiting list. The commission would not for a moment delegate the appointment of a person whose name was not on the 
civil service waiting list, provided that there was on that waiting list some person prepared to take the position offered. I do not want to go any further into the matter without havmg the file before me, but I would be very much surprised if any file that we have would show anything of that kind.


William Garland McQuarrie: There can be no doubt the notice was sent out and received by Miss Moore.


Peter John Veniot: I doubt that.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have a copy of the notice under my hand.


Peter John Veniot: How is the notice signed ?


William Garland McQuarrie: W. Foran, secretary.


Peter John Veniot: That is the secretary of
the Civil Service Commission. He sends the notice out to the parties. I think I am safe in saying, although I will produce the file, that there was no notice from the department to that effect. Had the hon. gentleman let me know in advance, I would have had the file with me. I will get it for the hon. member.


William Garland McQuarrie: I stated that the postmaster said that he had not yet received a notification from the Post Office Department. That is the trouble. Surely it is most unfortunate that a system like that should be in force.	.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member will get
the file in the morning.


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister filled the
post office vacancy at Sutton, Quebec?


Peter John Veniot: I have no record with me, of the Sutton post office, but I can get the information for the hon. member.


John Arthur Clark: Last year a return was laid cn the table and at that time the vacancy had not been filled. I wonder if the minister would bring that file up to date.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Air. ERNST:: I should like for a few
minutes to direct the attention of the committee to a dismissal Which took place in Lunenburg county in 1926, the papers respecting which should have been tabled in response to an order for return of last year. I have some papers which were tabled and I want to draw those to the attention of the committee as well. The order for return passed the house on the 30th April, 1928. The return was brought down on the 11th May, 1928, and it concerned the dismissal of Howard Robar at Sarty's in the county of Lunenburg, a very small post office. The facts are these:	Mr. APRIL 18, 1929
Supply-Post Office
Robar had been postmaster there for some years. He was a cripple and almost wholly dependent upon that office and the carriage of the mail for his living. I want to read to the committee the facts on which he was dismissed as disclosed in the file. The first reference to the subject is dated the 6th December, 1926, and it is headed:
Memorandum for the Deputy Postmaster General
Re Sarty's, N.S.	.
Please have the dismissal and appointment made as recommended and notify Mr. Duff it is being done.
(Signed) P. J. Veniot,
Postmaster General.
That is the first reference in the file. Obviously that file is not complete, and the Postmaster General has not complied with the order passed by the house. There must have been some previous communication from Mr. Duff and there was such a previous communication referred to in another letter from the department, because I find in the file this letter dated December 10, 1926:
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.
William Duff, Esq.
Dear Mr. Duff:
Re Sarty's. In reply to your communication of the 26th November, recommending the dismissal of the postmaster at Sarty's, permit me to say that in accordance with your recommendation instructions have been given for the transfer of the Sarty's post office to the charge of Mr. Edwin Sarty as postmaster.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) L. J. Gaboury,
Deputy Postmaster General.
The remainder of the file consists of routine correspondence, but nowhere in the file does there appear a letter of November 26 or any other correspondence emanating from Mr. Duff. I ask the Postmaster General-and he is welcome to the file which I have in my hand so that he can look it over himself- whether he has complied with the order of the house and has given the house the full information asked for in the order. This is only one more instance where, for some purpose or another, information has been deliberately suppressed. Further, Mr. Robar was in no respect a political partisan. He took no part in the election, and, as I say, he was a cripple and almost wholly dependant upon the office for his living. No reason is given for his dismissal, but the man who was appointed to take his place is a violent political partisan. Will the Postmaster General complete the file at this late date?


Peter John Veniot: Before answering the question whether I will complete the file, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that he has stated that the man
in question was wholly dependant upon this office for his living. The office had a revenue of $32 per annum and the salary was $60 per annum.


William Gordon Ernst: And he drove the mail.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member is talking about the dismissal of a postmaster at a salary of $60 a year. If that gentleman has to depend for his living upon that $60 a year and he was dismissed, perhaps I have done him an injustice. As to the question about the completion of the file, all the file will be produced which is not the minister's personal file and marked "personal."


William Gordon Ernst: I submit that if the minister made a dismissal upon the recommendation of any person, the reasons for that dismissal should be given to the committee. Furthermore, with reference to the minister's rather cheap statement about the small salary connected with the office, he knows or ought to know that the person who kept the post office also drove the mail and received something in addition to the ordinary postmaster's salary.


Peter John Veniot: The Postmaster General
might know by the file, but I do not think he should be expected to carry all these contracts in his head.


John Arthur Clark: I should like to ask the minister whether a post office employee or a postmaster who is dismissed is entitled, if he so requests, to the reasons for his dismissal?


Peter John Veniot: I should say he would be. There may be cases where it is not done, but I think it should be.


John Arthur Clark: Then why, in the case to which the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg has been referring, were the reasons not given?


Peter John Veniot: I did not understand him to say that the postmaster asked for the reasons.


John Arthur Clark: I will make it quite clear. Not only did the postmaster ask for them, but it looks as if he was a Liberal, because he indicates in the letter that he had always voted right.


Peter John Veniot: It sounds like Satan rebuking sin to hear a Conservative stand up for a good Liberal.


John Arthur Clark: How he voted is a matter of indifference, to me at least, but the man by a letter dated December 18, 1926, addressed to the Postmaster General, makes a request
Supply-Post Office

for the reasons for his dismissal, and the answer is contained in the following letter dated Ottawa, December 29, 1926, addressed to Howard Robar, Sarty's, N.S.:
Dear Sir,
I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 18th December, regarding the postmastership at the above-mentioned office.
In reply. I may say that your remarks have been noted.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) E. J. Underwood,
Chief Superintendent of
Post Office Service.
There is something seriously wrong with a department that .permits that sort of an answer to be written to a man who has been a postmaster anywhere; this particular man had been a postmaster for many years, and that is the sort of answer he gets. I suggest that if that letter was written on the responsibility of the civil servant who signs it, he should 'be taken to task. That is no sort of an answer for a civil servant to make on his own responsibility. However, I would assume that that answer was dictated under instructions of the minister because it reads, "I am directed to acknowledge." I assume that the direction was given by the minister, and this minister when he is requested to give reasons for the dismissal simply writes and says, "Your remarks have been noted." I do not think that is consistent with the dignity of the office which the minister holds. I think this house is entitled to know why this postmaster was dismissed. Apparently the only way in which the minister can give those reasons is by consulting a letter from a .member of this house-he was not then a member, but a defeated candidate-whose letter is referred to in this file. If there are any reasons given in that letter for the dismissal, the minister now says that he will produce that letter if it is not private. If it is private, it should not have been referred to at all in the file, but as it is referred to in the file it should be on the file. It is no longer private; it is a matter of public business that concerns every member of this house and the electors at large. I think the minister should put the letter on the file. I think, further, that the minister should have the common, decency and courtesy to answer the letter he received from the postmaster asking reasons for his dismissal.


William Gordon Ernst: I have several more of
these incomplete files to which I wish to direct the attention of the minister and of

the house. If there was only one that was incomplete we might put it down to inadvertence, but it happens repeatedly. I have five files in .my hand only one of which appears to have the appearence of completeness, all the rest being obviously incomplete in that something has been deleted or suppressed.
The second one refers to the dismissal of a woman postmistress at Conquerall Banks in the county of Lunenburg, Mrs. Albert Rafuse. The facts of the situation are that Mrs. Rafuse, who is the widow of Captain Albert Rafuse, had kept the post office at Conquerall Banks to the satisfaction of the people there. Her husband died in the early part of 1927, and she conducted a general store, which was at the most central point in the village. In June 1927, for what mysterious reason the Postmaster General alone knows, he wrote the following letter to the Deputy Postmaster General:
Ottawa, June 22nd, 1927.
Mr. L. J. Gaboury,
Deputy Postmaster General, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
In the interest of the postal service at Con-querall Banks, N.S., I have decided to dismiss the present postmaster at that place and have him replaced by Captain Oxner. This is not a Civil Service Commission appointment.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) P. J. Veniot.
There is nothing further on the file as to the reasons for that dismissal or as to who recommended Captain Oxner. Knowing the district, I am credibly informed by the people there that when the dismissal took place a search had to be made to find a person who would take the office, because most everyone wanted Mrs. Rafuse to retain it. Finally Captain Oxner agreed to take the office if it was taken away from Mrs. Rafuse. The only local reason assigned for that dismissal is this:	Mrs. Rafuse and her husband had been
life-long Liberals, but her husband voted against the gentleman who controls the patronage in Lunenburg county. Mrs. Rafuse herself either did not vote at all or she voted as she had always voted in years past, but the rumour locally is that Mr. Duff was incensed at the fact that the husband had changed his politics after so many years; Mrs. Rafuse was dismissed, and the only reason given is in the Postmaster General's letter, and that is a blank so far as a reason is concerned. I want to ask the Postmaster General why that woman was dismissed, and on whose recommendation. I think, Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to an answer.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: You have got the answer
there. I instructed the deputy to make the dismissal. It was made on my recommendation.


William Gordon Ernst: I certainly do not intend to
accept an answer like that. That is no answer at all. There must have been someone who recommended the dismissal and suggested reasons; there must have been a departmental investigation, and so forth. There must be some reason assigned by the Postmaster General before he can dismiss a public servant and justify the dismissal before the House of Commons.


Edward Joseph Garland: I feel that I must join with my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg in a protest against the discourteous attitude of the minister in this matter. It is an insult to the members of the House of Commons to refuse to give the reason for the dismissal, to refuse an answer to a courteous question on a matter of public importance. I do not think the minister is justified in simply saying that the member has the answer in his hand when that answer is merely a statement to the effect that the minister has decided to do so-and-so. This house is entitled to the fullest explanation from the minister in matters of this kind, and I feel satisfied that the house will insist on these explanations being given.


William Gordon Ernst: Before this item carries, I expect an answer to a question fairly put.


Peter John Veniot: The only answer I can
give the hon. gentleman is that if I received a recommendation I acted upon it, and if that recommendation came to me marked " personal " I do not think the house would say that I should put that personal letter on file. I do not know at the moment whether it was marked " personal " or not. I will look it up. But it has not been the practice in the past to put a letter marked " personal " on the file. But if the house insists upon it, there is only one thing for me to do, and that is to obey the orders of the house and put the letter on the file. Personally I feel that I am justified in holding back a letter that is marked " personal " when I take the responsibility for carrying out whatever recommendation may be contained in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a very important principle involved in the observation which the minister has just made, and I think the government should give -it its careful consideration. Assume a minister of the crown writes a letter to a member of the pension
board marked "personal," asking that certain action be taken. Is that a public document or not if action is taken? The Postmaster General has been receiving letters from a defeated candidate in Lunenburg county marked " personal," according to his own statement.


Peter John Veniot: I do not know about that;
I said I would look it up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member
think that he did, or do I understand him to say that he has no memory of it?


Peter John Veniot: I say I have no memory of it. I will Look if up. I think if the letter was not marked "personal" I should have put it on the file.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an entirely
different thing. The minister said this house would not require production of a letter marked ''(personal", recommending certain action, in connection with the public service of this country. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will tell him that that is a position he cannot take in this house. 1 think the Minister of Justice will advise him that when a letter addressed to a minister of the crown is the cause for official and public action being taken it must be placed upon the file, or at least that portion of the letter which refers to the action taken. I may mark my letter to the minister "unofficial and not for the file," and that may be all right; but when I mark a letter "personal", and it may involve many matters, and action is taken upon any part of the letter, that part upon which action is taken ns no longer a personal communication because i't is addressed to a minister of the crown. I think his colleague will tell him that that principle has always been recognized by this house. The general principle is that there can be nothing personal in letters directed to a minister of the crown upon which official action is taken. There are variations from that general principle, as there always are from ail general principles, but that is the rule.
A good deal will have to happen-and I say this with much regret-before we can yield to any such rule as that enunciated by the Postmaster General. The Minister of Justice in times past occupied a seat to the left of the Speaker; he may do so again; and I believe he is too fair a public servant when a great principle such as this is involved not to rise superior to his position as a member of the government and to regard himself as the legal adviser of the people of this country; and in this capacity I am confident he will tell his
Supply-Post Office

colleague that any letter addressed to a minister of the crown, upon which action is taken by that minister, cannot by any possible chance be kept off the file because the correspondent has seen fit to mark it "personal". That is the principle which I think the Minister of Justice will say has always been observed in our parliament. I hope it will continue to be observed. Otherwise what becomes of our parliamentary institutions? If the defeated' candidate of the government in the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg, the present member for Anitigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) was able to mark letters to the Postmaster General "personal", and so interfered with the public service in the county of Lunenburg-I say if-and thereby those letters are excluded from the departmental files and so escape inspection by the members of this house, what becomes of responsible government? There is no such thing. It would mean that if the Minister of Justice himself, desiring to deal with a matter of public business, writes a letter to the Postmaster General, and does not mark it "private" it will be put on the file as a matter of course. But if a defeated; candidate writes a letter to the Postmaster General on which action is taken resulting in an unfortunate woman being deprived of a postmastership in a little village of Nova Scotia, and that letter is marked "personal", it cannot be brought down. That is not the law. I think the minister will say that when he sat to the left of the Speaker that was not tile practice of the government of the day, and I do not think it would be the practice advocated by the Liberal party when they are again sitting to the left of the Speaker.


Mr. DUFF:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can throw a little light om this matter. It is a great pleasure to me to-night to be able to act, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said, both as the member for Antigonish-Guysborough and as the defeated candidate for Queens-Lunenburg. It is not often that a member of this house can occupy that dual position.


William Gordon Ernst: And control the patronage for two constituencies.


William Duff: What is that? Of course, Mr. Chairman, I cannot remember exactly what happened in connection with those two matters which my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) brought up. It is quite possible the file is complete; it is quite possible that I -wrote no letter; it is quite possible that I [Mr. Bennett.!
saw the Postmaster General personally. But I want to say right here to the hon. leader of the opposition that I am neither a coward nor a hypocrite-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Duff: -and if there is a letter on file from me with regard to Sarty's post office or the Coniquerall Banks post office, for God's sake produce them quick.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is fair. At least we^ can say this, the hon. gentleman has waived the privilege, if there was any; so the minister is free in -the matter.
Mr. DUFF; Quite right. Let us take the Sarty's case first. My hon. friend has said that the gentleman whom I recommended, Edward Sarty, was a very strong partisan. That is quite true. M>r. Sarty is a good Liberal. Mr. Robar is a good Tory.
Mr. Robar took the place of a Liberal in 1911, shortly after the Tory party came into power. My hon. friend speaks of this gentleman depending upon a $60 office for his livelihood. My hon. friend should be very careful how he talks about the people of Lunenburg; nobody in Lunenburg lives on $60 a year.


William Gordon Ernst: I did not suggest anything of the kind, and my hon. friend will take my word for it. The Postmaster General said it.


William Duff: Very good. He said this
gentleman was dependent upon the post office for his living. If my memory is correct, and I think it is, Mr. Rdbar at the time was a storekeeper, so he was not depending entirely upon the post office for his living. His store was situated at the extreme end of the-North river district in the county of Lunenburg. I think I am safe in making the assertion that his store was at least three-quarters of a mile from any house at the very extreme end of the district, which was within a mile of the post office occupied by Mr. Meisner. I was asked by the people of the district-and I have on my file a number of letters from prominent people of the North river district -saying that the post office was in an inconvenient place, that in 1911 it had been taken from a very central place. I have no objection to the action of the Tory party at that time. When they are in power they should look after their friends, something that the Liberal party do not attend to often enough. When the complaint came that this post office was not in a central position, on the recommendation of the people in the district, I recommended, either in a letter to the Postmaster General or in a personal interview, that it was in the interests of the public

Supply-Post Office
service to locate the post office in the centre of the district where it would best serve the public. Now, what about Conquerall Banks? My hon. friend from Queens-Lunen'burg left the impression-I think I am fair enough in saying-that the person in charge at Conquerall Banks is a woman. That is not true. I will give my hon. friend this opportunity to say whether that is so or not. Did he say so?


William Gordon Ernst: I certainly did. And the file bears me out.


William Duff: All right. He said the occupant of the office at Conquerall Banks at the time of dismissal was a woman. I have not my file at hand, but I am positive that Albert Rafuse was the postmaster when the change was made, and Captain Oxner was appointed. The woman was not postmistress. A man was appointed, but my hon. friend tried to make out that this woman was a widow at the time the change took place. That is not correct.


William Gordon Ernst: It is quite correct.


Mr. JACOBS:: She may have been a grass widow.


William Duff: She was not even a grass widow. I recommended the change in the post office at Conquerall Banks at the request of at least 75 per cent of the citizens of that place. In fact, while I have recommended a good many dismissals, and have succeeded in some cases, I have never made a single recommendation unless a majority of the people asked for the change. If I am asked by the people, whom I had the honour to represent for a number of years, I say it is my duty to make a recommendation in furtherance of their request. That is the reason, why Albert Rafuse was dismissed-the prominent people in the district asked that the change be made.


William Gordon Ernst: I want to correct the impression of the hon. member as to who was postmistress or postmaster at Conquerall Banks, Lunenburg county, and I have no doubt he will accept the authority of the file of the department. I have under my hand, in the file, a copy of a letter dated Ottawa, June 28, 1927, at which time, I may say, Mrs. Rafuse was a widow. The letter is addressed to the district superintendent of postal service, Halifax, and reads:
The district superintendent is informed that the Postmaster General has authorized the dismissal of the postmaster at Conquerall Banks, N.S., in the interest of the postal service, and he is requested to transfer the office from Mrs
Ella A. Rafuse, present postmistress, to Captain Norman Oxner, as postmaster, and report the date of this transfer as soon as effected.
Letter of notification in favour of Captain Oxner is herewith.
This is signed E. J. Underwood, chief superintendent of post office service.
I do not think I need comment further on the Conquerall Banks case; and with reference to the Sarty's case I may make only this observation, that I hope the remarks of the hon. member are more dependable in this connection than the remarks he made about the post office at Conquerall Banks.


William Duff: That is smart.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So the electors of Lunenburg thought.


William Gordon Ernst: Further, with reference to the present Sarty's post office location, it is by no means in the centre of the district; in fact it is very much the other way, being considerably to the north end of the district. My hon. friend said that he did not know whether he had written or had seen the Postmaster General. I may say that under date December 10, 1926, I have a letter as follows:
William Duff, Esq.,
Lunenburg, N.S.
Re Sarty's
Dear Mr. Duff,
In reply to your communication of the 26th November, recommending the dismissal of the postmaster at Sarty's, permit me to say that in accordance with your recommendation instructions have been given for the transfer of the Sarty's post office to the charge of Mr. Edwin Sarty as postmaster.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) L. J. Gaboury,
Deputy Postmaster General.
I can only suggest that the hon. gentleman refresh his memory before referring to the matter again. Now I will ask the Postmaster General to answer the question I put to him before the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff) took part in the present discussion, namely:	Upon whose recommendation, so far as his records show, was Mrs. Rafuse dismissed as postmistress, and why was not that recommendation brought down as part of the file in response to the order of the house?


Peter John Veniot: I have answered that.


William Gordon Ernst: No.


Peter John Veniot: It is pretty hard to give an answer that will satisfy the hon. gentleman.


William Gordon Ernst: Satisfy the house.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: No, it is you I am trying
to satisfy just now. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough says that it was on his recommendation, and that refreshes my memory to that extent. I think that is correct. Now, if he has written a letter it was, as I said before, marked personal and I felt that I should not produce it. There is precedent in this house to justify the non-production of private letters on a minister's file.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another thing
altogether.


Peter John Veniot: It may be, but I took it
that it was upon the same principle that I was going, and if it worked in one case it should work in the other. However, the hon. gentleman says that he releases me from that responsibility, if he has written me a personal letter, and therefore I will produce it if it is on the file.


Hugh Guthrie: In regard to the Upper
Branch post office in Nova Scotia, the letter has been put on the file. It was not marked personal and evidently it is from the bon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, who was at that time the defeated candidate for the riding of Lunenburg. The Upper Branch post office is in the electoral district of Lunenburg, as I understand. I should like to ask the minister this question: Will he act on the request of a Liberal member of this house in the dismissal of a public servant without requiring any allegations or reasons or cause? Is the mere request of a supporter of this government sufficient justification, in the mind of the minister, for the removal of an official, or must there be cause alleged?


Peter John Veniot: Cause is given in all cases.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I look over the
file in the case of the Upper Branch post office and I find that the following communication passed:
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia,
November 26, 1926.
Hon P. .T. Venoit,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Veniot:
In the interest of the postal service of this constituency _ please arrange to have the post office now in charge of Brown Rhodenizer, Upper Branch, transferred to Colin Sarty of that place.
Yours sincerely,
William Duff.
No reason, no charge.


Peter John Veniot: He gives a reason.


Hugh Guthrie: This is the file that is
produced and there is no reason given.


Peter John Veniot: He says, in the interests
of the public service.


Hugh Guthrie: That is no reason.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friends made dismissals with much less reason.


Hugh Guthrie: That is no reason at all. Then comes the direction of the minister:
Please have the dismissal and appointment made as recommended and notify Mr. Duff it is being done.
(Sgd.) P.J.V.
Now here is a case where a postmaster, a humble one it is true, was dismissed purely at the request of a defeated candidate, who makes no charges. There is no cause for the removal, 'but it is made, I fancy, carrying out the idea of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough as stated in this house to-night, that he is an out and out believer in the pernicious spoils system: To the victors belong the spoils. This was the political doctrine on both sides for many years and it was condemned by both sides of this house and a law was passed, practically by the unanimous consent of all parties in the house, known as the Civil Service Act of Canada. It was passed for a particular purpose, namely, to do away with the spoils system.


William Duff: Nothing to do with dismissals.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, absolutely to do
with dismissals, to prevent such dismissals as were formerly made, and which were unjustifiable, on political and partisan grounds. I have this to say, that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has very candidly stated that he believes in that spoils system, and I think probably he has a very active sympathizer in the present Postmaster General. But while the hon. gentleman from An tig onish-Guysb orough may be a believer in that system which once prevailed in Canada, but which by universal consent was put down, my hon. friend the Postmaster General has no right to disobey the law of the country; he should act in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Civil Service Act. But from what we have heard in the last two days in the discussion of these estimates, I say that he has persistently disregarded1 the provisions of that law, and we are justified in inquiring into case after case, as we propose to do, -before this item passes. Action will have to be taken. The law must not be disregarded by any minister of this or of any other government, and we propose to get to the bottom of the matter.
Mr. VENIO r:	If this thing keeps up
much longer-

Supply-Post Office


Hugh Guthrie: It will keep on for some
time.


Peter John Veniot: Well, I am prepared to
keep it up as long as you can and am well able to do it. I was going to say that if this thing keeps on much longer this house will be imbued with the idea that our hon. friends opposite have suddenly taken the wings of political purity.


Hugh Guthrie: The old story.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I will tell the old
story. My hon. friends were in power in 1926 for three short months, and if I made as many dismissals in proportion to the length of time I have been in office as they made in that short time my present record would sink into insignificance. In 1927 and 1928 I laid on the table of the house reports of the department; in one such report was a telegram issued while they were in office which accounted for the dismissal of seven postmasters in the county of Antigonish, on the recommendation of a then member of the cabinet. Apparently there was no harm in their doing this sort of thing but it is a crime for the present Postmaster General to accept the recommendation of an hon. member of this house or of the man looking after the interests of the Liberal party in a certain district with regard to dismissals in small offices which do not come under the Civil Service Commission.
Let me go further; in my own county a temporary postmistress in an office which is under the Civil Service Commission was dismissed on July 4, 1926, and in the county of Bonaventure another dismissal was made and a gentleman appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of Health of the shadow government. This gentleman who was appointed was the right 'hand man of the Conservative party there and when he received the appointment he wired back to the department, "I cannot accept the position but please appoint my wife", and his wife was appointed. That is what happened when hon. gentlemen opposite carried on in 1926; they were in power only from July 1 to September 14, and look at their record. Even then they had no authority from the people of Canada.


John Arthur Clark: They had more than the
present government has to-day.


Peter John Veniot: 
William Duff: I am sure we all listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for South Wellington; his remarks recall to mind something I read some time ago and which runs like this:	"When the devil was
sick the devil a monk would be; when the devil was well the devil a monk was he." My hon. friend from South Wellington waa a member of the shadow government of 1926, and I am going to give just one instance of what occurred under that government. I do not want to take up too much time; I could give many such cases but will not do so. When my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) was not a member of parliament and when he was not even a defeated candidate he recommended certain dismissals of postmasters in the county of Lunenburg. My hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Manion), who is not in his seat at present, did us the honour of visiting Lunenburg during that famous election. I do not believe he had been in the county over half an hour before telegrams were being sent to Ottawa instructing the officials of his department to dismiss certain postmasters in the county of Lunenburg.


Mr. RENNIE:: Is the correspondence on
the file?


William Duff: I do not know what you are
talking about. If you want to make a speech after I am through get up and make it; all you do is interrupt other speakers.
Supply-Post Office

This is the case, Mr. Chairman: In 1912, shortly after our Tory friends came into power, they dismissed the postmaster at Pleasantville, just four miles 'below Conqueral! Banks. No investigation was held in his ease; he was simply fired from the position and a gentleman who voted for the successful candidate was appointed postmaster. In the spring of 1926, if I remember correctly, this postmaster had the misfortune to die, and the people of Pleasantville wrote me that a vacancy existed in the post office there. I consulted my friends in that vicinity and they suggested that the old postmaster, who was dismissed in 1912 for no good reason except that he voted Liberal, should be reinstated. I recommended to the Postmaster General of that day, just before the 1926 election, that this old postmaster should be reinstated, giving as my principal reason the fact that he was fired by the Tories in 1912, and he was appointed accordingly. About a fortnight after he was appointed the shadow government came into power and a few days later the hon. member for Fort William, who was acting as Postmaster General in that government, came to Lunenburg. While 1 have no definite information on this point it is my belief that the hon. member who is now complaining about Conquerall Banks, was the gentleman who recommended to the acting Postmaster General that this old postmaster be fired and a lady put in his place.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was he fired?


William Duff: Of course he was fired.


Peter John Veniot: And here is the wire that
fired him. On August 11, the acting Postmaster General wired his secretary from Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, as follows:
For fourteen years Miss Jean Fraelick did work of postmaster for her father at Pleasant-ville, N.S. Because of father's death the office given to Allen Rafuse a month ago. Great injustice_ appears to have been done thereby and petition signed by patrons being sent forward. Please have Miss Fraelick reappointed immediately by wire and advise me Thursday at New Glasgow.
Miss Fraelick had never been postmistress, therefore she was not dismissed. On August 12, Doctor Manion received word by wire at New Glasgow that orders were issued as requested.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member has
referred to my colleague who is absent tonight on an engagement he made about a week ago.


William Duff: I apologize.
[I.?-, Duff.J


Henry Herbert Stevens: This matter was dealt
with somewhat effectively in Hansard of 1926-27 at page 2297. The following extract relates to it:
I consulted the member for the district after the hon. minister made the charge, and largely on his statement I remember the facts as he brought them back to me. These are the facts: A man named Fraelick was postmaster at Pleasantville for fifteen years. He was a cripple and his daughter did the work. He died just about the time of the smash-up here last session. He was replaced by a political henchman, and his daughter was cast aside. Practically every person in the community signed a petition requesting that the girl be given back her late father's job. That is the case which I had taken up once before on a wire from my hon. friend the present member. As apparently the case had not been considered I wired at once to Mr. Gaboury, who is sitting in front of the minister to-night, and demanded -'having looked into the facts on the ground

that the petitioners should be granted their petition to have the girl reappointed.


William Duff: If she had never 'been appointed how could she be reappointed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: She had been doing the
work of her crippled father.


William Duff: Her father had been crippled
with rheumatism for only about a year. He was a rigger, and a rigger cannot be crippled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hansard continues:
An hon. Member: She was a Liberal.
Mr. Manion: My hon. friend interjects that she was a Liberal. I do not know about that. But the proof that her appointment was a good move is that the present Postmaster General has not dismised her and she is still postmistress.
Mr. Veniot: She is not there now because she got married, and consequently her office became vacant.
Mr. Manion: My hon. friend is a smooth politician and is an adept at getting away with a great deal of oily, slippery, political material.


Mr. DUNNING:: Something like what we
have been hearing to-night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To continue:
Mr. Veniot: There are two of a kind.
Mr. Manion: Thank God, no. I am not in the hon. gentleman's class at all, I do not pretend to be a politician.


William Duff: He was in that class for a few days.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To continue again:
I repeat here to-night without fear of proof to the contrary being produced on the floor of the house that there were no wholesale dismissals during the time we were in office. I do not deny there were a few dismissals where proof had been given to me that officials had so acted as to justify their dismissal.


Peter John Veniot: I am being blamed for the same thing.

Supply-Post Office


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hansard continues:
But I resent the attitude of my hon. friend.
I have enough sense of humour to take a joke, hut I certainly resent his trying to put me in his class, because I never was and never will be in his class as a politician.
There is more here, but I will not detain the house by reading further. The point is this: A man named Fraelick had1 the position of postmaster at Pleasantville for fifteen years, the latter part of which he was crippled and his daughter did the work.


William Duff: Quite right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And' he died about midsummer and she was replaced.


William Duff: By another cripple.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hope my hon. friends are laughing at the joke and not ait the cripple, because, iaifter all, it is not a joking matter. I know the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysboro (Mr. Duff), even with his partisanship, is at least a pleasant, bluff, outspoken man, and all his sympathies would be with the cripple.


William Duff: They wiere both crippled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A moment ago the minister was giving us quite a lecture about dismissals. There is no douibt that dismissals have been made. The hon. leader o>f the opposition mentioned this afternoon the principle which had been adopted by this house, and particularly by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden and I think by the present leaders on both sides of the house. It is this: After an election, if it can be shown that a public servant went out of his or her way in a partisan manner to take part in the election, he or she was subject to dismissal from office. That is to say, it is not a part of the duty of a public official to participate in a partisan manner in an election. That is the principle.


Peter John Veniot: The Civil Service Act distinctly states that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one is questioning the minister about dismissals of that character. I have in my hand a return made on March 9, 1927-I am presuming, Mr. Chairman, that this return which was made to parliament is correct-moved for by the way, by our late member, Mr. Edwards. The return with the questions is as follows:
Subject: The names of the postmasters dismissed from office since the last federal election for political partisanship and in what counties the offices are situated.
That the proper officer do lay before this house a return showing:
1.	The names of the postmasters dismissed from office since the last federal election for political partisanship, and in what counties the offices are situated.
2.	The names of the postmasters removed from office at the request of:
(a)	Liberal members of parliament;
(b)	Liberal candidates defeated at the last election;
(e) Conservative members or defeated Conservative candidates;
(d)	Progressive members or defeated Progressive candidates;
(e)	Liberal-Progressive members or defeated Liberal-Progressive candidates;
(f)	Members of other parties or defeated candidates of other parties.
The general answer to that is this, and I will repeat the question so that the answer can be attached:
Postmasters removed from office at the request of
(a)	Liberal members of parliament.
Answer:
List attached.
I find a list of two sheets of foolscap with about seventy names.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that for the whole of
Canada ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This was in March, 1927, dismissals since the election of 1926.


William Duff: I am not the only hero then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The trouble is they are not quite so frank as my hon. friend.


William Duff: That is the difference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to give my hon.
friend credit for that frankness.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He can say:	"I'm
Alone."


William Duff: Yes, I'm alone.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The next is:
(b)	Liberal candidates defeated at last election.
Under that heading I find a list of about seven.
(c)	Conservative members or defeated Conservative candidates.
Answer:
None.


Charles Avery Dunning: None of them ever asked for a dismissal, I suppose?


Henry Herbert Stevens: (d)	Progressive members or defeated Pr>
gressive candidates.
Answer:
None.
(e)	Liberal-Progressive members or aeieaurf Liberal-Progressive candidates.

Supply-Post Office

Under that heading, I find a list of three.
(f)	Members of other parties or defeated candidates of other parties.
Answer:
None.
That is the list. The names are given and it merely illustrates what I have said, nameily, that many members taking advantage of that well known and well accepted principle, demanded that these should be dismissed for partisan purposes.


Charles Avery Dunning: The seventy my hon.
friend mentioned were not seventy members but seventy dismissals.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Seventy recommendations.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is the number of members given?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps if I mentioned
the constituencies, they would be recognized. Somebody suggests that we might call the roll. The list is as follows:
Gaspe, Kent, Gaspe, Gloucester, Gloucester, Montmagny, Bonaventure, Lake St. John, Res-tigouche-Madawaska, Restigouehe-Madawaska, Nipissing, Brome-Missisquoi, Restigouche-Mada-waska, Bonaventure. Gaspe. Bonaventure, Kent, Gloucester, Gaspe, Gaspe, Gaspe.
This is one I am startled to see:
Weybum, Dorchester, Montmagny, Northumberland, Gaspe, Gaspe, Gaspe, Gaspe, Gaspe.
It makes you gasp.
Gloucester, Timiskaming North Riding, Pontiac, Willow Bunch, Quebec-Montmorency, Nipissing, Bonaventure. Gaspe, Gaspe, Compton, Kent, Gaspe, Brome-Missisquoi, Charlevoix-Sa-guenay, Gaspe, Gaspe, Kent, Willow Bunch, Temiscouata, Charlevoix-Saguenay, Gaspe, Res-tigouche-Madawaska, L'lslet, Gaspe, Dorchester, Kent, Montmagny, Montmagny, Yamaska, Bellechasse, Kent, Restigouehe-Madawaska, Gloucester. Gloucester, Gaspe, Willow Bunch, Megantic, Kent, Willow Bunch.
That is the list of seventy as I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: About half a dozen constituencies in the whole of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister last year
made certain statements. This is what he said as reported on page 3231 of Hansard:
Let me give the record from 1911 to 1917 and may I say to my hon. friend that I did not take any time during the dinner hour to prepare this: I had it already prepared. What do wre find? We find that from the first of October, 1911. to the 31st December, 1912, they dismissed 908 postmasters. That is not degrading the service. We find that from the first January, 1913, to the 30th September, 1917, they dismissed 696 postmasters. These are the gentlemen who now say thiat the Postmaster General has degraded the Post Office department because, forsooth, in the last two years there have been 421 changes.

I have in my hand another return which is rather interesting. This is a return to an order of the house dated April 4, 1929, showing when and where the first rural mail route was established, number of rural mail routes established in each of the provinces, number of post offices closed in each province in each year in consequence of the establishment of the rural mail delivery, number of new post offices opened. In that return there are some very interesting figures. The minister has been twitting this side of the house with having wiped out a number of postmasters during our term of office. These are the facts. During the period of the Conservative regime, that is from 1911 to 1921-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Union government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is including the
Union government. There were established under Conservative governments and the Union government 3,339 rural routes in this country out of a total of 4,281. Let the house grasp the significance of these figures. Rural mail delivery was first introduced in 1908, and the following shows the number of routes established in each year:
Fiscal	Rural mail
Year	routes established
1908		 36
1909		 209
1910		 155
1911		 214
1912		 296
That is the first year of the Conservative regime.
1913		 1,021
1914		 780
1915		 634
1916		 298
1917		 145
Then they dropped off during the rest of the war period and they fell right off after that. During eleven years of Liberal administration there were 952 rural routes established as against 3,339 during the ten years of Conservative administration. The number of routes established under the Liberal regime from 1922 to 1929 are as follows:
Fiscal	Rural mail
Year	routes established
1922		 12
1923		 26
1924		 27
1925		 26
1926		 23
1927		 47
1928		 141
1929		 36
Following the other column of figures showing the post offices closed as a result of the establishment of these routes, we have the fact that during the Conservative period 3,339

Supply-Post Office
rural routes were established, and 3,237 post offices were closed because of the establishment of rural routes. That is where the heavy closing of post offices and dismissals come in. Unquestionably, I am assuming from the general record that we have, there were dismissals for political partisanship just as we have them in this return and the committee ought to face the situation frankly and admit that, where partisanship is demonstrated, where public officers go out of their way to interfere in the politics of the locality, they do so at the risk of losing their positions, and as the minister very properly says, it is part of the law. But when we bring forward bona fide case after case where there has not been political partisanship, where the minister has not observed the law, do not let the minister charge us with having at some time in the past made dismissals. Furthermore, as my hon. friend from South Wellington very properly said a moment ago, the practice of dealing with public officers of Canada strictly on the spoils system as it was known in days gone 'by is now a thing of the past, and I think we ought to be glad of it. The spoils system was practised in the past on all sides of politics both here and in other countries, and to the south of the line it was notorious, and in a sense still is, but in this country in 1918 we passed the Civil Service Act. I well remember it, because I happened to be one of the members elected in 1911 on a pledge that I would bend every effort to assist in bringing in a Civil Service Act. In 1918 such an act was introduced after a great deal of study and thought by both sides of the house, and it was accepted by both sides of the house. My hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chev-rier) has been most assiduous in his advocacy of the Civil Service Act. The only thing in recent years that has in any way impaired confidence in that act has been just such cases as we have had brought to our attention under the administration of the Post Office Department, which incite-shall I say?-among the followers of the government a desire to reintroduce political interference in these matters. We cannot blame a Liberal association, or a Conservative association, if the Conservative party were in power, in some part of the country for endeavouring to push forward their favourites. You cannot expect to stop that, but the minister has no right to give way to that pressure in violation of the Civil Service Act. That is what we are complaining about. We are not complaining that the minister has received letters or that members bother him; that is to be expected, but the minister can take 78594-109J
refuge, as he ought to do, in the statute itself. Here is the Civil Service Act, chapter 22 of the revised statutes of 1927. It is an excellent piece of legislation, covering every conceivable matter in connection with this subject. Section 55 reads:
No deputy head, officer, clerk or employee in the civil service shall be debarred from voting at any Dominion or provincial election if, under the laws governing the said election, he has the right to vote; but no such deputy head, officer, clerk or employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with any such election, or contribute, receive or in any way deal with any money for any party funds.
2. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be dismissed from the civil service.
So there is no question about it, and if my hon. friends opposite find a Conservative postmaster or any other officer who has been appointed by a Conservative government in the past who has violated that section of the act, they can bring it to the attention of the Postmaster General or the other minister concerned, and it is then his duty to institute a proper inquiry, and to dismiss the official if the charge is proved. But there is this to say: Such a civil servant, whether he is here in Ottawa or elsewhere, is entitled under this law and under the accepted principle of the civil service of Canada to a hearing; he is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself. What we are complaining of is the disregard of this law.
My hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) yesterday intimated that this law ought to be abolished, and he invited us to join with him in abolishing it. We have no sympathy with that view at all, or at least I have not. It is not a question here whether the Civil Service Act is to be observed or not. It is the law and it must be observed until parliament takes the repeal of that act into consideration.
The minister has answered us altogether too frequently with the tu quoque argument. That is not enough.


Peter John Veniot: You have not shown both sides of the question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give one illustration of my point. A moment ago we were discussing the case of the Picton post office. The minister intimated that Mr. Way was appointed in 1905. He was undoubtedly a Liberal appointee because at that time the Civil Service Act was not in force at all. In 1911 the postmaster at Picton was dismissed. Mr. Way had been in that office then for about six years, and the Postmaster General
Supply-Post Office

says: You should have promoted him to the postmastership. He went on to say that inasmuch as the Conservatives did not promote him to the office in 1911, that justified him in refusing to promote him in 1929.


Peter John Veniot: I said nothing of the kind. I gave a reason why I did not consider that he should be promoted, and that was not the reason.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister argued that at some length.


Peter John Veniot: No. I merely pointed out that the Tory government at that time should have recognized Mr. Way, but they did not recognize him for promotion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister used it as an argument in defence of his present position. What is the present position in that case? It is this: Mr. Way has now been in that office nearly twenty-four years. The minister's own officer gave him an excellent recommendation, pointing out that he was a fine appearing officer, well liked by the public and popular in the district, efficient in his work, of excellent character, and had served twenty-three years in the office. In the interim, in 1918, we passed the Civil Service Act, the act which does away with the old system of direct appointment upon the recommendation of a member or candidate or whoever has the patronage. Under the Civil Service Act the minister proceeded to call for applications for this office. He received two applications. One of them was from an individual whom he had put into the office temporarily. I am not going to pause to question whether he got the permission of the Civil Service Commission to do that or not; I take it for granted that he did.


Peter John Veniot: No need of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Peter John Veniot: Seven years under you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will not
surely charge me after that remark with a wrong interpretation of his previous argument.


Peter John Veniot: That is only a statement of fact, and it does not please the hon. gentleman.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It pleases me immensely because df I wais wrong for seven years the minister is three times wrong for twenty-one or tw-entydour years. If that is the measure of the heinousness of the offence of the Con-

servative party, how deep is his offence? But the point I am making, and I am going to keep the minister to it, is that we are now controlled by a statute. The minister is controlled by this statute, and he defies it. He is obligated1 by Ms oath of office to observe this statute, which is a part of the statute law of Cana-da, but he persistently, time -after time, in case after case and instance after instance defies this statute. The Civil Service Commission under this statute passed by parliament sends out notifications to the citizens of Canada on a set form-I have one in my hand -notifying applicants who have complied with the statute, made their applications, and have been examined under the statute, that they have been successful. The examiners have compared them with others and justified them for the appointment, and the Civil Service Commission has sent out certificates of appointment to these individuals. The minister steps in and says: I won't take them. We know the reason. The reason is that some political friend of the minister interferes. I do not blame the political friend. I do not blame the Liberal organization. You must expect it from them as well as from other political organizations. But I blame the minister for accepting, in defiance of the statute, the recommendation of any organization or any individual and reversing the action of the Civil Service Commission. In the Picton case it is aggravated. There is no excuse and -there is no escape. In the Picton case the gentleman who was pu-t in temporarily for three months and later appointed permanently was one of the individuals who brought charges against the postmaster. He was actively engaged in the election. I do not blame Mm for that. But the point is, it establishes beyond peradventure that he was appointed for his political services. In fact we h-ave on the file a tetter indicating that certain persons should be appointed, and they were appointed, because it was going to be of -advantage to the Liberal party. That was the reason, and the sole reason

not the sole reason for the appointment, but the sole reasoD why the statutory decision of the Civil Service Commission was defied. Furthermore, the appointment of Mr. Way was strongly backed by an official report of an inspector of the post office. The minister cannot escape from these things. I think be has found some difficulty in finding in the long period I have been in parliament any recommendation from me in any way interfering with the administration of the Post Office Department.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I have not looked up the hon. gentleman's record.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I invite him to do it.


Peter John Veniot: It might have been done verbally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I rarely ever go there.
I invite him to do that, not in any vainglorious way, but for this reason. From the moment I became a member of this house, and this is my twentieth session, I have assiduously stood by the principle of Civil Service Commission appointments. I will tell you why. I had six hundred civil servants in my riding in the earlier days when the whole of the patronage was in my hands, and I earnestly sought for civil service reform and appointment so that I could get away from the hopeless task of dealing with such a condition. As >a matter of fact, we did not dismiss a souil in the Vancouver post office, with all its large staff. The minister will find recommendations from me for appointments during those years before the act was passed because in eveiy instance they were referred to me, as such appointments were referred to every member; but not since the Civil Service Act came into force.
Now, I invite the minister, and I invite the government, seriously to consider this condition of affairs. The story is not half told. We have brought only a few cases forward. The minister has not yet faced this question seriously. He has treated it more or less as a joke. He has replied to us by saying: Oh, well, it was a disgrace to the public life of Canada the way the Conservatives acted. But the minister must remember that we are not dealing with the Conservative party of ten or twenty years ago, or with the Liberal party of ten or twenty years ago.


Peter John Veniot: But w'hat about the shadow government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right, I will deal with it.


Peter John Veniot: You made dismissals then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Peter John Veniot: You dismissed them during the election and gave them no chance to prove their innocence. What right have you to exercise political patronage and condemn me for doing so?


Hugh Guthrie: Because those we dismissed were partisans.


Peter John Veniot: Oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I gave reasons in the
Fraelick case.


Peter John Veniot: In the Fraelick case the
lady was not appointed at the time we had this telegram nor during the election. She remained in on the appointment made by the hon. gentleman who was then Postmaster General. She sent in her resignation because she was going to get married, but after her marriage she wished to continue. She remained in office under the name of her husband, recommended by William Duff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He apparently had a
sense of fairness.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, conversion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am trying to point out
to the minister that he certainly will not make much headway by his attitude of mind on this question. We are taking a very sound position and it will not do for the hon. minister simply to say that the Conservatives did so and so. Let me remind the minister of my little talk with him last night. He had cited seven or eight cases where soldiers were overlooked, and he asked us what we were doing. These were appointments made while he was Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: Not all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, many of them since he or Mr. Murphy, his predecessor, has been in office.


Peter John Veniot: Some twelve.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He said to us: What were you doing that you did not protect the interests of those soldiers? But what was he doing? Last n.ight I asked him very frankly: Why did you not exercise your prerogative in regard to these cases after the Civil Service Commission had made its recommendation as you had done in the cases of Whittaker and Bowyer. Oh, he intimated to me -I will quote his words in a moment-he had very little to do with it, that the statute named the deputy minister. I said, yes, the statute names the deputy minister, but we know, and he knows, that the deputy minister does not act except on the authority of t'he minister. He sought to evade the question, and he did it quite skilfully. I have the little dialogue here. I am quoting from page 1666 of Hansard, dealing with the discussion last night:
Mr. Stevens:	I understand that, under the
act referred to by the minister sometime ago, the Postmaster General or, I think, technically the Deputy Postmaster General, has the right, after an appointment has been made by the Civil Service Commission, to reject the nominee and ask for a further consideration. In
Supply-Post Office

each of these cases cited by the Postmaster General in regard to returned soldiers during recent years, did t)he Postmaster General exercise his power under that section?
Mr. Yeniot: I have no power under that section.
"I have no power under that section." The letter read* to-ndght is a straight, unvarnished order to do it-a letter from himself to his deputy, instructing him to tell tihe Civil Service Commission that the appointment would not be accepted. But last night he said, "I have no power under that section." If under that section he had no power to deal with the cases of these returned soldiers, how did he get power to give instructions in the other case? The minister was not frank; he has not been frank with the house since he brought down his estimates. He is not playing the game.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I am playing it too much.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a very serious principle at stake in connection with the Civil Service Act, and it is this: certain persons secure appointment through competitive examination by the Civil Service Commission. Having passed the examination they are entitled to receive appointment, but there is a reservation, which has a distinct and definite meaning and intent. It appears, I think, in section 13 of the act, if I recall rightly, wherein the minister or the deputy minister is empowered, in the event of an appointee sent over by the Civil Service Commission being incompetent or unsuitable, to call for a second appointment from the commission. And why is that in the act? For this very simple reason. The Civil Service Commission makes its examination-I am not going to go into the details-on certain grounds, allocating certain marks for certain qualifications. There is a verbal examination and a written examination; there is an examination on educational qualifications, and there is an examination on technical qualifications. There is also an examination as to health, intelligence, suitability and so forth. All these things are factors, and it is possible that the commission might choose an individual who by temperament, or by some peculiar physical disability, or for some other reason, might be more or less an irritant in a department; that is to say, an impossible person from the standpoint of temperament. I know of such people myself, who could pass examinations, probably well. It is therefore provided in the statutes that in a case of that kind, an abnormal case, the minister may reject the appointee. But he may not do so for the purpose of appointing his own choice; he may not defeat the
[Mr. Stevens. 1
purpose of the act. He can ask the Civil Service Commission to make a second appointment. Now why does the minister persist in the course he has followed? Take the case referred to by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) to-night. A young lady tries the examination; she seeks to enter the civil service as a life work. She passes her examination, receives notice from the commission that she is appointed, resigns her present position, and goes and reports for duty as she is instructed to do by the government of Canada. Can we expect private citizens to understand not only all the intricacies of the statutes of the land, but all the idiosyncrascies of the minister? Can we expect it? Not very well. They act on good faith, believing that when they receive a document signed by a government official the Dominion government is behind that document. So this young lady resigned her job and reported for duty. They dilly-dallied for a month, and then she was coolly told that the Post Office department had not ratified her appointment. And in her place was put a young man, a boy in fact-under the civil service age by the way-who was the son of a very prominent supporter of my hon. friend; not that he is any the worse for that, but it is a rather significant coincidence. It is the same in case after case, incident after incident. The Civil Service Commission's recommendation is repudiated by the minister and a particular friend substituted.
Now the country asks the government, the country is expecting of parliament, a vindication of the Civil Service Act. That is what the country is asking for-a vindication of the act. And we intend, so far as we are concerned, to insist that the facts be brought out. I am inviting the government, as I did this afternoon and do again to-night-not the Postmaster General, because that I conceive to be hopeless, but I do invite the government as a whole-seriously to take this matter up. They can do it in conclave if they like, but let them take it up and tell the house whether or not the Civil Service Act is to be a joke, whether it is to be defied, or whether we are going to pay at least reasonable respect to its provisions. That is what we ask, and we claim that we are on sound ground. These cases that have been brought up have not been fairly answered; they have not been frankly met. The frankest thing we have had to-night is the outspoken declaration of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) who stated that he was for the spoils system, that he believed in it and was willing to fight for it, that he had made a recommendation-

Supply-Post Office


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not hear him say
that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, he did, and I admire him for his frankness. I think he is to be commended on that score even though we cannot agree with him on the principle behind the declaration. I certainly think it was a refreshing change from the attitude of the minister.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman has already spoken several times on this question and I have attempted to answer him and others. I have always thought that the hon. gentleman would at least give some proof of being fair when he is stating to the house what he calls facts. There are always two sides to the medal, two sides to every argument. When the hon. gentleman tried to excuse his friends for the very large number of dismissals they made in the first eighteen months they were in power, by saying that nearly all these were brought about by reason of the closing of post offices through the establishment of the rural route in the Dominion, he instanced the number of post offices that had been closed. On the other hand he did not tell the house-and I say that he should have been fair enough to do so -the number of new post offices that were opened each year and which in many cases, in some years, counter-balanced the closing of the old.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: The record is here and
cannot be denied. Hon. gentlemen may say "oh, oh" as much as they like, but let me give an instance. Take for instance the opening of new post offices last year in the province of New Brunswick, from the members representing which I hear "oh, oh." Those established were 22 and those closed 21.


William Gordon Ernst: What about 1912 and 1913?


Peter John Veniot: In 1912 and 1913 the
record will show around 300. The hon. member took the record from 1912 to 1921 and he gave the total. Let him give the yearly closings.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give them; I gave
them once but I will give them again. These are for the fiscal year, I presume. The government return from which I am quoting says 1912, which means, I suppose, March 31, 1912. I will give first the rural routes established and secondly the post offices closed:
Rural routes Post Offices
Year	established	closed1912	
296	270


Charles Avery Dunning: Those are purely closings consequent upon the establishment of rural routes. They are not all the closings.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is right.


Charles Avery Dunning: Those consequent on the establishment of routes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.
	Rural routes	Post Offices
Year	established	closed1913.. ..	.. .. 1,021	8721914.. ..	.... 780	8201915.. ..	.... 634	5221916.. ..	.... 298	3101917.. ..	.... 145	1341918.. ..	.... 64	1891919.. ..	.... 55	671920.. ..	.... 22	371921.. ..	.... 24	161922.. ..	.... 12	191923.. ..	.. .. 26	261924.. ..	.... 27	241925.. ..	351926.. ..	.... 23	331927.. ..	.... 47	701928.. ..	.... 141	991929.. ..	.... 36	
The figure for those closed in this year is not given.


Peter John Veniot: Thank you for the information. According to the figures my hon. friend has just given, about 1,300 offices were closed in 1912 and 1913 through the establishment of rural routes, but in the first eighteen months hon. gentlemen opposite were in power there were 1,604 dismissals.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I might be permitted to interrupt the minister, will he give the exact dates? That is the only fair method of comparison.


Peter John Veniot: It does not reach 1914.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the minister will lump a few years together he will get fair comparison.


Peter John Veniot: I am not going to argue
with the hon. gentleman as to the exact month or hour these dismissals were made, but the record does show that hon. gentlemen opposite made 1,604 dismissals during the first eighteen months they were in power, and I defy the hon. gentleman to show that those dismissals occurred through the establishment of rural routes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would say about 70 per cent of them occurred in that way.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all; the dismissals
were made simply because hon. gentlemen opposite wanted to put their friends into office. That is all I wish to say; I simply
Supply-Post Office

wanted to show the hon. gentleman that he did not give both sides of the story, because when he gave the number of offices closed he did not give the number of new offices opened in the same period.


William Gordon Ernst: Then give them.


Peter John Veniot: If you want the information, look for it; you are making the argument.


William Gordon Ernst: The minister began by announcing that the new post offices opened exceeded the number closed in many years; apparently the figures do not suit his purpose at the moment, since he does not give them. I want to deal with one specific case to which the minister referred in order to justify his claim that patronage was practised by the so-called shadow government. He gave as an example a case which occurred in my county, the case also mentioned by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), the only dismissal of a postmaster in either Lunenburg or Queens county during the time the shadow government was in power. The facts of the case have been given in this house by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), who was Postmaster General at the time, but perhaps I might repeat them.
Mr. Fraelick, the father of Miss Fraelick, held the office for some fifteen years; during the latter part of his life he was a cripple and his daughter looked after the office. Immediately after Mr. Fraelick's death and almost before he was buried, I am informed that the office was transferred to Mr. A. L. Rafuse, who also is described as a cripple. I am not aware of his physical condition, but I do know that he is a merchant of some considerable standing in the district and did not need the post office in order to support himself, whereas the Fraelick family were dependent upon it. Further, a petition was presented signed by practically every resident of that district with the exception of Mr. Rafuse and his immediate relatives, asking that the office be given back to Miss Fraelick; that petition is in the department, but although the Postmaster General wants the record kept straight he has never tabled it in this house.


Peter John Veniot: Was not the office given back?


William Gordon Ernst: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: In my time?


William Gordon Ernst: No.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


William Gordon Ernst: No, it was transferred back by the hon. member for Fort William. That is just what my hon. friend complained about.


Peter John Veniot: The hon.. member is making a mistake. The records will show that the lady in question took charge of the office on her father's death and that in June of that year, before I was Postmaster General, an appointment was made. After that appointment was made, however, the Postmaster General in what we call the shadow government dismissed that appointee and appointed the lady.


William Gordon Ernst: That is what I have stated.


Peter John Veniot: The lady then retained
t'he position and was not dismissed afterwards.


William Gordon Ernst: No; who said she was?


Peter John Veniot: The petition referred to
by my hon. friend is on file, and on that .petition, which came to me after I was sworn in as Postmaster General-


William Gordon Ernst: It was there before that
time.


Peter John Veniot: It may have been, but I
handled it. A request was received for the dismissal of the lady in question, and I took up the matter on this petition. This lady had resigned to marry but She wanted to go back and keep the office; the resignation had not been put into effect and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough recommended that this lady be allowed to remain in the position and no change was made.


William Gordon Ernst: I have no dispute with the
statement just made by the minister. I said that when the hon. member for Fort William was Postmaster General the office was taken from Mr. Rafuse and given to Miss Fraelick on the petition signed by every resident of the district except Mr. Rafuse and his immediate relatives. If the Postmaster General wants any further confirmation of the public attitude with respect to that matter, as to whether or not it was patronage in the ordinary sense of the term, he has only to look at the results of the elections of 1925 and 1926. In 1925, before the change was made, the present member for Antigonish-Guysborough received a substantial majority in that district; in 1926 the same people, indignant over the change in the post office, gave me a substantial majority. That is the most conclusive answer I can give my hon. friend as to whether the action was taken in the public interest.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?

Supply-Post Office


Mr. SHORT:: I would like to ask the
Postmaster General to be good enough tomorrow to bring the file

the complete file- in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Waterford, Digby county, Nova Scotia, in order that we may discuss that matter then.


Peter John Veniot: Very well.
M. ERNST:	I would like to draw to the
attention of the committee another dismissal, this time in the county of Queens. A gentleman by the name of Mr. M. A. Harlow, a man of advanced years who was postmaster in the village of North Brookfield in the county of Queens for nearly forty-five years and whose son was killed serving overseas, was dismissed from office. The file relating to his dismissal, or what purports to be the file, was brought down in conformity with an order of this house in 1928. I want to read that file to the committee in order to show just what caused the Postmaster General to dismiss this olid servant of the crown who had held that office for so long, who had lost his boy, overseas, and who was depending in a large measure upon this position. I desire to read a letter written by the Postmaster General under date of December 13, 1926 and addressed to Mr. L. J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General, at Ottawa:
My Dear Sir,
You will please make arrangements for the removal of the postmaster at North Brookfield. Queens County, N.S., and appoint in his stead Mr. Nelson Frank of that place.
Your very truly,
(Sgd.) P. J. Veniot.
That is the only reference made in this file to the cause of dismissal; the remainder of the file contains only the ordinary routine business of dismissal. There is absolutely no cause assigned in this case for the dismissal of this old servant of the crown. There is nothing to indicate on whose recommendation he was discharged; there is nothing to indicate what the cause or the reason was, and I know that a very strong political partisan, in fact the leading worker of the party to which the Postmaster General belongs, was appointed in his place. I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to complete thi3 file and to give the committee the information to which it is entitled. Obviously the file is not complete, and I desire to know whether the postmaster will undertake to bring down this information.


Peter John Veniot: I will bring down the information if it is not on a private file. I have stated that before and I will go no farther.
I have a right to adhere to that practice, because it has been the practice of the house not to produce any documents on the ministers' private files, which are marked "personal". I am not going to be driven to take that action in this case.


William Gordon Ernst: I assume that it was upon
the recommendation of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) that this dismissal took place, but can a member have a public servant of this country dismissed and have his letter treated as sacred by simply marking it "personal"? If that is the practice of the Post Office Department, there is something radically wrong. If a member wanted a particular action taken by any minister of the crown, all he would have to do would be to put "personal" across his letter and the minister could say, "This is on my private file and I will not produce it." That is the stand which has been taken by the Postmaster General. I ask the members of the house: When a public servant is dismissed should not the reason be given to the house; have we not the right to know? We are here representing the people. I am here representing the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg, and the people of my constituency want to know why this action was taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, as I have said before this evening, if this house desires to pass supply it can not be passed on that statement. We owe a duty to the public which is of far more importance. I hope the house realizes what is involved in this, and as it is near eleven o'clock the Postmaster General will have an opportunity before supply is next moved to consider whether or not a letter, upon which a public official is dismissed, can be marked "personal", and therefore not brought down to the house. That is the question at issue. Supply has been withheld in other countries for less reason than that, and I feel perfectly certain that on mature consideration the government will not take that position. Remember that governments do not endure forever, and it is establishing a precedent.


Mr. HEPBURN:: The shadow government had its day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should say that there is one member who should be very thankful for that because it enabled him to become a member of this parliament for a short time.
If it were not so serious we would not take up the time of the house discussing the matter, but, as I say, governments do not last forever and our position to-day may be
Supply-Post Office

the position of my hon. friends opposite some other day. When the Postmaster General said that this principle was applied in the past, he was speaking of an entirely different matter. A personal letter written to a min. ister about a personal matter and placed upon his personal file is privileged, and this house has so ruled. But a letter marked "personal" which deals with the public business of Canada cannot be made personal merely by marking it so. That principle has been laid down by parliament from the first time the production of papers was called for, because parliament claims the right to redress grievances and it claims the right to know what the grievances are before supply is granted. The only time this matter can be placed before parliament is when supply is being sought. It would be an intolerable thing if all you had to do was to mark communications to a minister "personal" and know that they could not be brought down as part of the file. I do not think there is a minister in this country except the Postmaster General who would suggest that that be done. The rules to which he referred are rules which deal purely with personal communications. For instance, if I write a letter to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and say that I hope he is enjoying better health and I very much regret that he has been laid up for so long a period, his secretary, if he keeps it at all and does not send it to the waste paper basket, puts it upon the personal file and that is the end of it. But if I say to the minister in that letter, "I strongly recommend that John Smith be appointed a judge of the county court. He has qualifications of a very peculiar character and they should not be overlooked-"


An hon. MEMBER:: And the man is appointed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think he would be appointed upon my recommendation.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Oh, yes, he would.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know one hon. gentleman in this house who would not call that a personal communication in respect to that part of it, and that is my hon. friend the Minister of Justice.


Charles Avery Dunning: He might write to the
hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and point out that fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He would take that part of the letter which deals with public business and say, "I am not treating this as a personal matter." But when an official is actually removed from office upon the recommendation

contained in a letter which may be marked "personal" and the Postmaster General says that that letter must be treated as private, he is going beyond any precedent which will be found in the records of this country. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is not the only gentleman who has used such letters, and the evidence will be forthcoming when the session progresses. I think the Postmaster General might well reconsider his position, as I am sure the government would not expect supply to be granted unless that very ordinary request were granted.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 19, 1929