1929-04-23

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 169, respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited. -Mr. Smith (Stormont).

[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of select standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville).


Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge) moved:: That the petitions of Gladys May Carter, Nellie Farrell, and Cecilia Leta Rice (nee Smith), severally praying for the passing of an act to grant a divorce, and to dissolve the marriage of the petitioners, which were presented to the house on the 17th April, instant, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on. standing orders, for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin) moved:: That the petitions of Vera Maud Gendron (nee Carpenter), and Edith Spencley (nee Smith), severally praying for the passing of an act to grant a divorce, and to dissolve the marriage of the petitioners, which were presented to the house on the 17th of April, instant, together with the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders, for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Dismissals oj Postmasters
Mr. GARLAND, Carleton (for Mr. Casselman) moved:
That the petition of Dewlyn John Chubb, praying for the pa.ssing of an act to grant a divorce, and to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner, which was presented to the house on the 17th of April, instant, together with the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders, for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. L. S. R. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) moved:: That the second report of the select standing committee on standing orders, presented on April 18, be concurred in.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: What is the effect
of this report?


Louis-Simon-René Morin: It dealt with a petition which was presented a day or two late on account of misunderstood information received from the senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not certain documents might be laid on the table of the house with respect to the convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America in regard to the regulation of the liquor traffic, which convention was signed at Washington on January 23, 1924, and ratified on May 22 of that year. I have seen published in the press what purported to be copies of official correspondence which took place between the government of Great Britain and the government of the United States during the two years prior to the signing of that treaty, and I would like to ask that the official correspondence which took place just prior to and during the negotiation of the treaty be laid on the table of the house in order that we may have authentic copies before us.
Then I understand from the public press, although not of recent date, that that draft convention was presented to the Imperial
conference at London, where it received consideration and I understand certain proceedings took place with regard to it, together with certain official correspondence between the government of Great Britain and the government of this country before the treaty was actually signed. If there is such correspondence which in the public interest could be produced I should like to have it laid on the table in order that we may know exactly under what conditions Canada gave adherence to that treaty.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think it should be possible to lay on the table at an early date the correspondence requested by my hon. friend and I will endeavour so to arrange matters.
. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



PAPERS RELATING TO DISMISSALS OF POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River)): On Friday last, I think, the Postmaster.General (Mr. Yeniot) referred to a ruling made by the Department of Justice with regard to section 4, or at that time section 13, of the Civil Service Act, dealing with probations. Yesterday the Postmaster General tabled some papers relating to this matter, but he did not table the full file of the case from which the ruling the department originated. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) or the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), between whose departments the correspondence took place, to table that correspondence for the information of the house.
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: I was asked to lay on the table all the correspondence I had, and my department had at that time no correspondence with the Department of Justice. Therefore it can not be said that I did not produce the full file so far as my department was concerned. I could only produce what I could gather from the Civil Service Commission and from the Department of Justice, and that is what I laid on the table yesterday. If the other departments have any correspondence it is not up to me to produce it.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I am asking that one of the ministers of the departments concerned table that information as it relates to the discussion on this question.
Inquiries jor Returns



SUTTON POSTMASTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: A few days ago the Postmaster General undertook to table the balance of the file relating to the post office at Sutton, Que. He tabled an additional file but it does not seem to be complete without the Civil Service Commission file, so I would ask if he would table that file with reference to this post office.


Peter John Veniot: I produced everything I had in my office. It is not my place to run after the Civil Service Commission for their file, but if it is absolutely necessary I would ask the Secretary of State to take up the matter, since it >s under his department.


John Arthur Clark: Then I would ask the Secretary of State if he would be good enough to secure the file from the Civil Service Commission relating to the post office at Sutton, since these other files are not complete without that additional information.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I will undertake to produce that
file. In a general way I might say that the best method of obtaining complete files is to place motions on the order paper.


John Arthur Clark: These files were laid on the table as the result of such a motion, but additional papers have been asked for which necessitate the production of the Civil Service Commission file.



NEW WESTMINSTER POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. II. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) : I would make a similar request with regard to the appointment of a stenographer in the New Westminster post office. The Postmaster General brought down his file, and it seems necessary now to have the Civil Service Commission file in regard to the same matter.

[Stage Direction]
NORTHERN ONTARIO PUBLIC WORKS On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: I would like to ask the Minister
of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) when I may expect the return which was passed by the house on April 8?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: I expect to be able to table the
return within the next few days. I can not say definitely within a day or two, because the various branches of my department have been very busy.
CIVIL SERVANTS UNDER $100 PER MONTH On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: On March 13 I placed some questions on the order paper with regard to the civil service, and on April 4 those questions were passed as an order for return to this house. I have heard nothing of the matter since, and I would be glad to know when these papers will be brought down.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have a note here concerning all
these orders for returns and I may tell my hon. friend that this order is promised very shortly.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: On February 28 I directed a question to the Prime Minister in which I asked whether it was the intention of the government this session to introduce an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act regarding trial by jury, and the Prime Minister promised an answer in a few days.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is my impression that
the Department of Justice has been giving attention to this matter, and if I am not mistaken the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated some days ago that it was his intention to introduce such a bill. I believe he has answered the question.



SUPPLY-SIMCOE POSTMASTERSHIP

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 22, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Robb for supply and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
['I want that question\nanswered, and yet the minister sits in his place and says that he is unable to answer it. I know it is a difficult question; but will he answer this one:\tHow does he expect\na government employee and his family to live on $85 a month? I know he cannot answer 78594-119.$\nthat question. We as members of the house have some responsibility in this matter because they are employees of the government, and as was pointed out by the hon. member for South Toronto, we ought at least to be model employers in regard to those who work for the government. I do not think there is in the house anyone who will say that $85 or $100 a month is anything like an adequate living wage.\nLet me come to other cases where the government are able to grant increases. In regard to the deputy ministers they grant them increases amounting to $1,000 and $2,000 per annum and the question of the Civil Service Commission does not enter into the matter at all; but when the question is one of the lower paid employees, there always seems to be an obstacle in the way of giving them that to which I believe they are absolutely entitled.\nProgress reported.']
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a very
few moments at my disposal, so the house will pardon me if I go hurriedly. When the house rose last night I was discussing the reasonableness of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in coming to the conclusion that Mr. Whittaker had been re-established, and I said that Whether or not Mr. Whittaker's business prospects were as he said in his affidavit, in which

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Ralston
he stated that he would probably have to sell at a loss, or whether they were as he stated in the newspaper, in which he said he expected to go on successfully, it seemed to me there was ample evidence by which a reasonable man could come to the conclusion that Mr. Whittaker had been re-established.
I want to make just one point in this connection. There is an idea abroad throughout the country, due to regulations regarding long service pensions, that a man's salary is affected in some way by his pension. That is so in certain cases with regard to long service pensions, but I want hon. gentlemen to understand that disability pensions do not affect a man's salary in the public service in any way. That is to say, Mr. Whittaker could be enjoying the position which he held for five years with the soldier settlement board; he could be enjoying his position as book-keeper and office manager with the St. Williams Preservers, Limited; he could carry on his own business and his revenue would be in no way affected by his pensioner his pension by his revenue.
I would like to point out one matter which I think has been omitted from the record. The other evening the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in reading the notice of appointment which was sent to Mr. Whittaker and which appears in Hansard at page 1672, only read down to the signature of the secretary. I feel sure that he must have intended to go on, but his attention was apparently distracted and as a result the certificate does not appear in the record complete. I have only a moment or two left, but I think it is important that that certificate be completed. The balance of the certificate which the hon. leader of the opposition read into Hansard at page 1672, is as follows:
Civil Service Act, 1918: Sec. 13. (1) The deputy head may at any time before the expiration of six months reject any person assigned or appointed to a.ny 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.
(2)	Where a person is rejected the commission shall thereupon select another person to take the place of the one rejected.
(3)	The commission shall, after investigation, decide whether the name of a rejected person shall be struck off the list as unfit for the service generally or whether he shall be allowed a trial in some other position for which he may be eligible.
(Ruling of the Department of Justice dated the 9th December, 1919: "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 w-hich he is assigned, I think he may, if he think it advisable, reject him without entrusting him with the discharge of any duties; otherwise in conceivable cases considerable prejudice to the public service might ensue.")
Then follow sections 14 and 31 of the act regarding oaths to be taken by officials.
The last paragraph which was read by the hon. leader of the opposition directed the attention of Mr. Whittaker to the ruling of the Department of Justice, and Mr. Whittaker therefore knew when he received that so-called notice, which after all is not a notice of appointment, but a certificate of selection subject to the physical fitness of the applicant, that he was not entitled as of right to probation under the ruling of the Department of Justice.
I would like to say a further word with regard to probation. It seems almost unreasonable to talk about taking a man on probation who has been reported on by the responsible officers of the department, not once, but twice, and not by one officer, but by three, and solemnly putting him on probation for one, two, three, or six months. What would happen? Mr. Collver, who has only a seventy-five per cent disability, and who had been reported on as physically unfit, would want to be put on probation next, and so on down the line. We have the minister taking the position, which seems to be fair I believe in the opinion of members of this house, that those are the reports the commission has asked for, those are the reports which came to him, and on those reports he made his decision.
Our friends have talked a good deal with regard to the fact that Mr. Whittaker was a-one hundred per cent disability case. As I said last night, we all realize his disability and have every sympathy with him as a disabled veteran with a fine war record, but let us not forget the fact that the difficulty with regard to ex-service men is not confined to one hundred per cent disability cases. Sometimes I find even more difficulty; I believe other hon. members of the house find more difficulty, and the Department of Pensions often finds a great deal more difficulty in endeavouring to re-establish men with 30, 40, and 50 per cent disability. These men are receiving only a portion of the full pension and they have difficulty in finding jobs where their limited capacity can be utilized and thus enable them to make up their income to a living standard. We must remember that while this is a one hundred per cent disability case, at the same time there are other



Simcoe Poslmcistership-Mr. Stevens
cases of disabilities, perhaps not so great but in connection with which the men have almost as great a handicap in the labour market as men with one hundred per cent disability and who are receiving one hundred per cent pension.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Time.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing to-day, as we have on one or two previous occasions, an amendment to the motion to go into supply. That amendment is as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"In the opinion of this house the Postmaster General has acted in a most arbitrary manner and in utter disregard of the letter and the spirit of the Civil Service Act in connection with the recent appointment of a postmaster at the town of Simcoe."
I wish to draw particular attention to the words in the resolution " in utter disregard of the letter and the spirit of the Civil Service Act." The terms of the act have been discussed at considerable length, but the only attempted defence has been that which was made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) last evening, and during the few minutes remaining to him this afternoon. The action of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) has identified the government with the Postmaster General in regard to this particular case and in regard to the other cases which have been brought forward as illustrations in support of our argument and in support of this amendment.
Let me refer first to the Minister of Public Works. Last night he referred to the action of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in this regard as being exemplary. He said it was the action of the best postmaster general which Canada had ever had. He also stated that the opposition had no right to bring this matter forward because the two individuals .who were more particularly concerned were Liberals. Because Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Whittaker were Liberals the Minister of Public V orks asked what right the Conservative opposition had to bring the matter forward. I will answer the minister very definitely. The right we have of bringing this matter forward is the right of every citizen of Canada to have his grievances aired in parliament; that is the right. That is a right which we propose to use on behalf of any citizen whose case appeals to us as being a fair and proper one to bring to parliament. Rarely has there been a case which has been more clearly Within that right than the particular case now 
before us, where the government itself, through the action of one of its responsible ministers, has over-ridden and derided the Civil Service Act.
My hon. friend the Minister of National Defence intimated that the Postmaster General had no other course open to him. As I proceed this afternoon I trust that I shall be able to show that there was a different course, not only open to the Postmaster General, but obligatory upon him to follow.
There are three parties to this dispute. In the first place, there is the public; in the second place, there is the civil service of Canada; and in the third place, there is the Postmaster General. Mr. Whittaker is the victim in the case, but the parties to the dispute are the three whom I have mentioned.
In regard to the public, there is the right of citizens of Canada to apply for admission to the civil service of Canada. They have a further right; if they comply with the provisions of the Civil Service Act, they have the right to expect, if they are successful under that act, that they shall receive as a reward for their application whatever position may be vacant. There is another right the public has. It is clearly set down in the statute that certain forms of examinations shall be followed, and a decision shall be arrived at as a result of those examinations. The public has still another right; they are the taxpayers of Canada and they have the right to demand that the government of Canada and its ministry shall follow the act in letter and spirit, as we say in our amendment. I pause here to say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that unless the government, whether it is this government or any other government, enters into the administration of the Civil Service Act in spirit as well as in letter, then there can be no successful administration of that act. If a minister, or the government itself, is to be permitted to evade that act by a strict or a strained interpretation of the letter of the law, or by a disregard of the spirit of the law, then there is no hope for the successful administration of that act.
If this house by rejecting this resolution approves of the stand of the Postmaster General, as the government is asking the house to do; if this house does that and approves of the actions of the Postmaster General in this case *and in scores of other cases of which this is but an illustration, then I say that you are undermining the confidence of the people of Canada in the civil service and you are disorganizing the civil service itself. You are reducing the efficiency of the service and you are interfering with discipline and coordination

Simcoe Post mastership-Mr. Stevens
within the service. What hope is there for the civil servants of Canada if this act is ignored, this act which is their charter of liberty, shall I say?-under which they expect, when they claim rights, their rights will be respected?
As regards the government, I have already intimated that the government has identified itself in this matter with the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot); it is behind him and, through the mouth of its spokesman iput up last night, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott), it has declared that he is, in this action and in his record with regard to these matters that we have brought forward during the last few days, the best Postmaster General that Canada has ever had.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Henry Herbert Stevens: We now have not only
the government but the whole party behind the Postmaster General. What are the facts in this case? The}' are clear and comparatively simple. In the first place, there is a post office vacancy; second, there are twenty-two applications to fill the vacancy under the terms of the Civil Service Act. Let me pause at this moment to bring to the attention of the house what the Civil Service Act states, because this is not some regulation that may be passed at the will or the whim of a government. It would be well for the house to realize that this is a statute of Canada, brought into being by, I think, the united opinion of the parliament of Canada, as a necessity in this day. It is a departure from what obtained twenty, thirty years ago. The minister has repeatedly stated, and in fact his sole defence is that years ago, in 1896, 1905. 1911, 1912 and so forth, Conservatives or others have done as he has done in this instance. But the Civil Service Act was passed in 1918 for the purpose of doing away with the very abuses which, he states, were practised by Conservatives, Liberals and others in years gone by. The Civil Service Act is the product of parliament in response to a nation-wide demand for a departure from the old spoils system and for the erecting in this country of some orderly method of dealing with the great civil service. It is quite clear to anyone that twenty, thirty, or forty years ago the civil service of Canada, in its scattered condition as it was then, was a comparatively small affair. When I went into the west thirty-five years ago there were comparatively few people and the settlements on the prairies were few and far between, with very little of the civil service organization in that vast
west. What is the situation to-day? There are several million people, great cities, well organized communities, immense public business, hundreds of millions of dollars being collected here and there and passed on to the treasury of Canada. Under what?-a civil service who now come under the act, and the necessity for the act has been demonstrated beyond all peradventure. So we have twenty-two people making application under the act. What does the act say? It says:
Save as otherwise provided in this act or in any regulation made hereunder, neither the governor in council nor any minister, officer of the crown board or commission, shall have power to appoint or promote any employee to a position in the civil service.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: What section is
that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Simcoe Postmaslership-Mr. Stevens
only two, because it is not necessary for the moment to deal with the others. One was Mr. Whittaker and the other was Mr. Bowyer. In the first place, Mr. Bowyer was disqualified under section 21, not being a resident of the district. In the second place, he was without question re-established. Mr. Whittaker, on the other hand, was a double amputation case in receipt of 100 per cent pension, but a resident of the district and reported by the officials to be competent for the position. It is true that over a period, a hiatus of six months, where there was a long delay in making the final selection, due entirely-and this is significant-to negligence or delay on the part of officials of the Post Office Department to make their report, some question arose whether Mr. Whittaker could physically carry on the job. After the Civil Service Commission under the terms of the act received the reports of the inspector of the Post Office Department, they gave a certificate which was read by the minister a moment ago and which, I think he said, was a certificate of application. As a matter of fact, the certificate is one of appointment of postmaster. Those words are in large leaded type at the head of the notice.


James Layton Ralston: It is a certificate of
selection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says it is a certificate of selection. I am going to read the certificate itself. It is headed:
Civil Service Commission of Canada
Certificate of appointment of postmaster.


James Layton Ralston: I would ask my hon. friend to read the certificate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This was one of the last points of defence of the Postmaster General. He said that it was not an appointment; that it was just an intimation that the man was selected. Not only was it an appointment, but it was so accepted by Mr. Whittaker. According to the file Mr. Whittaker sold out his business. Nat only did he do so, but he d)d not hear for over a month afterwards that he was rejected. How did he hear this? He heard it from a newspaper report. That was the first intimation he received. Then he learned from his competitor, Mr. Bowyer, who .subsequently got the job, that Mr Bowyer knew all along that he was going to get the job although Mr. Whittaker was allowed to go on thinking for one month after this notice of appointment was given that he had the job. But this is not the only case.


Mr. CANNON:: What does the paper itself say? That is the point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall have a lot to say about this paper, I may tell the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), before I am through.


Lucien Cannon: Read it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will read it, certainly, and if my hon. friend is very anxious I will deal with that part now, although I had intended to take it up later. It says:
Certificate of Appointment of Postmaster
As the Solicitor General apparently wants all the hieroglyphics, I will give them too:
PO-37882	Copy	May 29, 1928


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Post office Simcoe, county of Norfolk-Elgin, Out.
Name of appointee-Mr. George Edward Whittaker, O.A.S.
Not the name of the selectee, you will note, but the name of the appointee:
Address of appointee-Simcoe, Ont.
Salary rate- $2,040 per annum, with an annual increase of $120 until a maximum of $2,280 has been reached.
Now I come to the point that my hon. friends opposite want to inveigle me into reading, and which I am going to read and deal with. The minister has just said within the last twenty minutes that this man was rejected because he was re-established.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said a moment ago that this man was rejected because he was re-established.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot contradict the minister, but invite him to read Hansard and see if I am not correct.


James Layton Ralston: I invite my hon. friend to read it too.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On the certificate is printed this note:
Appointment subject to physical fitness.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ah!


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend in the back seat says, "Ah!" Now what does that qualification mean? It means this: Mr. Whittaker was a double amputation case. Much has been made of that fact. The Postmaster General says that this man could not properly handle the position because he had to handle large sacks of mail; that was the argu-

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Stevens
ment of the Postmaster General. Now m this post office we find that there are five clerks. The Postmaster General says that Whittaker was rejected because he was physically unfitted to handle heavy bags of mail. Here is a post office with five clerks, and the chief occupation of the postmaster, according to the Postmaster General, is to handle heavy bags of mail. The thing is absurd.


Peter John Veniot: May I correct my hon. friend, who, I am sure, does not wish to state anything that is wrong? I did not say that Whittaker was rejected because of that fact.
I said that he was rejected because of the report of the inspector which stated that fact.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have a new reason for his rejection almost every moment. Eveiy time you knock down one argument, another is raised. I say that the Postmaster General has repeatedly stated during the last few days that this man could not handle heavy sacks of mail, and I leave that to the judgment of the house. What are the facts? Mr. Whittaker was found to be qualified in every way, but during that hiatus of six months of which I spoke, the query was insinuated, not in the Civil Service Commission, but in the Post Office Department that possibly Whittaker was not physically fit, and so the Civil Service Commission-the body constitutionally authorized to decide

I invite the Prime Minister to remember-say, after studying all the reports that Whittaker was fit for the position, that his physical fitness was a question which might possibly be demonstrated under section 24.
Now we come to section 24, and I come to the Minister of National Defence. But first I will take the Postmaster General. The other day he stated in his place-I have the Hansard here, but I shall not trouble reading it-that my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart) had attempted to mislead the house because he did not read all the file, and then the Postmaster General produced a little scribbled piece of paper which I have here, and read from that what he said was the opinion of the Justice department. What he read was this:
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.
and so on. The Postmaster General said: This is the opinion of a Tory Minister of justice, given to a Tory government, and he left the impression on the house that the
Tory government had worked up this opinion in 1919 for the purpose of circumventing the statute. What are the facts? We have now, due to the persistence of hon. members on this side of the house in demanding the full report, the letters before us of Mr. New-com'be, the Deputy Minister of Justice. This letter is dated November 3, 1922:
I have the honour to reply to your letter of the 20th ultimo.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? Does he not know that the opinion that is cited in 1922 is only a repetition of the opinion given in 1919?


Henry Herbert Stevens: AVill the hon. gentleman
permit me to read the letter? The letter itself will show.


John Campbell Elliott: The opinion was given in 1919.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. gentleman
contain himself in peace for a moment?


John Campbell Elliott: I will try.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The letters reads:
I have the honour to reply to your letter of the 20th ultimo, asking to be advised whether under section 13 of the Civil Service Act, 1918, as amended, a deputy head has the right to reject any person assigned or appointed to a position under has control or direction, without giving the said person a.ny trial whatever in the position.
I may say that I considered this question once before in connection with the ease of a Mr. Betts, who was selected by the Civil Service Commission for the position of superintendent of the experimental station at Lacombe, Alberta, and I enclose herewith copy of the opinion which I gave Doctor J. H. Grisdale, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, in connection with this case. I think it will be found to answer the question submitted.
The point is that Doctor Grisdale in 1919, for reasons best known to himself, and not as the action of a Tory government-that much we know-made a request of the Deputy Minister of Justice for an opinion, and he got this opinion. Before I read this opinion, I want to draw attention to the use that has been made of it both by the Postmaster General and by the Minister of National Defence, and I want to say this to the Minister of National Defence:	He is a counsel,
a barrister at law, of ability and wide experience.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends who say, " Hear, hear," cannot applaud that statement too highly so far as my opinion of the minister is concerned. I want to put to him this, and the very excellence of his standing, thus evidenced by his colleagues, will add weight

1S42
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Stevens
to what his answer must be. Supposing he is practising before the courts of any province in this country. He is pleading a case, and in his argument before the court he cites a judgment that had previously been handed down by another court, and in citing that judgment he reads one or two clauses which give to the court a certain viewpoint of that judgment from which he was quoting that was contrary to the whole judgment. In what light would such conduct be considered? Would it not be considered as reprehensible on the part of counsel? Is it not a distinct violation of the ethics of the bar for an eminent counsel to quote one portion of a judgment, which gave an altogether distorted view of the whole judgment? That is a hypothetical question. Now I turn to what the Minister of Defence actually did last night. If I recall rightly he commenced reading:
If the deputy be reasonably satisfied upon preliminary examination of the person nominated-


James Layton Ralston: That is the place.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister read:
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 think it advisable, reject him without entrusting him with the discharge of any duties; otherwise in conceivable cases considerable prejudice to the public service might ensue.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend stop there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a moment please.
Then I intervened and said to the minister, did he think that was a fair interpretation of section 24, and I asked him to read the whole thing. Then he read the following two clauses:
The fact that the man selected is not as good as his predecessor; or in your words, not a man of reputation or outstanding ability, would not, I should think, in the absence of other objections, justify the deputy to reject him, provided he have passable qualifications.
The deputy, of course, like other individuals must yield compliance to the law as justly interpreted no matter what his view may be as to the policy of the law; and it must be realized that the provisions of the Civil Service Act are designed to limit selections for office to those who apply .and compete, rather than to enable a deputy minister to obtain the officer who in his opinion is the best available for the position; moreover, even among the competing class, returned soldiers are by law preferred if they obtain sufficient marks to pass the examination.
He stopped there. Now I ask the 'house to consider this part which he did not read

at all, but which is in the same judgment and is Deputy Minister Newcombe's interpretation of section 24. This section I shall also read in a moment.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit me? If he will refer to Hansard he will find that I read that portion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am doing so.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said I
did not read it. I read every word of what my hon. friend is going to read. The only portion which was not read was the first.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend started
where I started.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. My hon. friend is generally courteous in debate, and I ask him to retract what he has just said about my not having read what he is now going to read.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not questioning that he read the balance.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. I thought he said I stopped there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. He read the balance down to the end. But he did not read what I am now going to give to him. It preceded all this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why the groan? I want the house to follow this, and I leave it to hon. members to say whether under the opinion of the Justice department as I shall now read it they are justified in taking the stand they have taken:
The question submitted by your letter of the 17th ultimo, with regard to the rejection of Mr. Betts, who was recently selected by the Civil Service Commission for the position of ,superintendent of the experimental station at Lacombe, Alberta, may be one of some difficulty; but in my view the governing provision, which is section 13 of the Civil Service Act,-
Now section 24.

although it provides that the deputy minister may at any time time before the expiration of six months reject any person assigned to a position under his control, seems to contemplate that there shall be some period of probation intervening;-*

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Stevens
That was the very question I asked the minister. Now, what does section 24 provide?
The deputy head may at any time before the expiration of six months reject any person 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.
My point in this whole thing is that the Postmaster General through his deputy-and in this case his deputy did it under his instructions-rejected the nominee of the Civil Service Commission without giving that nominee an opportunity for probation at all.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit me now?
Mr. STEVENS; I do not want to give up my time to the minister.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend would
just point out that the portion which I read, and which I proposed to confine myself to, was the portion which is printed by the Civil Service Commission in their notice of appointment as the rule governing these appointments.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can assure the minister
that the portion printed on this notice from the Civil Service Commission which was handed to Bowyer does not contain the words he read a moment ago.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, it was Whittaker's certificate I quoted, not Bowyer's.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am
not quarrelling with the minister-


James Layton Ralston: Thank you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: about the last part of
that clause, but I say that in the light of the words which I read just now, "although it provides that the deputy minister may at any time before the expiration of six months reject any person assigned to a position under his control, seems to contemplate that there shall be some period of probation intervening," entirely vitiate the interpretation put upon the opinion by him.


James Layton Ralston: Read it all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it all.


John Campbell Elliott: Read the rest of the sentence.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend starting
off with one picayune clause-


James Layton Ralston: No, it is the governing
clause.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -now insists on my reading every word of this simply to occupy my time.


John Campbell Elliott: No, read the rest of the
sentence.


An hon. MEMBER:: You did not read the important part.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did. My point is that
the spirit and letter of the Civil Service Act has not been observed. Under the section the deputy head may reject an appointee, but it is implied here that it shall be during a period of probation, and the only discretion given to the deputy is that such period of probation miay be modified or restricted where there is disability of a character that cannot be overcome on the part of the appointee.


James Layton Ralston: Not at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the gravamen of
the whole 'business, Mr. Speaker. If the government are going to interpret the act in the way that the Postmaster General is interpreting it, I want to say to the Prime Minister that the civil service of Canada will be undermined. This man-after walking up and down the corridor at the request of the minister, to show whether or not he was fit, and the minister saying to him that he felt there was no unreasonable disability, after going through a personal examination by the Civil Service Commission, after passing his examination, after being appointed by them-then under this section I say he was entitled to probation.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, after being appointed by them.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If one cannot read the
record and have it accepted by this house-


John Campbell Elliott: But you have not read it..


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker-
1844	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Stevens


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Layton Ralston: I rise to a point of
order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Layton Ralston: My point of order is that my hon. friend is reading from a written document, and he is not reading the portion which is relevant to the case-


Mr. MANION:: That is not a point of
order.


James Layton Ralston: -which says the appointment is subject to physical fitness.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I just wish to say this,
and I will say it briefly to the Prime Minister: I did read those words "subject to physical fitness". I dealt with that, but I have been interrupted again and again, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is a trivial thing. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend said I was reading from a document and did not read it all. What I did read was evidently to his discomfiture.
The gravamen of this whole case rests in the interpretation of section 24. The Justice department has given an interpretation of that, and the interpretation is as I have read it, that it presupposes a period of probation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It does not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: It did not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -except in one respect, that he was a double amputation case. But he had taken the trouble to come to Ottawa personally to interview the Postmaster General and the Postmaster 'General said this-I am reading now from an affidavit of Mr. Whittaker's:
While in Ottawa I was introduced to the Hon. Peter J. Veniot, Postmaster General, and, after explaining to him the purpose of my visit to Ottawa, he suggested that we walk together along a corridor of the House of Commons in order that he might be able to judge of my ability to walk about. I complied with his suggestion and he then said that he could not see anything in my condition that would prevent me from discharging the duties of the office for which I applied. He also stated that, as the Civil Service Commission gave a preference to disabled men, I should have an excellent chance of securing the appointment, and 4 was assured that he had no objection to such appointment.
And that, Mr. Speaker, has been read here several times and not yet conitradicated. There is much more argument that one could enter into, but with the interruptions of my hon. friend I have not the time. I want, however, to fasten this thing down. The point the Minister of National Defence made last night was that this man was rejected because of section 24 of the act, which empowered the deputy minister to reject him for physical disability in this case. But, Mr. Speaker,-


Hewitt Bostock: Time is up. Is the house ready for the question?


['Time is up. Is the house ready for the question?']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired	
with the leader	of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Had I	voted I would have voted
against the amendment.


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


John Campbell Elliott: I was paired with the
hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GUERIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. STINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. JONES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Foster). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
,'IEVISED EDITION
Supply-Post Office


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


Mr. HUBBS:: I was paired with the hon member for North Perth (Mr. Hay). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MORIN (Bagot):: I was paired with the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Peck). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


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


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


Mr. BOYS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Wellington):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Fafard). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The question now is on the main motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: We will take up item 314, page 71. When this vote was under consideration before, it was agreed that it should be taken item by item.
Outside service-Salaries and allowances, $17,285,464.40.


Mr. KENNEDY:: The other night the Postmaster General was replying to my statement with reference to Waterhole and Fairview, and his remarks may be found at page 1730 of Hansard. Perhaps I should have answered
[Mr. Gott.l
him at the time, but I did not catch exactly what he said and was not sure of the words he used until I read them in Hansard. Here is what he said:
In the first place, it was at an early date that the present postmaster at the first-named office, Waterhole, was appointed and accepted the position under the Civil Service Commission. For the same reason that I cancelled the appointment of Mr. Levesque at Fairview, because of his not being a resident, the Civil Service Commission would cancel the appointment of Mr. Smith to Fairview; because under the act no returned soldier nor anyone else can be considered who is not a resident of the place.
Then the Postmaster General went on to say that in asking that Smith be given the Fairview office I was asking him to break the law. The point is that Smith was in charge of the old office at Waterhole, which office distributed mail to Fairview, and therefore he should have been transferred to the new office. When part of the town was moved to the new location, leaving the old office at Waterhole, I think he should have been considered eligible for the position. If that argument is not conclusive I would quote section 21, subsection 3 of the Civil Service Act:
Except as to appointments to positions in the headquarters of the several departments and other portions of the civil service at Ottawa, the appointments to any local positions in any province shall, so far as possible, be made from bona fide residents of such locality.
It seems to me that if a man is in charge of a post office serving a particular village, in the nature of things he must be considered a resident of the locality in which that office is located and which it serves. In the case of Mr. Levesque, he resided sixty miles away in the town of Peace River. So I think I was not asking the minister to do anything which was not strictly in accord with the terms of the Civil Service Act.


Mr. LADNER:: This item includes an
appropriation of some $16,000,000 for mail services


John Frederick Johnston: We are dealing only
with the first item, which was the way the committee decided to deal with this vote.


William Garland McQuarrie: On April 19 the Postmaster General read a statement which he said had been prepared by the department in reference to the complaint I made with respect to the appointment of a stenographer, grade 2, in the New Westminster post office. This statement appears in Hansard at pages 1727 and 1728. but it does not seem to be very accurate. Some mistakes appear which

Supply-Post Office
may be due to copying and some misstatements of fact are apparent, which no doubt occurred inadvertently. The first line of this statement is as follows:
When Miss K. T. Mawson, the postmistress, requested that a nnale stenographer be appointed-
Something is wrong there; Miss K. T. Maw-son was not postmistress at New Westminster; a postmaster was in charge of that office. Later in the same statement I find the following paragraph:
Subject to Miss K. T. Mawson's resignation in July, 1928-
As a matter of fact Miss Mawson did not resign in 1928, but on July 23, 1925. That is shown by a letter in the file dated November 20, 1925, signed by the postmaster at New Westminster. This is rather important because of certain events which occurred after Miss Mawson's resignation. If we have the right date, namely, July 23, 1925, instead of July, 1928, it makes considerable difference. I think the minister will accept the statement that the resignation was made in July, 1925, instead of July, 1928.
While it is quite true that the Postmaster at New Westminster suggested in 1925 that it would be better to have a male stenographer in his office, his suggestion was questioned by the chief superintendent of post office services. In a letter from the superintendent to the postmaster, dated November 13, 1925, the following statement appears:
However, it is of the opinion-
That is, the department is of the opinion -that suitable work can be found in an office the size of Neav Westminster which a female stenographer could suitably perform in the time not occupied in stenographic duties. This is the action that is being taken in other offices of the same grade as New Westminster when the postal clerk position requiring a knowledge of stenographic work becomes vacant, and it is found to be working out satisfactorily.
The minister makes another allegation that the request for the appointment of a stenographer at New Westminster was for a male stenographer. I refer to a letter dated June 27, 1928, from the postmaster at New Westminster to the chief superintendent of post office service at Ottawa, and which reads as follows:
Authority having been given for the promotion of Mr. Harold G. Wade, at present employed as stenographer grade 2 in the New Westminster post office, to the position of postal clerk, I would ask that authority be given for the employment of a stenographer in his place.
That is not for a male stenographer at all, but simply for a stenographer. I find also 78594-1174
that the advertisement which was issued by the Civil Service Commission in connection with this matter called for a stenographer and not for a male stenographer.
I think the Postmaster General endeavoured to give the impression that there was not very much in this case, that no one could have any real complaint. In that connection I would point out that there are some thirteen ladies in my constituency who believe that they have a complaint, and particularly the young lady, Miss Moore, who was notified by the Civil Service Commission that she had received the appointment and that she should report for duty immediately.
In the British Columbian of November 3, 1928, the following letter from Miss Moore appears:
To the editor:
Perhaps you would be good enough to allow me space in your paper for the following:
A raw deal has been given to some fourteen girl stenographers and myself, all of New Westminster, by the authorities at Ottawa, or rather of New Westminster. I want to let these girls know just what has happened and how we have been so unscrupulously gulled. The examination held on August 31 for ar position in the post office was purely camouflage, which is easily seen by the way matters finished up. Three girls passed the examination, but I unfortunately, having the highest marks, was accepted by the civil service secretary and instructed to report to the postmaster immediately for duty. This was on September 28. A few days later the usual credentials as to character, health, etc., were received and duly filled in as required. (I might say that these papers were addressed to me care of the New Westminster post office.) During October I wrote the civil service secretary twice asking why the postmaster was not notified of my appointment, and may say that to date none of my letters have been answered. However, on the 29th I sent a night letter to the secretary peremptorily demanding a reply, which came on the 31st day of October informing me my services were rejected as it was a male stenographer that was required.
Now. by placing yourself in my position, you can understand what my feelings would be and how my Irish did boil. Needless to say, more anathemas than prayers were hurled at the Dominion government in Ottawa together with its satellites in New Westminster.
I would call particular attention to the following:
The only deductions one can make from the above are. that the position was never intended for any of the girl candidates; the department is guilty of extorting money from us girls without any intention of giving a quid pro quo for fees collected; there was outside interference in the course of the civil service department, or why the cancellation of the appointment?
What I would recommend is that candidates before sitting for examinations for government positions be required to show cards of approval from the party executive. That the powers that
Supply-Post Office

be make sure of the candidates' political per-suations before blocking appointments. Various other recommendations I can suggest later.
In closing I wish to strongly impress on my fellow candidates the seriousness of the situation. Our liberty is at stake as the perpetrators of an action of this kind are capable of doing anything to gain their ends, eo it is up to us to show by our resentment of such treatment that we refuse to countenance such dirty tactics in their arbitrary methods of civil service appointments. I can assure you I will leave no stone unturned to help in any way that is in my power to see that fair play is given civil service candidates.
It may be information to the "big guns" of the party in New Westminster that a promising young Liberal has been the victim of the dirtiest deal their powers could hand out.
I apologize, Mr. Editor, for taking up so much of your valuable space but would ask you to publish this in the interest of justice so that "right not might shall rule mankind and be acknowledged stronger".
Margaret I. Moore.
The suggestion which Miss Moore makes in that letter, namely, that the department never had any intention of giving this appointment to a female candidate, appears to be borne out by the statement made by the minister, because that is the reason stated why Miss Moore was not given the appointment. What is the effect of that? It is that thirteen girls were allowed to sit on this examination, and the successful candidate, who was notified that she was appointed and that She was to report for duty immediately, was no't given the place at all. Instead, the position was given temporarily to a boy of seventeen years of age on the nomination of the defeated Liberal candidate in the last election, Mr. C. C. Knight, who now resides and has been residing in the city of Ottawa for most of the time since the last election.
The file shows what happened. It seems that when a request was made for a stenographer in the New Westminster post office, there was no eligible list in the possession of the Civil Service Commission, and the commission therefore authorized the department to suggest an appointee for the position. An appointment would, of course, be only temporary, subject to confirmation, and, I presume, qualification by the person appointed. The department, having been notified to that effect, wrote to Mr. C. C. Knight, the defeated Liberal candidate, asking for his nomination. Mr. Knight nominated this boy Thomas, and at the same time stated that the boy was only seventeen years of age. When that nomination was received by the department, Mr. Knight was told that the boy could not be appointed because he was under age unless no other candidates were available. It appears that other candidates were

available because these thirteen young ladies took part in the competitive examination to which I have already referred. It was pointed out by the department that such an appointment might be made temporarily, provided that no others were available, as I stated.
This boy, Thomas, wrote on the same examination, took part in the same competition that the thirteen young ladies took part in; but he failed, he did not pass. He was, however, continued in the position. In March of this year another examination was held, and this boy, who had then reached the age of eighteen years, again took part in the competition, again failed, but is still in the position. He is still acting as stenographer in the New Westminster post office although he failed twice in examinations held by the Civil Service Commission for that particular position. I think the inference is fairly clear that he is held there by reason of the political influence which my good friend, Mr. Knight, has with the department, and that the department has been able, for the purpose of helping Mr. Knight and his friends, to keep this boy in the position notwithstanding, as I say, the fact that he is not qualified for it at all.
I find in the file a memorandum dated 6th October, 1928, from Mr. P. T. Coolican, general superintendent of postal services, in reference to this matter. I am not going to read the whole letter, but there is a side note which reads:
You need a male clerk steno. Try and keep Thomas. Write to Com.
I suppose that is the commission. That is signed "L.J.G." I suppose those are the initials of the Deputy Postmaster General. Well, they have kept Thomas in the position and he is still there. I do not know whether they are going to have another examination or not or whether they will be able to get some kind of examination that he will be able to pass. But the fact remains that during all this time Thomas is holding the position although he is not qualified to do so, first, because he was under age and second, because after he reached the age of eighteen years, he could not pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission. It seems to me that that is a disgraceful condition of affairs. It is really a crime to allow thirteen young ladies to take part in an examination and to pay $2 each as the prescribed fee for the examination when it never was the intention of the department to have a female stenographer in the office. In any event the $2 should be refunded to each one of those young ladies.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: The commission should be asked to refund it. The Post Office Department never received it.
Mr. McQUARRIE That is the unfair part of the matter. The commission notified Miss Moore, without any conditions at all, that she had been appointed to the position; that she was to report for duty immediately, and by reason of that notice from the Civil Service Commission Miss Moore resigned the position which she held, and reported for duty. The Postmaster General himself is responsible, if not his department. He says that the matter never came to his attention, but someone in the Post Office Department is surely responsible for the young lady not getting the position. I defy the Postmaster General to show from his own file that the request in this particular instance was for a male stenographer. It was nothing of the kind. No such request was made after 1925 and in this particular case it was not to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Miss Mawson, but to fill the vacancy created by the promotion of Mr. Wade who had been appointed to the service in 1925 or 1926. I cannot blame the Civil Service Commission. The commission carried out the request of the department and made the appointment in due course. It gave the appointment to the candidate who secured the highest marks. The Postmaster General says: Well, you should apply to the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: I did not. I said that in regard to the money paid in you should apply to the commission. Stick to what I said.


William Garland McQuarrie: I say that Miss Moore is quite right when she says that the department took from these thirteen young ladies the sum of $2 each under false pretences.


Peter John Veniot: One moment, please; there
you are again. The department received no money from the applicants. The money goes to the Civil Service Commission, and they handle it. We know nothing at all about it. Therefore the department did not receive the two dollars under false pretences.


William Garland McQuarrie: Of course, that does
not excuse the Postmaster General or the Post Office Department at all, because there was no fault in the Civil Service Commission. This examination was a farce and nothing else, and it was a farce because the department decided to accept the recommendation of a defeated candidate and gave the appointment to this young fellow Thomas, instead of
following the law and allowing the appointment to go to the candidate who got the highest marks.
I have pointed out that the letter which I read from the chief superintendent of the postal service at Ottawa, date November 13, 1925, has established the principle that a female stenographer is quite suitable for such an office as New Westminster. After that time there was no request for the appointment of a male stenographer in the New Westminster post office-, so the explanation given by the Postmaster General in the statement that he read is not accurate, but is in fact very misleading. I submit that if we are going to have a Civil Service Act and a Civil Service Commission they should mean something, and when a competitive examination is held the successful candidate should get the appointment unless there is some good reason to the contrary. The reason to the contrary which the department produces is that the department decided that a male stenographer was required in the New Westminster post office. I think this condition of affairs should be changed. I quite agree with Miss Moore and the other ladies who wrote on that examination that they have -been badly treated, and I think that the Post Office Department as well as other departments of the government should see that some arrangement is made, whereby candidates for civil service positions shall have at least justice and a fair deal.	,


Peter John Veniot: Right on this point, I am
a little surprised at the hon. gentleman taking up Hansard and reading from it to show where the report which I read to the house-the other day does not agree with the file as to the duties and the name of the postmaster, for the hon. gentleman has in his possession, or should have, a copy of what I read to the house.


William Garland McQuarrie: I got it in Hansard.


Peter John Veniot: It is not correct in Hansard.


William Garland McQuarrie: How can you blame
me for that?


Peter John Veniot: I blame the hon. gentleman for not reading from the original. I gave him a copy of the original, and I put a copy on the table here. The hon. gentleman got that copy.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: We are entitled to read
the statement in Hansard.


Peter John Veniot: I know you are, but if the hon. gentleman had read from the original he would not have undertaken to prove that
Supply-Post Office

my statement as read in this house was not according to the record. For instance, I am now reading from a copy of the document which I laid on the table and which the hon. gentleman got.


William Garland McQuarrie: Which one is that?


Peter John Veniot: My reply in the house
the other day.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the date of
the document?


Peter John Veniot: April 19, 1929, as reported in Hansard April 19, 1929.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have not got that
document on the file.


Peter John Veniot: The original which I read
to the house, reads:
When Miss Iv. T. Mawson resigned, the postmaster requested that a male stenographer be appointed in her place.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is not here.


Peter John Veniot: Hansard says:
When Miss K. T. Mawson, the postmistress, requested that a male stenographer be appointed in her place-


Robert James Manion: It was up to the Postmaster General to correct the error the following day.


Peter John Veniot: My attention never was
drawn to it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have pointed out
that Miss Mawson resigned in 1925.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman said
that this was not according to the record.


William Garland McQuarrie: No.


Peter John Veniot: And it is not according to
what I submitted to the house. Hansard is in error; I do not know how the error *occurred. Here is what I submitted to the louse, and placed on the records on the table. This is what I read to the house:
When Miss K. T. Mawson resigned, the postmaster requested that a male stenographer be appointed in her place.
Hansard reads:
When Miss K. T. Mawson, the postmistress, requested that a male stenographer be appointed in her place, in response to her request for a statement of the duties of the position


Mr. HANSON:: Is that request on the file as brought down?


Peter John Veniot: There is no doubt it is. The next paragraph goes on-I am reading what I read to the house the other day:
Subsequent to Miss Mawson's resignation in July. 1925.

Hansard says:
Subsequent to Miss K. T. Lawson's resignation in July, 1928.
The error is not mine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Wade is not the man we are talking about at all.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend read from Hansard to show that Wade was not promoted at the date stated in Hansard, and that therefore my record was wrong. This is what I read, and I want to put it on Hansard, and I will give the exact thing I read to the Hansard reporter so that there will not be any mistake.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Blame Hansard.


Peter John Veniot: There is no blame at all. I laid the record on the table after I read it just as I am going to read it now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hansard is your words.


Peter John Veniot: No, not if it does not correctly report what I said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hansard does not contain a record left on the table, but documents read by the minister.


Peter John Veniot: I read that document which I laid on the table.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Your quarrel is with
Hansard, not with the hon. member.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member heard me read that statement, and he heard me say that I was placing the record on the table.


William Garland McQuarrie: Surely the minister
would not expect me to remember the whole document.


Peter John Veniot: No, but you expect me to remember a whole lot, and if I do not remember it all correctly, you try to pull me up very quickly. This is what I read to the house at that time:
When Miss K. T. Mawson resigned, the postmaster requested that a male stenographer be appointed in her place.


William Garland McQuarrie: That was in July, 1925.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. gentleman let me read this statement?
In response to a request for a statement of the duties of the position, it was stated that stenographic work took up about one-half of the daily period, the other half being occupied in assisting the regular employees in the different departments where required.


William Garland McQuarrie: When was that?

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman will let me read the whole letter, he will find out:
The Civil Service Commission reviewed the duties of the position and decided that it should be changed from postal clerk to stenographer grade 2, on account of the fact that the essential duties were stenographic. The postmaster, however, represented that there were certain duties which he would not care to require a female to perform. Subsequent to Miss Mawson's resignation in July, 1925, Mr. Harold Wade was taken on and was appointed to the permanent staff as stenographer gTade 2, as from -January 29, 1926.
In April, 1928, Mr. Wade was promoted to a postal clerkship and the commission was requested to furnish the name of a male stenographer to replace him. They were unable to do so and gave authority for a local selction.
In consequence Mr. S. W. Thomas was employed temporarily from September 1, 1928.
Subsequently the commission held a competition for stenographers at New Westminster, and on September 28, 1928, they submitted the name of Miss Margaret Isabella Moore, one of the successful candidates, in connection with the filling of the position permanently.
In view of the postmaster's representations, however, the services of Mr. Thomas were retained and Miss Moore was not offered employment. It is understood that the Civil Service Commission advised Miss Moore, in reply to her inquiry, that the reason she had not been accepted by the department was that a male stenographer was necessary.
That is what I read to the house the other clay.


William Garland McQuarrie: Did the postmaster at
New Westminster in 1928, after Thomas had been in this position, request that his services be retained? If so. was that representation made in writing, and where is it?


Peter John Veniot: That would be entirely a
matter of administration. I do not know of any case where it ever comes before the minister. It would be done by the superintendent of the Vancouver district-I think New Westminster is in that district-through the local postmaster and inspectors, thence to the chief superintendent of mail service and through him to the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General at Ottawa. So far as I am concerned personally, this is the first time I have heard of the case. When it came up the other day I asked the head officials of the department for a statement. I read to the house the statement as given to me. If any injustice has been done in the matter, after I get through with my estimates-and some days I have not been able to give attention to anything else-I will give attention to the case and see whether any injustice has been done. Further than that I cannot go at the present time. With reference to the hon. gentleman's charge that an injustice
has been perpetrated upon the thirteen applicants through the retention of the two-dollar-fee paid by them, that is something with which the Post Office department has absolutely nothing whatever to do. It comes entirely under the Civil Service Commission. I thinik it is not proper for the Civil Service Commission or any other branch of the government to retain the fees of unsuccessful candidates, and I think the practice should be changed. But. as I say, that is not within my province, it comes entirely under the Civil Service Commission.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it was the intention to
employ only a male stenographer in the New Westminster office, why did not the department request that only candidates of the male persuasion be asked to write on the examination?


Mr. PARENT:: The Civil Service Commission again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the department had
something to do with it.


Peter John Veniot: I have no answer to make. It was clearly a matter of administration-not outside my province, it is true, but never submitted to me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Coolican must have
known about it.


Peter John Veniot: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If they did not tell the
young ladies that they would be rejected on account of their sex, then the departmental officials are to blame for the injustice done.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister has not
yet answered my question: Whether the postmaster at New Westminster made a request that Thomas be retained in the position. If so, was that request in writing? And if in writing will he produce it?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know whether the postmaster made such a request or not, but if he did so in writing I will produce the document.


William Garland McQuarrie: If he did not do so
this statement is rather misleading. It says^-


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member had better wait to see if the postmaster did so or not.


William Garland McQuarrie: It says:
In view of the postmaster's representations, however, the services of Mr. Thomas were retained-
That can be explained in no other way than that the postmaster at New Westminster re-
Supply-Post Office

quested that Thomas be retained in the position. I challenge the minister on that, and I say no such request was ever made by the postmaster. I should also like to know whether Thomas is going to be retained in the position, notwithstanding the fact that he has been unsuccessful in two examinations, which would go to prove that he is not qualified.


Peter John Veniot: So long as there is no waiting list established by the Civil Service Commission as a result of examinations held under their discretion, temporary employees can be taken on at any time. The moment the commission establish such a list they forward it to the department, whereupon any temporary employee must be taken off the job and the first in order of merit on the waiting list appointed. That is the practice.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it the intention of the department that there shall be a male stenographer in the New Westminster office?


Peter John Veniot: If the postmaster recommends it, yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: But the postmaster
did not so recommend in this case at all, as I pointed out.


Peter John Veniot: I am not prepared to admit that.


William Garland McQuarrie: The files show there
was no recommendation on the part of the postmaster in this particular case that a male stenographer should be appointed. His request was for a stenographer, without any reference to sex. That request was made in July of last year in the letter I read.


Peter John Veniot: I am not offering this as
an excuse, but simply to point out what may have happened. The information may come to the department through the inspection of the office by officials from Ottawa or from some other section of the service. They would find out the requirements of the office and report thereon when they returned to Ottawa or to their own head office. I will inquire how the request came to the department here for the employment of a male stenographer.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then I understand the Secretary of State is going to bring down the civil service file in connection with this matter.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: To prevent any error, did
the Secretary of State make a note of the right name? I thought he wrote down Victoria.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I made the necessary
correction. The return has been ordered and should be available by to-morrow.


Robert James Manion: I have been looking over
the salaries of the different post offices and' am	curious to know upon	what basis	thesalaries are fixed. I will	demonstrate	mypoint by taking a few of the offices which appear below the item in the estimates with the	respective population	as given in	theCanadian Almanac of 1929. If there is a mistake in the latter figures, which I presume-are	for 1928, it must be	imputed to	the
publication. For example, the city of Medicine Hat has a population of 10,500, and the salaries paid are 855,000. The city of Fort William, which I have the honour to represent, had a population of 23,500 in 1928- it is more than that at the present time- and its salaries are $63,000. Medicine Hat,, in other words, with less than half the population gets nearly the same amount, within $16,000. And then over on the next page, take Brandon with a population of 17,000' and salaries of $71,000. Take Kingston with a population of 22,000; it has salaries of $97,000. Take New Westminster with a population of 20,500, it gets $93,000 in salaries. Moncton, with 21,000 of a population, gets-8118,000 in salaries. Saskatoon, with a population of 40.000 in 1928, gets $181,000 in salaries. And one more; Regina, with a population of 40.000, gets $331,000 in salaries. The population, it is true, jump from 10,500>
to 40,000, the highest I have named, but the salaries jump from $55,000 to $331,000, and it just strikes me that probably there is a very good explanation of it. I presume there is practically no increase over last year, but I have been a little puzzled to understand those differences. I can understand it in some cases. I purposely left out such cities as Victoria,. Vancouver, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, because while they also demonstrate the point no doubt their salaries would be greatly increased because of incoming overseas mail.


Peter John Veniot: What page of the estimates are you referring to?


Robert James Manion: Pages 71 and 72. The populations, of course, are not given; I have, taken them from the Canadian Almanac for-

Supply-Post Office
1929, and I think they are correct. As I say, there is probably an. explanation for all this, but at the same time the discrepancies which exist are rather strange.


Peter John Veniot: Take Moncton, for instance, with a population of about 21,000 and salaries paid $118,000, and compare it with some places that have more population and less salaries paid. Moncton's revenue previous to the establishment there of the Eaton concern was $165,000 a year. Now I think it is close to $400,000, if I am not mistaken; I am just speaking from memory. The hon. member will understand that population is not the basis of salaries at all.
Mr. MAN-ION: I quite understand that.
Mr. VE'NIOT: I -would imagine the same thing obtains in Brandon, and also in Medicine Hat, accounting for the rapid increase of revenues there. In Saskatoon and Regina, as in Moncton, the mail order houses,
I think, bring about that abnormal increase in the revenue compared with the population. And the revenue is the factor in conjunction with the volume of mail upon which salaries are based, and on which help is hired; and those salaries are established by the Civil Service Commission.


Robert James Manion: I quite understand that. Take Regina and my own city, Fort William. Fort William with a population of 23,500 has salaries of $63,000. Regina with a population of 40,000-we will take it as double- has a salary list of $321,000, or practically five times as much. I should like to know the difference in income between Fort William and Regina. Could the minister give me the incomes from those offices?


Peter John Veniot: The revenue of Regina is $869,000. The Revenue of Fort William is $83,000. or nearly $800,000 more revenue at Regina. As revenue is the factor in conjunction with the volume of mail and business conditions, that can be readily understood.


Robert James Manion: Before we depart from it- perhaps this will demonstrate the minister s point, and I am not criticizing-perhaps he could give me some of the other cities that I mentioned. Take Medicine Hat, what is the revenue there? Its population is 10,o00 and its salaries are $55,000.


Peter John Veniot: Medicine Hat has $39,900.


Robert James Manion: Revenue?


Peter John Veniot: Yes-$39,993.


Robert James Manion: Just to demonstrate the point that revenue alone does not govern,
I wish to point this out: Take Medicine Hat with a population less than half that of Fort William. It has a salary list of $5o,000 against a salary list of $63,000 for Fort William, but it has a revenue of much less than half. In other words, its salary list is nearly as great as the salary list at Fort William-it is more than five-sixths-but its revenue is much less than half. Would the minister go further?
I would like to get the figures for Saskatoon.


Peter John Veniot: I may say, while we are looking that up, that Medicine Hat is a large distributing point for mails, and there is a great deal more work done there than the revenue would show. That is a distributing point for different sections.


Robert James Manion: For rural mail routes and that sort of thing?


Peter John Veniot: Oh, no, for railways as well; a concentration of mail there for distribution to certain points.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give me Saskatoon on the same basis?


Peter John Veniot: Saskatoon, $311,000.


Robert James Manion: Well, that 'bears the argument out better. Would the minister give me one more, Brandon?


Peter John Veniot: 


Robert James Manion: I just wish to say that the information given me by the minister is satisfactory. 1 wished to find out what the reasons were. I presume the same conditions existed in the past, but it looked strange because I knew the populations were not so vastly different. I think the matter is reasonably well explained by the minister. At the same time I find myself wondering if the differences are all just. I am -wondering if possibly an investigation along that line might not be very worthy of consideration.


Peter John Veniot: They are all lined out on a certain principle.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: May I call attention now to the city of Sydney? I find that the city of Sydney has a population about the same as most of those mentioned, and its salary list is very much lower. We have Eaton's establishment there and many other concerns.


Peter John Veniot: The revenue at Sydney is
about $64,000. I can assure hon. gentlemen that these salaries are all based on the work of the office and regulated by the Civil Ser-
Supply-Post Office

vice Commission. Where it is necessary to increase the staff of an office the Civil Service Commission receives recommendations from the department, but those increases are never made until the commission secure all the necessary information and grant us authority. The whole thing is worked out on the basis which I tried to explain to the hon. member for Fort William a short time ago.


Finlay MacDonald: In smaller cities such as Brandon do they have house to house delivery?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I would like to
ask the Postmaster General if it is true that Mr. H. Fortier, chief inspector of service at Ottawa, is now in charge of the district superintendent's office at St. John, New Brunswick, and if so why it was found necessary to have him so placed. I would also ask why it was necessary for the chief superintendent of post office service to visit St. John on March 25 last. Rumours are circulating freely in St. John regarding conditions in the post office of that city, and I feel it my duty to ask the minister if he will be good enough to supply the house with this information and to bring down all correspondence in relation thereto.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I shall be only too
glad to furnish the hon. gentleman with that information by bringing down all the correspondence, but I may tell him that Mr. Fortier is not now in charge of the district superintendent's office there. Mr. Fortier and Mr. Underwood were sent to St. John to study conditions in that office and district. Just here I may tell the hon. gentleman who represents St. John and others who come from the province of New Brunswick that there is some serious misunderstanding with regard to the post office administration in that city I am looking into it now in an endeavour to straighten out the matter. Mr. Fortier and Mr. Underwood, one of them an efficiency man in the matter of financial administration, so to speak, and the other an efficiency man in the matter of operation, were instructed to go and did go to St. John, where they remained for three or four days, and they have made a partial report. Their work is not finished yet, but I hope these two gentlemen may iron out certain difficulties which have arisen in that city in connection with the administration of the office and the discipline of some of the officials under the district superintendent. This is what we are now working on.	[DOT]


Mr. MacLAREN:: Who is in charge of
that office now, or who is acting as district superintendent ?


Peter John Veniot: There is no acting superintendent; the regular district superintendent, Mr. H. W. Woods, is in charge.


Murray MacLaren: Then who is the next
senior officer in that department.


Peter John Veniot: Inspector Emerson.


Murray MacLaren: In the absence of the
superintendent who takes over his duties?


Peter John Veniot: There is no strict rule,
but generally in the absence from duty a district superintendent, while he remains in the province the senior inspector takes his place. I know the point the hon. gentleman has in mind.


Murray MacLaren: I would like to state
the point and then the minister can answer it. I understand him to say that he does not necessarily put the next senior man in charge in the absence of the superintendent?


Peter John Veniot: There is no direct rule.


Murray MacLaren: What is the usual practice?


Peter John Veniot: I was coming to that.


Murray MacLaren: You said you were
going to answer my question, but as yet I have not put the question.


Peter John Veniot: I knew what was coming.


Murray MacLaren: If the minister will
please sit down I will proceed with my question.


Peter John Veniot: I thought I had answered
it.


Murray MacLaren: First I wanted to ascertain from the minister the practice followed during the absence of the superintendent, as to who acts in his place.


Peter John Veniot: Will you allow me to answer that question?


Murray MacLaren: No, not just yet. Then the minister said that there is no strict rule, that usually the senior officer takes charge, but evidently there are some exceptions. When the minister answers my question would he please tell us why Mr. Emerson did not act in the absence of the superintendent, although we understand that he was appointed to succeed him, which appointment was countermanded. I would like an explanation on that point.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: In answer to the first part
of the question I have already said that there is no fixed rule. There is a practice that when the district superintendent is absent from duty but within the province or within the country, the senior officer is the man who takes his place. I might state the circumstances in connection with the case which has been referred to. The health of Mr. H. W. Woods, the district superintendent of the St. John postal district, had been failing. He had informed me of that fact himself, and I had received the information from others, and noticed it especially when I visited St. John about the end of November or early in December last. When I returned to my office I took up the question of arranging for mail transportation to the West Indies under the new steamship arrangement, to see if we could not work out some scheme to facilitate the handling of the mail. In view of the fact that Mr. Woods' health was failing, I thought that he could be placed in charge of that -work and sent to the West Indies. He could take two or three weeks to do this work and at the same time his health might be improved. Mr. Woods received instructions to that effect, and placed the senior postal inspector in charge of the work during his absence. I countermanded that order and instructed that Mr. Griffiths be placed in charge until Mr. Woods returned.


Murray MacLaren: I gather that the practice of the Postmaster General is to place the next senior man in charge when the superintendent is absent from his office but still in this country.


Peter John Veniot: That is not the absolute
rule.


Murray MacLaren: I understood the minister to say that that was almost the invariable rule.


Peter John Veniot: It is usually the practice.


Murray MacLaren: But when the superintendent leaves the country the junior is put in charge. If anyone can interpret that form of reasoning I shall appreciate it very much.


Peter John Veniot: I can change that around
as I think it necessary in the interest of the service. I thought it was necesary in this case, and I did so.


Finlay MacDonald: Will the minister produce the correspondence in connection with the closing of the post office at Homeville, N.S.?


Peter John Veniot: I will produce that tomorrow.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Will the minister
tell us who is next in seniority to the superintendent?


Peter John Veniot: The superintendent is certainly not senior to anyone in the office; he is junior to every one.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Who is next in
order?


Peter John Veniot: I think I have already
stated that the senior is Mr. Emerson.


George Burpee Jones: I would ask the Postmaster
General to lay the correspondence in connection with the following post offices upon the table of the house:	Norton, Beulah,
Tooleton, Thornbrook, Jeffry, Gibbon, Head of Millstream, Jordan Mountain, Jemseg, Wickham, Shepody, Cambridge.


Peter John Veniot: When does the hon. member expect to get those?


George Burpee Jones: It is only a matter of form;
they could be got together in a few minutes.


Peter John Veniot: They cannot be laid on
the table in the way the hon. member says they can.


George Burpee Jones: In that case, I would ask that the correspondence in connection with Norton be laid on the table. I understand the postmaster was dismissed and four returned soldiers, Ira W. Reid, Charles T. Homer, Preston D. Price and George Ward, among six others, applied for this position. I would ask the Postmaster General to table the correspondence regarding this postmastership, along with the correspondence from the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: I will do that. It might
be interesting to explain to the house just how the documents asked for are produced. The originals are not produced and laid upon the table; copies are made from the originals. I have a list here of thirty-two returns of which notice has been given for production tomorrow. In preparation for those requests, I have had sixteen stenographers at work all day Saturday, a part of Sunday I regret to say, Sunday night, all day yesterday and up to tweleve o'clock last night, and they are working to-day. The return with regard to Norton is among those which have been asked for, and it will be produced to-morrow, but it would take five or six days to supply the information which has been asked for. I would like to ask the hon. members to go over this list and pick out the particular cases they desire laid on the table.
Supply-Post Office


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would like to mention about four or five. There is St. Boniface, Brussels, Macoun, Spruce Lake, Brigden, Waterdown and Lawrencetown.


Peter John Veniot: That is a new one. It was not asked for in the list, but I will produce it. I do not know whether I can get it tomorrow.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I could not tell whether it was a new one or not, because I did not have the name.


Peter John Veniot: I have them all before me. I shall be able, I think, to produce most of them to-morrow and if I cannot get the Lawrencetown file ready for to-morrow, I will try to have it ready for Thursday.


George Burpee Jones: I did not finish the list. I think Cambridge was the last one I gave. The others are:
Forks in the parish of Brunswick.
Coal Creek in the parish of Chipman.
Upper Greenwich in the parish of Greenwich Hillsdale in the parish of Hammond.
The Range.
Pamdenec.
Shanklin.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman cannot expect to get these files to-morrow, but I will do the best I can. I will get stenographers to copy them and submit them to the house as soon as possible.


George Burpee Jones: I wish to thank the Postmaster General. I know he will get them out as soon as possible, because I would like to bring some of them before the house.


Mr. COTNAM:: I would like to ask the Postmaster General if he would lay on the table the files and correspondence in connection with the Pembroke post office with regard to the two appointments to the postmastership since the death of the late postmaster, Mr. Moffatt; also the files and correspondence with regard to the appointment of a postmaster at Foresters' Falls in the township of Ross; also the files, correspondence and tenders submitted with reference to rural route No. 5, Cobden, Ontario.


Mr. DUFF:: I would like to ask the Postmaster General to bring down all the returns in regard to all dismissals from September 15, 1911, to December 17, 1921, and all appointments made during that time.


Peter John Veniot: 
William Duff: More than that.


Peter John Veniot: I am not referring to the hon. gentleman's request. To carry out his request I would have to engage probably 100 stenographers for five or six months. Let me ask the committee: Is it fair to ask for all these returns without making them orders of the house? I am prepared to do what I can; I have nc objection to producing these returns, but I cannot produce them within the next six or seven days or more.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is plenty of time; the session is still young.


William Duff: There is a saying in Scotland: " There shall be no step-bairns in our family." Certainly if our hon. friends across the way	are entitled	to	information, I	amtoo, and	I am going	to	demand	it. If	theminister brings down returns with regard to what has been asked by my hon. friends of the opposition, I am entitled to all information from	September	15,	1911, to	December17, 1921,	and also	during the	time	the
"shadow" government were in power from the 1st of July to the middle of October, 1926.


Peter John Veniot: We will do the best we can.


Mr. GEARY:: In regard to the St. John matter which was brought up by my hon. friend a few minutes ago, the minister departed from his usual practice of appointing the senior to take the place of the superintendent who had gone away. I do not know whether my hon. friend asked for the file in that case or not, but I am rather curious about it from what I have heard in the house this afternoon and I should be glad if the Postmaster General would advise the house of the grounds upon which he departed from his usual practice, whether he made a personal investigation or whether he was acting on the advice of his deputy or other officials. Did he act from personal knowledge of a more or less definite kind?


Peter John Veniot: That is internal business which sometimes it is not well to give out, but I am prepared to assume the responsibility for my action. I felt I was justified, under the conditions existing, to do as I did.
I discovered on my initiative what was occurring.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What were the conditions exising that prompted the minister to overrule the appointment of the senior assistant inspector? The minister has said either too much or too little. He ought to tell the house and the country frankly if there is any reason why Mr. Emerson should not be appointed.

Private Bills


George Reginald Geary: To be frank with the committee, the Postmaster General should give us the whole history of this transaction.


Peter John Veniot: As I said a little while ago, the whole matter is under investigation.


George Reginald Geary: But as to the action that has already been taken.


Peter John Veniot: My object in taking action was to bring about the investigation which is now under way.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the.chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Lera Ethel Vallance.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Frances Gwendolyn Snow Lott.

Mr. Garland (Car-leton).
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Edward George Croucher.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Mabel Lorene DeClute.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Isabell Leach.- Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Emily Mun-nings.-Mr. Hubbs.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Alfred Rescorl. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Isabella Einboden.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Frederick Davenport.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of William Greig Green.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Marjorie Grace Coleman.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Sylvester Wilfred Kerr.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of William Ernest Fonlkes.-Mr. Cahan.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Ernest Carl Bouck.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of James Lynham. -Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Bessie Stephen Lee.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Irene Sagar. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Clifford Wilson.
-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Mina Thompson.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Frank Arthur LeNoury.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Thomas Booker..-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Marion Isabel Kemp.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Louisa Martha Weston.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Elizabeth Crawford Copping.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Arthur Alder-ton.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Bella Solnik. -Mr. Lawson.
Motions for second readings agreed to on division.
Hewitt Bostock: Private bills being exhausted, the remainder of the hour will be devoted to public bills and orders, to be found on page 7 of the order paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Public bills?


Hewitt Bostock: When the first hour from 8 o'clock is not exhausted with private bills the remainder of the time is devoted to public bills.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that according to the motion?


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend certain provisions of the criminal code respecting the possession of weapons.
Hugh Guthrie: Explain.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, I explained
this bill on its inception. It has been before the house for two or three years. It was introduced by the Hon. Senator Belcourt in another place and has passed the senate, and on two or three occasions has reached the appropriate standing committee of this house. It is rather long. It involves the sale, permit for use, and having in possession of firearms. I think it is directed largely against the sale of revolvers. The hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) spoke to me about it the other day, and I understand he is quite willing that it should go to the committee so that the details of it might be examined there. If the house is of the same opinion I suggest that it should be sent on to the committee, where it can be thoroughly discussed.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: This is a hardy perennial. There has been, so far as I can ascertain, no demand for

Criminal Code Amendment
legislation of this kind. We are fairly well protected in the various provinces of this Dominion by the present law. This bill, letter B of the senate, if carried out in its entirety would require that every man who had in his possession any ancient weapon as a trophy should take out an annual license for it, and the same for every such weapon in his possession, which would be absolutely foolish. And, if you run through the whole matter, the penalty is excessive. One thousand dollars and costs is the penalty for the first offence.
I do not want to take up unduly the time of the house, but the bill provides that there shall be a record kept of every sale and every transfer. In other words, if a party of hunters go out and trade rifles while on the hunt they are liable to a penalty, if this bill goes through, of $1,000 and costs. The thing is absurd on the face of it. As a matter of fact, the trouble with this country is that we are being over-legislated; we have too many laws, laws about which, in many cases, we know very little; we may be guilty of offences against those laws without any intention of doing wrong. I would therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that this bill be read a second time six months hence.


George Reginald Geary: This motion is debatable, is it not? My hon. friend (Mr. Arthurs) has stated objections to the bill which I think are very sound. A great many persons carry a shot gun or a rifle into the woods on perfectly legitimate business, or for the sake of sport, and they do not want to be embarrassed. But that can be attended to very well in committee. There are one or two other features in this bill, however, that should not be lost sight of. One is the procuring of revolvers by the criminal class. This bill has been endorsed by the police constables' association. I notice a letter here from the chiefs of police of Toronto and Montreal. Toronto and Montreal are centres in which great difficulty has been experienced of late in dealing with criminals, all of whom, apparently, carry firearms. The chiefs of police are officials who have in their hands the ferreting out and prosecuting of criminals, and they think that if there was some way of tracing the weapon with which they are armed when caught it might be of great use.
I am sorry to say that I cannot add much more than that. My friend says there is no demand for such legislation. There certainly is a demand from the police department. If there are details in the bill which have to do, in some wa3% with the disposal by a shopkeeper of his stock in trade, or a sportsman having in his possession a rifle or a shot gun, 
I think the committee can very well take care of that. The main purpose of the bill, as I see it, is to restrict the holding of revolvers and arms of that type by people unauthorized to hold them, and to restrict in such a way the purchase of revolvers that they will not get into the hands of people who should not be entrusted with them. That is the principle of the bill. One might speak for an hour on it and get no further than that. I suggest that as the house has had the courtesy to send this to the appropriate committee in other years, where it has rested, unable to get further because of prorogation following soon after, we might do the same with it this year and there defeat it, if we please.


James Arthurs: Why waste the time?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I gathered from my hon. friend (Mr. Geary) that he had di&-cussed this matter with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and that the minister had no objection to the bill going to committee in order that it might be further examined.


George Reginald Geary: That was it; he expressly stated so.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have on numerous occasions in this house voted against killing a bill without adequate discussion, and for the principle of referring bills of this character to committees in order that they might be further inquired into, even though I might oppose the bill itself. For that reason I feel inclined to vote against the six month's hoist before adequate discussion of the measure has taken place. I think it should be discussed and examined before the appropriate committee. That is only fair, and, for that reason, speaking for myself only, of course,
I shall vote against this form of closure.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This bill has been before the house on previous occasions and has been discussed at very great length. The objections, which have been pointed out and which I think are valid, are numerous indeed. One reason why I think this bill should be defeated on its second reading is that its promoters, who, from our previous discussions, can learn something of the sentiment of the house, should take a reasonable time to redraft the ' bill and bring it before the house in more simplified form so that it may be expected to accomplish the objects which they state they have in view, and eliminate those parts of the bill which seem to be utterly ludicrous.

Criminal Code Amendment
1S59


Lucien Cannon: Two years ago, if I remember rightly, Mr. Speaker, I was sponsor for the bill introduced at that time in the senate by Senator Belcourt. Numerous objections to the proposed legislation were raised in the house; the bill was referred to a committee and, if my memory is correct, most of the objections to the bill were overcome by changes which were made in that committee and the bill in its new form was far more acceptable than when it was first presented. I feel very much like my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning); instead of killing this bill outright by supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) I would suggest that it be referred to a committee where the interested parties might appear.


James Arthurs: Has my hon. friend read the bill?


Lucien Cannon: I have read the bill. I would not say that I approve of all its provisions but I think it might be sent to a committee before which the interested people could appear, instead of killing it as we will if we support the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this bill has been before this house five times. On one occasion it was sent to a committee which amended it very considerably, but now it is brought back to the house almost in its original form. I do not see any object in taking up the time of parliament by appointing a special committee; so mans' committees are meeting now that no one would have time to attend the meetings of such a committee. Let the promoters of this bill revise it and bring it back in a more acceptable form. It has waited five years now, and no injury has been done.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the point of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) is well taken, and as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has indicated, this bill has been discussed on several previous occasions. I remember once when it was absolutely laughed out of the house because it was so ridiculous, so it is hardly an argument for members of the government to suggest that this amendment is a form of closure in connection with this bill.
The facts are that the promoters of this legislation appear never to learn by experience; they come back time after time, almost turning the city of Ottawa into a Canadian Chicago. One would think we were living in that city, to read some of the sections of
this bill. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it can be taken seriously. Let me just quote one passage from it:	[DOT]
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars and costs, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour, not exceeding two years, or to both such penalty and imprisonment, who,-
(a) not having a license therefor from the Minister of Justice or his authorized agent, after the thirty-first day of December, 1929, imports, brings, transports into Canada, or transmits by post, or manufactures, makes or deals in, or sells to, barters with, gives or lends to or repairs for any person, any weapon of the following kinds or of any like or similar kind: -
(i) any cannon, trench-mortar, machine gun, revolver, pistol, air gun, or shot gun or rifle known as sawed-off or riot gun;
That one section is an indication of the hysterical character of this legislation, which I understand comes from the other house. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we might be well advised to send back this bill to their honours in the senate with the suggestion that they go into the matter a little more carefully and not consider Canada another Chicago.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the house ready for the question?


George Reginald Geary: May I ask what has become of the well known views on disarmament of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland)?


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty on
this occasion to rise in protest against this infringement on the liberties of the Canadian people. We are not bolshevists-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Too much prohibition.


Peter McGibbon: I stand second to no
man in this country in upholding our laws, but I think these infringements upon the liberties of our people have gone almost too far. This bill has been before the house some five times; I have opposed it upon each occasion, and I will continue to oppose it because I still have confidence in the common sense, the decency and the honesty of the Canadian people. We are getting too much law; we are infringing too much on the rights of the people. If my memory is correct, in other days no voice was raised more powerfully in this house when this question was discussed than that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon).


Mr. THORSON:: May I ask a question?


Peter McGibbon: If it is not too hard.
1S60

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Are we to take it that
the hon. gentleman wishes to preserve the right of transmitting trench mortars by post?


Peter McGibbon: If we could turn those
mortars on some of the members of the government who are supporting this bill I would answer yes. In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian people I must protest against this bill; it is not the only bill of this character which will come before this house, and I expect to have something to say in connection with the others. However, I think the time has come when we must stand up for our rights in this country. I remember how the Solicitor General voiced his condemnation of this legislation in the past; if I had time I would like to quote the speeches he delivered in this house when we considered similar bills in other years, but I shall not do so. I have very much pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Parry Sound.
Amendment (Mr. Arthurs) agreed to on
division.


DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin) moved the second reading of Bill No. 75, respecting the domicile of married women in proceedings for divorce.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WARD:: I think at the outset, Mr. Speaker,, it would be well if I read the bill, since there appears to be a feeling on the part of some members of the house that the bill has something to do with the divorce laws of Canada. That is not the case; it has no bearing at all upon the laws now governing divorce in this country except that it will enable the women of Canada to enter actions for divorce upofi the same grounds as those upon which they are now instituted by the men. The bill provides as follows:
1.	This act may be cited as The Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1929.
2.	For the purposes of this act a married woman,
(a)	who is judicially or otherwise separate and living separate and apart from her husband; or
(b)	who either before or after the passing of this act has been deserted by and lived separate and apart from her husband for a period of two years, and is still living apart from her husband;
may acquire a domicile for herself as though she were a feme sole and may commence an action for divorce praying that her marriage may be dissolved on any grounds that entitle her to such divorce in any court having jurisdiction to grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii.

The bill, I repeat, has no bearing whatever upon the present divorce laws of Canada. I make that explanation in order to clear the minds of those who think that we are attempting to make divorce easier, or anything of that kind.
It is, I understand, the settled law that in Canada the domicile of a married woman is the domicile of her husband no matter where he happens to be. It is also I understand, the law that the jurisdiction of the provincial courts in provinces where there is provision for divorce, and the jurisdiction of parliament, depend on the question whether the applicant is domiciled, in the one case in the province, and in the other in the Dominion of Canada.
There are many women in Canada whose husbands have deserted them and in some cases remarried and settled in other countries -in this case another province is another dominion or another country-and these women are deprived of the right of obtaining a divorce by reason of this rule of law. I know of three or four such cases in my own riding, and, considering the position which has been given to woman with respect to property, the exercise of the franchise and many other matters, I think it is time that she was put on the same .basis as her husband with reference to his important domestic matter. In other words, I believe that the old rule of law making the woman's domicile absolutely dependent upon the domicile of her husband should be altered and that woman should be given the right to establish a domicile of her own, separate and independent from that of the husband. This is only a matter of common sense, reason and fair play. There is no sound reason why an obsolete rule of law should be invoked to deprive women throughout Canada of access to the courts in order to obtain redress in the same way that men can. I am urging it for the consideration of the house simply for this reason.
In my own province and the neighbouring provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and BriV'sh Columbia the courts have jurisdiction in divorce. Any man, no matter where his wife lives, can come to any of these four provinces, acquire a domicile and seek redress from the courts by way of divorce. But women who have lived all their lives in these provinces, who are citizens and voters and in many cases large property owners paying taxes and generally carrying out all the honourable demands of society, are denied the right of access to the courts because it happens that their husbands have deserted them and acquired a domicile in some foreign country. It is ridiculous to say that because the woman's husband has deserted her and has gone to

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
Mexico, Australia or China, her domicile is removed to one of those places. I know women who have never left the province of Manitoba but who have been told that their domicile is in England, South Africa or the United States. For these reasons I have thought fit to bring in this bill and urge it upon the attention of the house.
As I know that this matter involves a great many difficult questions of law and as I am a layman, I am presenting it to the house for consideration in this general way in the hope that a number of the lawyers in the house will join in the debate and express their views on the subject. I know that many hon. members of the legal profession are familiar with the question and can give us a full explanation of the points involved, considered from the standpoint of the law.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has
explained, this bill is for the purpose of establishing the domicile of a woman who wishes to sue for divorce. Speaking for myself personally it is impossible for me to support this bill, as I am against the principle of divorce,
' and also because I believe this bill would facilitate the procuring of divorces.
Under the laws as at present, if a husband and wife who had been living in Ontario, their last domicile being in that province, separate and the wife goes to reside in Manitoba, then if dhe desires to sue for divorce she must do so in the province in which she was last domiciled, her legal domicile being her husband's domicile. Manitoba has divorce courts and Ontario has not. The result of this bill would be to enable a woman to take procedure in Manitoba and would only facilitate the granting of divorce. For these reasons I cannot support this legislation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill goes
farther than the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) has stated. This bill applies not only to the province of Alberta but to every province in Canada, and it simply means this: it enables the province of Nova Scotia or Manitoba, or any other province where divorces are granted, to be made into a Reno. Any wife who desires a divorce need only leave her husband and go to Manitoba and establish a domicile there. She could sue for divorce and compel her husband to come from any other province to defend that action.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: That privilege is granted to the husband at the present time, is it not?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would not put it in just
the way the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has put it; at the present time the wife's domicile is the domicile of her husband.


Charles A. Stewart: In the event of a husband desiring to obtain a divorce he can do what this bill purports to give the wife a right to do.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the present law the
wife's domicile is that of her husband; when the husband selects a domicile in some particular province that is his wife's domicile for all purposes, not only for the purpose of divorce but for every purpose in connection with their civil life. This law certainly would override the civil law of the province of Quebec, and would come in direct conflict with the civil law in other provinces of the Dominion. It would make a complete revolution in the civil status of married woman. This matter, therefore, should receive every attention and should not be passed as being something of minor importance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was very sorry indeed to hear the words of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) a few moments ago, because he touched only one remote phase of the question. I would like to submit to the house one type case in which gross injustice is now being done. Take the case of a married couple residing in any given place: the husband deserts his wife-and it is not an unusual thing -he goes away and the wife remains in her home town or locality. That is not her domicile, because her husband has run away and grossly deserted her. She is the victim of his evil propensities. That is undoubtedly an injustice to the decent womanhood which finds itself in that position. I have, for instance, knowdedge of a case in a western city where a young couple, both minors, were married. Their parents found the youngsters and they were separated. The young man went away and the woman, who was under age and who was married to him, is living still, as she was then, in the home of her parents. Ten years have passed. They do not know where the young man has gone. He has vanished, and she has no domicile except her husband's unknown domicile, wherever that may be. In regard to what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has just said about the question of property and many other rights, they are determined upon the ipse dixit of this chap who has run away.


REVISED EDITION1 18G2 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
Heaven knows where. That is not a state of affairs which should be tolerated. I am not saying that the bill in its present form is perfect. I think my hon. friend put his finger upon the weak spot in the bill, but it is worthy of consideration.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Subclause (b) of section 1 would cover the case my hon. friend mentions


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are considering now
the question whether the bill should be given its second reading, but I agree with the point my hon. friend has raised that one clause is altogether too wide. By striking out the words "or otherwise separate", we could cure that, but I ask that the matter be given some consideration. I have in my hand the judgment of a judge referring to this, indicating that the discrepancies in the law ought to be considered by parliament. Time is too short to precipitate a full discussion, but I ask either that the bill be allowed to pass its second reading and be sent to a committee for study, or at least that the government should give to it consideration, if the Solicitor General will pardon me for putting it in this way. other than the personal wishes of the Solicitor General.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend will remember that I prefaced my remarks by saying that this was just my personal opinion; that I was not speaking for the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the Solicitor General is speaking as solicitor general of a government and weight is attached to his words not only because of his position, but also because of his great legal learning in regard to these matters.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is one observation which I should like to add to the remarks that have been made. It seems to me that there is also in this bill a principle of wide concern and application to the people of Canada, that is, the matter of equal rights of the womanhood of this country in comparison with the rights the men hold. There has been through modem times a strong development in equalizing the social, political and economic rights of the womanhood of this country. This is not a question of the principle of divorce; it is not a question where the convictions of any hon. member should interfere with his sense of justice and duty to the womanhood of Canada with regard to its right to equal treatment with the men of Canada. I am one of those who believe that the time has arrived in our civilization when the women of Canada, and, in fact, of ether countries, do not have to regard

themselves as having an inferiority complex, or rather, when the men should not regard themselves as possessing a superiority complex. I should like to place before the house the simple thought that underlying this bill is the fact that the attitude of the house will be a declaration whether or not the parliament of Canada, which unfortunately possesses only one woman and a good one at that, will deny to the women the principle of equal treatment in this matter as well as in all social, political and economic matters.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Hewitt Bostock: , The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume in committee of supply.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Outside service - salaries and allowances, $17,295,464.40.
George Reginald Geary: When the house rose at six o'clock, I think the Postmaster General was in the midst of an explanation in regard to the St. John post office.


Peter John Veniot: I had nothing more to say in regard to the St. John post office.


George Reginald Geary: I do not think the hon.
gentleman said anything. I do not know that his present attitude is so unusual after all.
I am going to ask him categorically whether or not he will take the committee into his confidence at least to the extent of informing it as to the reasons that prompted him to exercise some authority, which I suppose he has, to put an officer of junior rank over the head of the senior in charge of the district about St. John, New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: I have already stated to
the committee that for some time I had in view an investigation into the discipline, if I can use that term, in the administration of the office in the city of St. John as well as in the inspectoral district of that section. Certain difficulties had arisen there which were a subject for investigation by two of our expert officials who were sent from Ottawa, expert, first, in financial administration, and, second, in the operation of the office. When the question arose through the absence or leave of absence from Canada of the district superintendent, I felt, from my observation of affairs in St, John in the last year-and I have visited that office fre-

Supply-Post Office
quently and have had occasion to discuss its administration and operation with my head officials-that I was doing what I considered right in placing the gentleman I did place, in charge as acting district superintendent. This I felt would bring matters to a head, and certainly I was not mistaken, for matters are coming to a head. The investigation is still in the air, so to speak, still going on quietly, and until it has been completed and reports have been made to the department by the responsible officials, I feel that the house should not ask me to go any further into the matter.


John Arthur Clark: I would ask the Postmaster General whether he has secured from the Civil Service Commission the file with reference to the post office at Sutton, Quebec.


Peter John Veniot: The hon, gentleman should ask the Secretary of State.


John Arthur Clark: On the orders of the day to-day I asked the Postmaster General this question. The Secretary of State was in the house, and he undertook to produce the file.


Peter John Veniot: I have not got it.


John Arthur Clark: Then I would ask the Postmaster General if he will tell the committee why the postmaster at Sutton was dismissed.


Peter John Veniot: I think the record will show that. I will have it brought down; I think we have it.


John Arthur Clark: This is a matter which the Postmaster General has known for some days would be brought before the committee, and information with respect to it has been requested on several occasions. I think we might have the information now. I am sure the minister's deputy would be able to give him the information.


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to be understood as refusing to give any information. I have nothing to hide in connection with any post office or in connection with my actions respecting any part of my department. I am prepared to give all information possible. I think the file has been asked for and laid on the table; I do not know that I have a copy of if with me. The part that was said to be missing was that part of the file that would be furnished by the Civil Service Commission. That was asked for only this afternoon, and it was impossible for the Secretary of State to obtain it from the commission in time to present it this evening. The best I can do is to call his attention to the matter 78594-118J
and have the file completed by the production to-morrow of the papers from the Civil Service Commission. I can assure the hon. gentleman that no matter what item we may be on, he will not be precluded from discussing this matter.


John Arthur Clark: I am quite prepared to accept the undertaking of the Postmaster General to produce that part of the file, but that portion of the file has nothing whatever to do with the question I am now asking, namely, why was the postmaster at Sutton dismissed? He was a man by the name of Oimstead. I am quite convinced that the minister's deputy can give him the information for the benefit of the committee.


Peter John Veniot: The deputy says that he cannot give it off-hand, and I do not think it is right to expect it.


John Arthur Clark: I would ask the minister if he has any personal memory of having dealt with that post office.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I have.


John Arthur Clark: I would like the minister to give us his memory of the circumstances.


Peter John Veniot: No, I shall not undertake to speak from memory for fear that I might be depending upon my memory too much and make a mistake. I will bring down the record to-morrow, if the hon. gentleman is satisfied to accept my word.


John Arthur Clark: Possibly the Postmaster
General has that file here.


Peter John Veniot: I am just looking through
my papers now to see if I have it.


John Arthur Clark: We can wait.


Peter John Veniot: I do not see it here.


John Arthur Clark: In order that there may be
no misunderstanding to-morrow, may I ask the Postmaster General whether he will give a statement to the house to-morrow as to the reasons for the dismissal of this official.


Peter John Veniot: I shall be pleased to do
so.


John Arthur Clark: And bring down the balance of the file from the Civil Service Commission?


Peter John Veniot: I shall be pleased to do
so.


John Arthur Clark: And also make a statement
to the committee why the office, which was advertised in October, 1927, has not yet been filled?
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I will give all that information.


Mr. SHORT:: I want to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General and of the house a dismissal which took place in my constituency. This is only one of many. I refer to the dismissal of the postmaster at Waterford, Digby county. I asked for the file a few days ago, and as usual, I got only a part of it. From the files that are brought down by the Postmaster General there is always something missing, and from this particular file the most important thing that is missing is a largely signed petition from the residents of that district.
In looking over the file I find first a letter from the defeated candidate in my constituency, Doctor Lovett, asking for the dismissal of the postmaster at Waterford, Digby county. He says in that letter:
I am asking for the dismissal of George Johnson, postmaster at Waterford, Digby county. Nova Scotia, on the ground that he is a Tory partisan and took an active part in the last federal election in the interests of my opponent, the Tory candidate. I would recommend aud urge the appointment of Mr. Leslie Sabean. of Waterford, to fill the vacancy caused by the dismissal of the present postmaster.
Yours respectfully,
(Signed) L. J. Lovett,
ex-M.P., Digby-Annapolis.
I want to say to the Postmaster General that this man Johnson is not a partisan. He had been postmaster in this district for many, many years; in fact, the post office in this district had been situated in this same house for fifty years, the office having been handed down from father to son. This postmaster took no active part in any political campaign. He is not a partisan. He did vote, I think, for me; I do not know positively, but I have every reason to believe that he did. But is a man to be called a partisan and is he to be deprived of the franchise simply because he holds a little sixty dollar position? Is that the policy of this government? It seems to me that every country postmaster in my constituency who is suspected of being a Conservative has been dismissed. Doctor Lovett, the defeated candidate, whom I had the pleasure of defeating on two occasions, was a member of this house for four years, from 1921 to 1925. During that period he made no dismissals at all, but he is taking his revenge now on these poor country postmasters drawing, salaries of sixty dollars, because he could not take it out of anyone else.
The next letter on this file is one from the chief post office superintendent at Ottawa to

the district superintendent at Halifax, advising him to appoint Mr. Leslie Sabean as postmaster in the place of Mr. George Johnson. Next is a letter addressed to Doctor Lovett from the Deputy Postmaster General advising him that instructions have been given to dismiss Mr. Johnson and appoint in his place Mr. Leslie Sabean. The next document on this file is a form of transfer signed by the chief superintendent of the post office service. This is followed by a letter from Mr. Sabean, who had been appointed to the office, refusing the appointment. It is dated March 14, 1927, but does not appear to be addressed to anyone. He writes:
Dear Sir,-
I am unable to accept the position at Waterford as it is my intention to move away from here. Sorry not to have been able to let you know before.
Mr. Sabean never moved away from the district; he is living theTe yet. On March 21 the Deputy Postmaster General wrote to Doctor Lovett informing him of Mr. Sabean's refusal to accept the position and asking to be given the name of another reliable party. Doctor Lovett never answered this communication, but the Postmaster General was not satisfied to let the matter rest there, and on May 3 he writes Doctor Lovett:
Permit me to draw your attention to the correspondence relative to the proposed change at Waterford, N.S. As you are aware, the dismissal of the postmaster was authorized by the Postmaster General, but your nominee, Mr. Leslie Sabean. declined the appointment. You were informed of this vacancy on March 21, and I would be pleased to hear from you as Boon as possible.
Evidently Doctor Lovett was satisfied to let the matter drop, but the Postmaster General wanted the head of this little sixty-dollar postmaster to go into the basket with the rest of them. Doctor Lovett did not reply until May 31, nearly a month later.	Finally he
went to Leslie Sabean and then sent this letter to Mr. Gaboury:
Re Waterford Post Office
Mr. Leslie Sabean has decided to accept the position of postmaster at Waterford. Will you please see that his appointment is made, and oblige.
Evidently they were forcing the appointment on Sabean.
An hou. MEMBER: Did they increase the
salary?


Harry Bernard Short: Not until they appointed their own Liberal nominee; then they raised it to $100. The correspondence goes to the post office inspector at Halifax with instructions to make the appointment. Again Mr. Sabean

Supply-Post Office
declined. This is the third time that they tried to force rhe office on him. Then follows a letter signed by the district superintendent at Halifax, addressed to the chief superintendent of the post office service. It is dated June 15, 1927. and is in this form:
AVith reference to departmental memorandum of the 7th instant, and to previous correspondence regarding the vacancy in the postmastership at Waterford, the district superintendent has to report that Mr. Leslie Sabean on again being notified that the office was to be transferred to him writes as follows, under date of the 14th inst.:
This is what Mr. Sabean says:
"I have decided not to take the post office even for a short time, as I still intend to move away from AVaterford,-
And he winds up his letter:


and why make unnecessary bother."
That, shows how far the Postmaster General goes with these little sixty-dollar offices. Under date of August 11, I find that Mr. Coolican, the Acting Deputy Postmaster General. wrote to Doctor Lovett. It will be noticed that another official has taken up the correspondence-of course at the dictation of the Postmaster General. This is the letter:
Re: POS-AYaterford, N.S.
Dear Dr. Lovett,-
Permit me to refer to previous correspondence regarding the vacancy in the above postmastership and to say that I would be glad if you were now in a position to submit a recommendation in this case at your earliest oonveni ence.
As stated in a letter from the Deputy Postmaster General, dated the 22nd June, Mr. Leslie Sabean, whom you had recommended for the position, declined to accept the office.
Now this is the reason why Mr. Sabean declined to accept the office. As I say, this post office was situated practically right in the centre of the district. It had been located in the same house for fifty years under two or three postmasters of the same family. Each of these officials had given entire satisfaction to the community. The last of them was very popular, and as soon as the people heard of his dismissal a petition was circulated and signed by practically every resident. This was sent to the Postmaster General, but it does not appear on the file. That explains why Mr. Sabean would not take the office, and the Postmaster General could not get anyone else in the district to accept the position until along in the latter part of September, the 21st to be precise, when Doctor Lovett write the Postmaster General as follows:
I am now in a position to recommend the appointment of Air. Wm. Walker for postmaster at Waterford, Digby county, N.S. This appointment would be in the public interest.
Think of it! Mr. Walker's house is not conveniently situated, and many residents declined to have their mail sent to that post office. So the change is not very much in the public interest. I see there is another letter on the file, dated November 2, 1927, from the district superintendent at Halifax, to the chief superintendent at Ottawa, in which he says:
Referring to departmental memorandum of September 28, the district superintendent has to say that the transfer of the Waterford post office to Air. William Walker was effected on October 20.
The office was moved three hundred yards west hut the travel of the mail courier was not affected.
Now, as a matter of fact the district superintendent never was in that locality at all or he would not have made the statement that the office was moved three hundred yards. Really it was moved three-quarters of a mile. That is the kind of service we are getting down in certain sections of Nova Scotia. In the twenty-mile district in which this office is situated there are six other offices, and every one of them has been changed since 1926, and in each case it has resulted in great inconvenience to the locality served. Yet not a charge was laid against any one of these postmasters. The only reason for their dismissal was the recommendation made by the defeated candidate. If he could have his way, every departmental official in my constituency would have to get out- every one of them, because that is the disposition of the defeated candidate. He tried it in the customs last year, and when the matter was investigated they had to appoint the man the Civil Service Commission nominated. Unfortunately, none of these postmasters came under the Civil Service Act. They could not point a finger at Mr. Johnson, as postmaster, unless it was because he was supposed to have voted for the Tory candidate. Is it a crime in this country for a man to vote for a Tory candidate? Are none of those sixty-dollar a year postmasters able to exercise their franchise? That seems to be the disposition of the Post Office department. If Doctor Lovett wanted these removals, he was a member of this house from 1921 to 1925 and all he had to do was to stand up in his place in this house and ask for the dismissal of those postmasters and it would have been granted. He was not so much interested in the men then because he was a member, but since his defeat he wants to take his revenge upon these underpaid country postmasters, and that is the way he does it.
This is only one case of many that I have in my constituency. I could call the Post-
Supply-Post Office

master General's attention to another one in my constituency, in Annapolis county. The post office there had been in the same house for twenty-seven years. They could not get any person in the district to accept the. office, and they closed it altogether. That is the condition there. I asked for a rural mail route in that district after that, and I wrote to the Postmaster General regarding it. He said he would make inquiry. He sent the district superintendent down to interview Doctor Lovett and asked him what he thought about this rural mail route in the district, and Doctor Lovett advised against it. Is the Post Office Department going to take the advice of every defeated candidate, as to how our postal department should be run? It seems so in these small country offices. I say it is a disgrace to the postal department of this country. It never occurred under the administration of any other Postmaster General.
Some lion. MEMBER:	Oh, oh.


Harry Bernard Short: Never, Never have there
been so many petty dismissals in the province of Nova Scotia as have taken place since the present Postmaster General has occupied office. This gentleman that I have reference to here served as postmaster under the Liberal government from 1896 to 1911. He was good enough for them; why is he not good enough for the present government? Now they are scalping, and every man who holds a petty office and who is not one of their faith has got to walk the plank. I am going to tell the Postmaster General, though, that so far as political expediency is concerned he has made a great mistake in this case, because I doubt if a Liberal candidate could go in there at election time and get half a dozen votes where they used to have a majority. And I doubt if Doctor Lovett personally knows this man at all; but he was told by some of the heelers in the constituency that these petty postmasters must go, and that is the reason and the sole reason. I say it is a disgrace to the post office department to think that every country postmaster, simply because he exercises his franchise at election time, is obliged to lose his office.


Peter John Veniot: I do not want to take up the time of the committee, but I would just direct the hon. gentleman's attention to a comparison I am going to make. If it is a crime for the present Postmaster General to dismiss on the recommendation of friends of the party certain postmasters, what can we call it when we look at the record of Nova Scotia from the 1st of October, 1911, to-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: -to the 30th of September, 1917, when there were 254 postmasters dismissed on the recommendation of defeated and elected candidates.


Harry Bernard Short: How many of those postmasters who were dismissed were replaced by rural mail services?


Peter John Veniot: Since we are on that question, I just want to deal with that. Every postmaster dismissed from 1911 to 1917 was dismissed irrespective of the closing of post offices for the opening of rural routes. The record shows that. Just let me give an example or two to prove it.


Harry Bernard Short: How many in Nova Scotia
in that time?


Peter John Veniot: In Nova Scotia there were very few rural routes opened, and there were 254 postmasters dismissed.


Harry Bernard Short: That is from 1911 to 1925.


Peter John Veniot: Let us look at it. In the
province of New Brunswick there were 91 dismissals, and there were 32 rural routes opened. Supposing for a moment that the contention is correct, that these dismissals are contingent upon the closing of offices or the opening of rural routes, there still remains a difference of some 60 there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not follow, that one rural route would close several offices.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, but there was not a
single dismissal recorded as a dismissal connected with the opening of rural routes. In the province of Saskatchewan there were 57 dismissals and there was not a single rural route opened. Take Manitoba. There were 43 dismissals and there were only 2 rural routes opened. And, as I stated before, every rural route opened which resulted in the closing of an office is not taken into account in the 1,604 or 1,608 postmasters mercilessly dismissed without thought of an investigation by our friends opposite when they were in power. I have dismissed some, it is true. I do not attempt to deny it. I am prepared to take that responsibility as I should take it as the head of a department. I have dismissed some, but I have not dismissed the number that my hon. friends say for political purposes, not anything near that number. And let me say here that not a single post-

Supply-Post Office
master who comes under the Civil Service Commission was dismissed 'by the present Postmaster General without an investigation first being held under oath in compliance with the order in council referred to the other night.


Harry Bernard Short: You could not do otherwise.


Peter John Veniot: And on the personal certificate of a member representing the county.


John Arthur Clark: Would that investigation
appear in the files produced relating to the dismissal of any particular postmaster?


Peter John Veniot: It certainly would.


John Arthur Clark: The evidence would be
there?


Peter John Veniot: The evidence I think is
there.


John Arthur Clark: Well, I will tell the Postmaster General that so far as the file concerning the dismissal of the postmaster at the town of Sutton is concerned there is no such thing in the file. There is no such investigation indicated. The dismissal there is on the personal signature of the Postmaster General, so far as I can ascertain, without any investigation whatever; and there is also the statement in that file that that particular postmastership comes under the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: Does my hon. friend see
there a report from an inspector?


John Arthur Clark: Yes, but there is nothing to indicate that an investigation was held under oath.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman reads the file he may find in the report of the inspector sufficient to warrant the Postmaster General in taking action on the investigation of one of his own officials.


John Arthur Clark: There is absolutely nothing
in this file of that kind and, what is more, the report of the inspector is entirely favourable to the postmaster, in spite of which the Postmaster General dismissed this man. I will undertake to say that no evidence under oath was taken, that there was no proper investigation, and that the statement made by the Postmaster General just now is incorrect.


Peter John Veniot: That statement is correct,
jnd my hon. friend has no right to say it is not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not so very much
concerned about the dismissals in my constituency; so far as I can recall there have been only three. The most important one was at Canterbury Station, and if I were so disposed I might move a vote of thanks to the Postmaster General for having dismissed this gentleman, because I think he will be my very best political worker in that part of the county at the next election. I venture to say that his dismissal will be worth fifty votes to me.
However, that is not my purpose in rising at this time. I regret that I was out of the chamber this afternoon when the hon. member for St. Jobn-Albert (Mr. Bell) made a request with regard to the bringing down of certain correspondence having to do with the conditions existing in the office of the district superintendent in the city of St. John. I would like to ask the. Postmaster General to supplement what he has promised to bring down by the correspondence from and to his department or any official thereof, addressed to or coming from the district superintendent or any of his assistants in reference to the alleged irregularities of Mr. Griffith, covering a period of two years.


Peter John Veniot: I said I would bring down
the file.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister bring
down the entire file covering a period of two years?


Peter John Veniot: When I say I will bring
down the file does my hon. friend think I should qualify that statement?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have heard of such
things as mental reservations.


Peter John Veniot: So have I, and the hon.
gentleman knows to what I am referring.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know. I do not want any mental reservations in this case; if we can have the complete file it will suit my purpose.


George Reginald Geary: May I ask the minister if
it is his usual practice to override the reports of his superintendents?


Peter John Veniot: Not generally; I do not
think it is.


George Reginald Geary: He did it in the Picton
case; the direct recommendation was overruled.


Peter McGibbon: I would like the attention of the Postmaster General for just a moment.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I should not be expected to answer everyone at the same time. The Picton case has been brought up and I would like to know if the hon. gentleman wants to discuss it.
M. GEARY:	Yes, I would like it discussed.


Peter John Veniot: Then my hon. friend had
better go ahead.
Mr.	GEARY:	Does the Postmaster
General intend to meet the objection I have just raised with regard to the Picton case?


Peter John Veniot: What was the objection?


George Reginald Geary: Why did you override the
very favourable report of the inspector?


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman will tell the house how that report was overridden I will take up the question.


George Reginald Geary: The district superintendent
definitely recommended a man named Way for >the appointment, in a very favourable report, The minister wrote a letter to his deputy in which, without assigning any reason, he said, "Reject this man Way." Way had been in the office for some twenty years and was placed at the head of the list by the minister's own official.


Peter John Veniot: I discussed that question
the other evening, as the hon. gentleman will remember; if he wishes to have the discussion gone over again I am prepared to do so.


George Reginald Geary: Very well.


Peter John Veniot: At that time I drew attention to the fact that, technically speaking, I did not override the recommendation of the qualifying officer, the inspector of the department; I refused to accept the certificate issued by the Civil Service Commission in favour of Mr. Way. This gentleman had been in the office since 1905; he had been there seven years when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power in 1911 or 1912. At that time they dismissed the postmaster, or there was a vacancy of some kind, and they refused to recognize the ability and the qualifications of Mr. Way after his service in that office when they appointed another gentleman to the position.
When that office became vacant in 1927 or 1928, after an investigation into what was supposed to be and what later was proved to be the political activities of the postmaster in the handling of mail matter during the election, after which inquiry the postmaster was dismissed, the vacancy was advertised. Mr. Way was an applicant; he, as assistant

postmaster, was almost as much to blame as the postmaster for the irregularities which took place, since he looked after the mail in the absence of the .postmaster. So, under the evidence which to my mind was sufficient to bring about the dismissal of the postmaster for mishandling the mail, I did not think Mr. Way was a fit and proper person for the position, although he may have had the necessary knowledge to carry on the work of that office.


George Reginald Geary: There are just two points
in the explanation of the Postmaster General to which I intend to refer. In 1911 this man Way had been some six years in that office; he was then 22 years of age, a mere boy. He did not apply for the position but he was recognized by the Postmaster Genaral of that time, and was made assistant postmaster. During the investigation to which the minister has referred Way's name was never mentioned.


Peter John Veniot: No one said it was.


George Reginald Geary: He was the assistant postmaster. We need not go into the evidence again, because the evidence would not justify anyone in making a dismissal.


Peter John Veniot: The other evening the hon. gentleman went into the evidence and quoted only two or three witnesses. Why did he not quote the other witnesses?


George Reginald Geary: There was not another witness who gave evidence worth listening to.


Peter John Veniot: I have all the evidence here.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Way's name is not mentioned in the evidence either directly or indirectly. When the minister instructed his deputy to reject the nomination of AVay, if he had a reason for that, action why did he not state it as he was supposed to do under the act? He did not even communicate that reason to his deputy but simply instructed him to reject Way's application.


Peter John Veniot: Because he was not suitable.


George Reginald Geary: The minister did not say a word about his suitability; he did not mention a reason at all, but of course the deputy, knowing the law, had to put in some sort of justification. Was the fact communicated to the deputy that the Postmaster General did not think Way suitable because of the political activities of the office? It does not appear anywhere in the file that he did so, and as a matter of fact he did not. That was not the reason; the reason was that Purtelle and the party behind him at the

Supply-Post Office
very inception had made up this plot to get rid of the existing postmaster and later appoint Purtelle over the heads of everyone else. If the minister nad a reason he would have mentioned it, but the minister did not have that reason; there is not a word in the evidence, which was carried to such a length that I do not think it could be considered evidence, to suggest that anyone under the postmaster had anything to do with the alleged irregularities in connection with the maii, and throughout the investigation Way's name was not mentioned. It is idle for the minister to say that he had that in mind; obviously, if you take the history of the case from the beginning, what the minister had in mind was simply to assist the local political ward-heeling association to put the chief ward heeler in office.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to detain the committee a few moments while I read some evidence which I have in connection with the case I brought before parliament a few days ago. This matter concerned the dismissal of the postmaster at Uffington, the reason given being that of irregularity. I received an affidavit to-night which I would like to place on Hansard. It is as follows:
Province of Ontario District of Muskoka.
To wit:	.
We. Henry and Ada Byham of the township of Draper, district of Muskoka, farmer and married woman, make oath and say:
That on the 5th day of September, 1928, when the post office inspector came to remove the local post office at Uffington we were personally present and in answer to a question by the late postmaster as to the reasons of removal the inspector replied that there were no complaints or irregularities reported. When further pressed the inspector added that the post office had been removed through the political processes of Mr. J. B. Johnson, the defeated Liberal candidate.
I bring t-his forward only because this man's reputation has been damned in this house and in this country.
Some hon. MEMBERS': Order.


Peter McGibbon: There is also an affidavit made by the postmaster which states that on the day the inspector called he was $7 short in his accounts; at least there was that much money which was not in the till. He explains that a man had come into the post office for a money order and had promised to bring in the money for it in an hour or two. The postmaster gave him the money order and in the meantime the inspector arrived. That is all the evidence the Postmaster General or his department has been able to resurrect in
order to justify the dismissal of this man. Not only has he dismissed, but, as I said a moment ago, his reputation throughout the length and breadth of this country has been damned. I have another affidavit which I would like to read to the house, as follows:
Province of Ontario District of Muskoka.
I Henry Buckler, of the township of Draper, in the district of Muskoka, taxidermist, make oath and say:	. _ , .	,noQ T1st. That on the 9th day of October, 1928, I was in the Orange hall at Uffington, and talking to Mr. Ben Johnson, the defeated Liberal candidate at the last dominion election, about the post office being taken from me and given to Sam Hawn, when Mr. Johnson said, never mind, Harry, I will fix you up better than you ever were."	.	_	,
2nd. And Mr. Johnson seeing Sam Hawn mose by he called him over and said to him "Sam didn't you say you would give Harry Buckler four years' salary?"' Sam thought a little while then he said, "I do not think I said four years. I think I said four months' salary, Mr. Johnson."
Is any more evidence needed to show that this whole thing was nothing more or less than a political dismissal without one tittle of evidence- to justify it? It is bad enough to dismiss the man, but it is infinitely worse to damn the man's reputation throughout the length and breadth of Canada on the little evidence the department has been able to produce. I bring this matter to the attention of the committee only in the hope that I can clear this man's character in his old age and not have his name go down under the disgrace of having been dismissed because of irregularities in his office.


Mr. ESLING:: During last session, in the month of February, I asked the Postmaster General for a return of all correspondence and documents in connection with the dismissal of a postmaster in my district. That return was tabled by order of the house, but I now ask the Postmaster General if he will not lay on the table the missing correspondence in order to make the file complete. We all know the outside operations of these matters, but it is the inside political intrigue which cause us to ask for returns of correspondence.


Peter John Veniot: Would the hon. member
tell me the name of the particular office?


William Kemble Esling: It is Renata post office. I ask for this information because if a man is to be dismissed without a charge, without an investigation, without an inspector s report, or the opportunity for a hearing, then I submit that there is very little security for the average rural postmaster. If there is a covetous partizan-it does not make any differ-
1S70
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I have been in British
Columbia. I have been in Victoria.


William Kemble Esling: Its a long trip between Victoria and Renata.


Peter John Veniot: I have not been in Renata.


William Kemble Esling: When the Postmaster General comes to British Columbia, I shall be glad to take him to Renata just to show him the location which he does not consider suitable. By actual measurement Mr. Friesens' office, in the vicinity of which there had been a post office for many years, was only ten chains from the wharf, whereas the new location was exactly forty-five chains, or something over half a mile. I ask: Who recommended the change? I think what we are mostly interested in is that when a return is brought down we should have it all. Why should the minister be permitted to withhold that portion which has any political bearing on the matter? I should like to ask who complained.
In regard to this matter there was a very peculiar letter which went from perhaps the oldest and most substantial resident of that district, a responsible fruit shipper, to the district superintendent. The district superintendent in turn sent it on to the Postmaster General, and it is acknowledged. The revenue from Renata is less than $200, but at the time the change was made it was more than $200. This citizen writes to the district superintendent, and it appears that there was fear that this Liberal w-hip, Mr. Doherty, would be appointed to the office. He says:
Fearing that William Doherty might he appointed Renata postmaster I wrote on January 12-
That would be January 12, 1927.
-to the Postmaster General asking that a reliable party be sent in here to make inquiry before any appointment was made.
We have bad the Postmaster General on several occasions during this discussion state- and he was correct-that any post office with
a revenue of less than $400 did not come within the scope of the Civil Service Commission. This correspondent goes on to say:
I received answer bearing date of January 25 from which I quote.
Then he quotes the Postmaster General as saying:
This matter is still in abeyance and is in the hands of the Civil Service Commission, who have absolute control of such appointments.
That statement may have been an oversight. I do not expect the Postmaster General to know offhand just what the revenue of each post office is, but he could very easily find that out. The letter goes on:
Soon after Peter Friesen was appointed, and we felt very thankful that the matter was settled and in a very satisfactory way for the great majority of Renata citizens. Mr. Friesen, with the help of Mr. Wiebe, retiring postmaster, got his office in good shape and in a very convenient place between the wharf and the store. But this week like a "bolt from the blue" notice came that in two days the inspector would be here with orders from Ottawa to transfer the office to William Doherty, whose place is over half a mile from the wharf (45 chains by my blue print).
There surely has been misrepresentation somewhere. Tw-o petitions have gone in to headquarters signed by the great majority of the residents of Renata. William Doherty is roadmaster and by that means be controls a few- voters who would not sign the petition. William Doherty is also Justice of the Peace, appointed on the recommendation of one man and in spite of our protest. Now he is made our postmaster and that against almost universal protest-it would be universal if he had no government money to disburse.
When Mr. Friesen was removed, the district superintendent at Vancouver sent word to the office at Renata that an inspector would arrive on the 11th of March to make the transfer. This correspondent writes with respect to that:
We had hoped the inspector would be sent in to make a report.
The inspector arrived on the 11th of March. The letter continues:
Now that he lias been here he told us that he can make no report to Ottawa as to the situation here unless he is asked for it. Are we condemned without a hearing to deal daily with a man universally disliked?
So we have here, Mr. Chairman, the case of a postmaster being dismissed without any report being made to Ottawa. We have an inspector being sent to that post office to make the transfer, an'd he is not permitted to make a report to the department unless he is asked for it. But surely some kind of report must have been made by the inspector, anjd I suggest that that report be included in the
Supply-Post Office

correspondence to be brought down because I think it must have a material bearing on this case.
Here is another phase of the matter. The Postmaster General gave as a reason for making this transfer that he discovered that the location of the post office was not suitable. That hardly agrees with the circumstances and it hardly agrees with the protest which the Postmaster General must have on his file, because I have here a letter dated May 18, 1928, which was sent to the Postmaster General. It is important, but it is not contained on the file. In view of the fact that the Postmaster General assigns as a reason for making this change the unsuitable location of the post office, I submit that this letter has a pronounced bearing on that point.
In the correspondence that has passed between the Postmaster General and the Deputy Postmaster General respecting the Renata post office, the following passage occurs:
I have since discovered that this post office under Friesen is not situated in such a way as to give the most satisfaction to the public.
This statement is absolutely contrary to the facts of the case, as Mr. Friesen's location close to the wharf is the logical centre of business in that locality, whereas the present location is more than half a mile distant from the wharf and could hardly be more inconvenient, especially during the shipping season. That letter. Mr. Chairman, must be on the minister's file, but it is not on the file brought down, and that indicates some inclination at least to relieve the file of any evidence that the reasons given by the Postmaster General for the change are contradicted by the residents of Renata.
Here is a petition signed by forty-three citizens, and remember that there are only sixty-two people who get their mail at that post office. They say in this petition that the new office is half a mile distant; that Friesen's office was by all odds the most suitable and the most acceptable to shippers and those who had business to do with the boats, and yet the Postmaster General does not include this petition, in the file brought down.
There is nothing on the file to indicate how the Postmaster General discovered that the location was not, suitable. There is nothing on the file to indicate who recommended Mr. Doherty for the postmastership at Renata and surely there must have been some correspondence between the date of Friesen's appointment and the date of his dismissal. There is nothing on the file in connection with the inspector's visit on the 11th of

May, and he must have made a report to Ottawa. There is nothing on the file regarding the petition o-f forty-three residents of the locality, protesting against the removal of the postmaster and the removal of the post office. All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that the Postmaster General please lay on the table to-morrow the missing correspondence in connection with this dismissal and the new appointment, so that those of us in that part of the country may have a better knowledge of just who it is that is conducting this underground political sculduggery, and who is the go-between for the Liberal postmaster at Renata and the Postmaster General. I think we are entitled to have this information, because the people there were perfectly satisfied with their postmaster, and there has been nothing presented to this committee to indicate why the change was made except the statement that the Postmaster General says that Mr. Doherty was recommended some time ago. If he was, why did not the Postmaster General give consideration to appointing Mr. Doherty at the time Friesen was appointed? What was the motive behind the suggestion that Friesen was not the proper man and that the location was a poor one when a great majority of the residents of that district say that the new location is the poorer one by half a mile? I have a letter saying that some people near the old office and near the wharf pay a man to go and get their mail from the post office because they do not want to walk that distance to get it.
I am willing to overlook a great deal in this connection, Mr. Chairman, but, remember. this is a matter of vital interest to that little community, just as much so as the dismissal of a postmaster at some more important point is to another community. All I ask is that the file be completed. I happen to know something of the correspondence that has gone to the Postmaster General, and I ask him to lay it on the table to-morrow Then if it is not the correspondence to which I refer, I shall have to repeat my request.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be permitted to divert the attention of the committee a little from this tremendous accumulation of evidence of ihe partisan action of the present Postmaster General in regard to the administration of his office, and to appeal rather to his sympathies, to the softer side of his nature, while I say a word on behalf of those members of his staff who are referred to under the title of postal workers.

Supply-Post Office
A day or two ago the Postmaster General was good enough to give me some information in regard to the number of postal workers who are paid by the Port Office department. The number is rather large. The total, according to the memorandum given to me, is 10,005, subdivided as follows:
Letter carriers	 2,710
Postal clerks	 3,009
Railway mail clerks	 1,364
Postal helpers, postal porters, postal
chauffeurs	 2,922
Making a grand total of 10.005, comprising that class of the Post Office department known under the general heading of postal workers.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in regard to a very large portion of those ten thousand employees there is but one opinion in this house, and the Postmaster General himself must share it, and that is that they are a very much underpaid part of the service. I am fully aware that a week ago to-day when I made an appeal in this house on behalf of the rural mail carriers I was met by a very definite refusal on the part of the Postmaster General. I well remember, too, that in the appeal which I then made I received no support whatever from the government side of the house; not a single Liberal stood up and offered even a word of sympathy with regard to the remuneration which is now paid to our rural mail carriers. Three individuals did stand up and give as a reason for voting against my proposal that under the Civil Service Act rural mail carriers would have to be between eighteen and tlnrty-five years of age, and that if my motion carried it would disturb all the old carriers. Some hon. members have a very scrupulous regard for the Civil Service Act when it suits their particular purpose; but it is an act of this parliament, it can be changed in a moment at the will of this parliament, and all that would be necessary in the case I have just quoted would be a section providing that the age limit shall not apply to rural mail carriers; this would clear up the difficulty. But I regret to say I was not very fortunate in my appeal on behalf of the rural mail carriers: every Liberal and every Liberal-Progressive voted down the proposal. I am going to make an effort to-night to convince the minister that he should do something for the postal workers. This matter has been aired every session for the last eight or nine years. This session it was brought up by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) supported by another of the independent group from Winnipeg, and elaborated and supported by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens); but
never a word during the whole week's discussion from the Liberal benches or the Liberal-Progressive benches to support the proposal that the postal workers should receive a little more money for their services
I suppose the postal workers know, and the people of Canada know, that tlhe only way in which larger remuneration can ibe granted to them is by action of the government. No individual member in this house can make a proposal to increase the wages or salaries of these postal workers. It rests entirely with the government to make such a proposal, and until the government decides to act nothing can be done. Session after session we have urged upon the government this question of the under-payment of the postal workers. Session after session the government has declined to act, and I cannot recall a single supporter of the government ever saying a word to help these unfortunate postal workers obtain adequate pay to maintain themselves and t-heir families.
Now, the answer which the minister made last week When the appeal was made by the independent members for Winnipeg for an increase in pay was the one which he always makes when it suits his purpose-that he has no power under the law as it now stands to do so, because he says that is a matter which under the Civil Service Act must be arranged by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners. That is very true as the matter stands today, Mr. Chairman. The act does provide that those salaries shall be fixed, varied, increased or otherwise dealt with by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners. But the Civil Service Act is not like the law of the Medes and Persians. The Board of Civil Service Commissioners is not above this parliament. The will of parliament must prevail in any case, and if the Postmaster General and the government express any willingness on the subject it will prevail in this parliament. Let the Postmaster General consult with the Minister of Finance on the situation which exists, and which he knows exists, in regard to this matter. Let him lay before the Minister of Finance the real state of affairs in regard to these postal workers. Then what is the answer? It cannot be said that the Board of Civil Service Commissioners can negative the will of this parliament-not for a single moment. I do not know anyone more adept in evading and avoiding and circumventing the Civil Service Act than the Postmaster General. He has done it time and time again. The discussion during the past
Supply-Post Office

week has demonstrated that fact. When he wants to evade, to avoid-, to override or to circumvent the act he seems well able to do it. But the act is not a sacred thing. As I said, it is not like the law of the Medes and Persions. Every year certain positions are taken out of the Civil Service Act. Every year there is a return made before the parliament of Canada within the first ten days of the session showing what positions have been taken out of the operation of that act. Every year, according to the will of this house, we make appointments disregarding the Civil Service Commission altogether Not a session passes when we do not in the estimates pass item after item making new appointments, fixing new salaries, without consulting the Civil Service Commission. We do it by including them in the estimates. Take the estimates for last year of the Department of Labour, and take the estimates for last year of the Department of National Revenue; appointment after appointment will be made and has been made, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act. That is the will of the House of Commons.
If my hon. friend the Postmaster General has any real desire to deal fairly with these postal workers, let him not say that the Civil Service Act prevents his doing so, because such is not the case. If he desires to do it, if he desires to deal fairly with these men, all he has to do is to arrange with the Finance minister to bring in a supplementary estimate and we can pass it, according to law, in five minutes. There is nothing in the act to stop that.


Peter John Veniot: You know that is not correct.


Hugh Guthrie: I know it is correct, and I know we are doing it this year and have done it in other years.


Peter John Veniot: You are only playing to
the gallery.


Hugh Guthrie: Just let me point out
what I mean. We desired last year -to appoint a special secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada. That should have been done by the Civil Service Commission; the salary should have been arranged by the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: Not under the act, sir.


Hugh Guthrie: This was in the External Affairs department. So we put in the estimates last year an item, which reads "Secretary to the Prime Minister, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act''. We have done it time and time again, and if we so

desire we can bring in a supplementary estimate, or the Minister of Finance can, voting a sum of money to pay these postal workers anything that we decide they are entitled to. Do not let the minister repeat in this house that he is powerless. Surely parliament is not powerless. Surely we have not appointed a commission that can overawe or override us. Are we not supreme? Then if we are, there is the way out of the difficulty. But is the minister, is the government willing to do it? That is the question. They have shown no willingness, no desire, to take any action in the matter.
Why criticism of this government in regard particularly to the salaries of the civil service of Canada is this:	When it comes to the
higher grade salaries they are not niggardly, they are fairly generous; when it comes to a question of increasing the salaries of gentlemen of technical or professional knowledge, they take other means of getting round the Civil Service Act. They appoint a royal commission of three or four very distinguished Canadians to inquire into the situation and to report. For those higher officials they are reasonably awake to the situation; they seem quite -capable of providing the necessary salaries for technical experts, professional men, or deputy ministers. They do not turn the deaf ear to that class. But when it comes to the men in the lower grades, to the postal workers, "Oh," the minister says, "what can I do? Look at that Civil Service Commission; they will not recommend it." I believe that the lower grades of the civil service in Canada have been very badly treated by this government. The government has pursued a most dilatory course in considering their claims. Up to the present time they have successfully avoided action. They have sent those unfortunate people from pillar to post. Thf application goes to the government for an increase. "Oh, we -cannot do it," they say "go to the Civil Service Commission." Then some kind of commission is appointed to report on the matter; it is considered, a report is made to parliament, the government pigeonholes the report, and nothing is cJone. And so from the year 1923 down to this date there has been request after request, consideration promised, consideration delayed. Reports have been made but action has never been taken. I think the civil service of Canada has shown wonderful patience in the matter, but there comes a time when patience becomes absolutely worn out. That time has pretty nearly arrived, I think.
What does the Postmaster General think of a situation like this? Take the case of the

Supply-Post Office
letter carriers. We ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) what the actual cost of living in Canada is, and he says that for the bare necessaries of life for a family of five the cost in the month of January-I am giving January of this year-was $21.55 a week. Now, that is only for food, fuel, and rent. The climate of this country demands that we have warm clothing, but for food, fuel and rent, for a family of five, according to the Minister of Labour-and I fancy his report is pretty accurate-the cost of living is $21.55 per week, or an annual payment of $1,225, without clothing. And do you know that there are any number of postal workers in this country whc are receiving $80 a month? A number are receiving $90 a month. Ninety dollars a month would bring a man $1,080 a year, but they deduct, I believe, in the case of letter carriers, 5 per cent for superannuation fund, leaving a net salary of $1,020 per annum; yet the Minister of Labour assures the House of Commons and the people of Canada that for the bare necessaries of life in Canada in January last the cost of living was at the rate of $1,225 per annum. Does not that demonstrate to a conclusion that the department is not paying these men sufficient to enable them to enjoy a decent living? A single man may be able to exist, but we are rather inclined in this country to encourage the married state and the production of large families. We need large families in Canada, yet we have on the one hand the statement of a responsible department that it takes SI .225 per annum to keep a family of five in food, fuel and rent, apart from clothing, and, on the other hand, sitting in the same government a minister who will not pay the men even that amount. Surely one has only to cite these facts to secure the sympathy of the minister, to get his willingness, to act, to have him say, "Yes, I will help out; I will do something for those unfortunate servants in my department who are underpaid." I do not say that the whole 10,005 are underpaid, but I do know that a great many in this class are underpaid according to the standards which the minister's own government has applied to the public generally. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we can appeal to the Postmaster General on a situation of that kind without, any accusation of partisanship and succeed in getting not only his sympathy but his action in this matter. My suggestion is that he talk over this matter with his colleagues at once. Do not let this session pass without action; do not put it off until another session; do not wait until the eve of a general election to make the announcement. The
Postmaster General will get far more credit for action this session than he will if he delays until next year; it will be more genuine if it comes during this session than if he waits until the eve of a general election. Why can we not get some support for this application from Liberal members opposite? Why can not we get some backing from the Liberal Progressives in this house Why have they remained silent during five days of this discussion?


Mr. POWER:: They have not had a chance to speak.


Hugh Guthrie: They will have a chance in a few moments. I believe that if any considerable number will back my proposal we will succeed this session in righting this wrong, because it is a wrong.
This government cannot say that they cannot afford it; after the 'budget speech we know they can afford it. The 2,700 letter carriers in Canada could each be paid $200 a year more for the amount of money spent last year on motor cars, according to the Auditor General's report; you could pay them $200 a year each for the $500,000 you wasted for a house in Washington; you could pay them another large amount for the tens of thousands of dollars you have been wasting in North Bruce in order to elect a minister of the crown at the next general election. A minister of finance who comes to parliament and closes his financial year on April 1 with a surplus of $60,000,000 in his treasury can pay every one of these 10,000 postal workers an additional $250 this year; that will take $2,500,000 of his surplus and still leave him $57,500,000 to play around with. Do not say the country cannot afford it this year. This is the year to make the application, the year in which we have the surplus that has been referred to, while men are receiving from this government a rate of pay which will not enable them to maintain their families in decency.
Surely this is a situation which must be remedied.. Year after year the request is made; year after year I fancy ministers are deluged with requests, of which I suppose every member of the house receives copies. But whether the government are too careless about it, whether they are too much occupied with other matters, whether the time of the Postmaster General is too much occupied in. dismissing postmasters and hunting up new men for these offices, I know not. I feel like advising the postal workers to take what satisfaction they may out of that parable of our Lord in respect to the unjust judge..
Supply-Post Office

I do not suppose in this committee anyone but myself and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will recognize the reference, but if the postal workers will look up the eighteenth chaper of St. Luke they will find that in a certain city there was a judge who feared not God nor regarded man. There was also a widow in that city who came unto him asking him to avenge her of her enemy and he would not for a while, but afterwards said. "Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troUbleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me." Now I think we had better tell the underpaid officials in 'the Post Office department to keep up their requests until they .succeed in wearying the Postmaster General and worrying this government, and on the principle expounded in the parable of the unjust judge perhaps some day they may succeed. However, I can assure them that in any event they have not very long to wait; soon there will be in power in this country a government which will listen to their appeals and which will be prepared to satisfy promptly every just and reasonable demand.
I hope I have not said anything harsh to the Postmaster General; I realize that he received a very doubtful compliment this afternoon when he obtained a majority of only twenty-seven on the vote on the amendement and his feelings at the moment may be a little ruffled. I am trying to appeal to his sense of justice and of fair play. Here is the opportunity ; here is the grievance; here is the government with a surplus of $60,000,000, a government which at times can be wildly extravagant. Surely we can get a little additional salary for the letter carriers, the postal workers, the postal porters and all the others included in those 10,005 men now working day in and day out for the Post Office department, a great many of whom are not being paid enough money to keep body and soul together.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to find that my hon. friend has been driven to such an extremity that he quotes sacred history in order to -plead the case of the postal workers, or perhaps I should say he w-as appealing to the galleries in order to cover up the inconsistencies of which he and his -party were guilty when the postal workers appealed to them when they were in power in 1919 and again in 1921. At that time they asked for bread and were given a stone.


Hugh Guthrie: They were given more than they are getting now. They were given a bonus then, w-hi'ch they are not getting now.


Peter John Veniot: When the postal workers of the country appealed to the government of that day they were referred to the Griffenhagen commission, and through that commission they were -placed under the Civil Service Commission as it is now constituted. From that day to this they have been under that commission; that was the response given by the Tory party to the appeals made by the postal workers of that day.


Hugh Guthrie: We gave -them the bonus.


Peter John Veniot: There has been no necessity for the postal workers of Canada to be afraid to appeal to the Liberal government on any occasion, at least since I have had the honour of being Postmaster General. The postal workers will testify that on all occasions, at all times and in every possible way they have received my sympathetic su-pport and that on different occasions I have strongly recommended to the Civil Service Commission that they consider the situation of the poorly paid postal workers of Canada. I guaranteed to the Civil Service Commission that the government was, -prepared to place in the estimates an -amount sufficient -to cover the higher classification and the increased wages they might recommend for the postal workers, the postal clerks, the postal helpers and the railway mail clerks of Canada. I have failed in my efforts as far as the -postal helpers, postal workers -and postal clerks are concerned. I have partly-succeeded with regard to the railway mail clerks, and in the estimates this year there is an a-mount to cover increases in salary to -the railway mail clerks as recommended by the Civil Service Commission.
My hon. friend says there is an easy way of accomplishing this end; -according to him all we have to do is place in the supplementary estimates an amount of money sufficient to -meet the increases -to which we consider these postal workers entitled. Why, Mr. Chairman, last night I was roundly denounced by the hon. gentleman's leader 'because I was not living up to the spirit a-nd the letter of the Civil Service Act.


Hugh Guthrie: I grant that, but-


Peter John Veniot: I did not interrupt my hon. friend when he was speaking. To-night I am asked by the first lieutenant of the leader of the opposition to ignore completely the Civil Service Act and place this amount in the supplementary estimates, while as an old parliamentarian my hon. friend knows that cannot 'be done without an amendment to the Civil Service Act as it stands to-day.


Hugh Guthrie: Is parliament supreme?

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: If a supplementary estimate is brought down and voted by parliament contrary to the statute, the Auditor General would refuse to recognize it. Everyone knows that he is supreme in these matters, and no one knows it better than the hon. gentleman who is now leading the opposition in the absence of his leader. They talk about the poor postal helpers, the small pay they are receiving, and such things, but talking to the galleries in this house is quite cheap.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is looking for the spotlight now?


Peter John Veniot: I would like to give the house once more the evidence of what this government has attempted to do to encourage the Civil Service Commission in recognizing the just claims of those who are classified as postal workers, postal helpers and postal clerks. I would like to read the last communication I sent to the Civil Service Commission after they had refused point blank to consider the recommendation made by myself that an increase be made in the salaries of these men. This matter had been under consideration for nearly one year and I had written to them pointing out that the estimates had to be arranged for the coming year and that it was the intention to place sufficient in the general estimates to meet an increase in salary to the postal helpers, postal workers and postal clerks, provided the commission would do its duty and recommend such an increase. They replied on March 9, refusing to comply with my request, and on March 11 I wrote as follows:
I note you say that the matter has been placed before the board of commissioners and that after full consideration of the subject matter contained in my letter the commissioners have decided to confirm their decision of May 2. 1928. which was that further increase in the compensation of these classes is not justified.
That is the decision of the very body which the hon. members contended last night I should follow in every respect. That is their answer, and they are the only ones qualified to give an answer. The letter continued:
I wish to thank you for the information but at the same time I regret that your commission has not seen fit to accept the recommendation of the department in favour of the postal clerks, letter carriers and mail porters, because I am convinced that they are deserving of better pay than they are now receiving.
That is the policy laid down by myself with the full authority of the government. When that was placed before the Civil Service Commission they refused absolutely to take advantage of the power given them un-78594-119
der the statute to grant an increase, and they say the increase is not justified. The hon. gentleman may appeal to every kind of feeling and prejudice, but the fact remains that that commission, placed there by them when the postal workers were appealing for a living wage, and when they were in a position to grant it without any reference to the commission, refused to grant such an increase. Hon. members may pound their desks-we know exactly what that means-but the fact still remains that when the hon. members opposite had the power to increase the salaries of these men they ignored that opportunity and placed the power in the hands of the very commission which is saying today that they are not justified in accepting a recommendation that these poorly paid employees of the government should receive an increase in salary.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that the Postmaster General misconceives the actual situation. He says that we on this side of the house expect him to live up to the letter and the spirit of the Civil Service Act-we certainly do, and in every particular. We expect the government to do the same thing. But how can it be said that parliament is bound by its own creature? Is this Civil Service Cimmission an autocracy? Are they above the will of the people as expressed in parliament? It is nonsense to say that they are.


Peter John Veniot: Change the act.


Hugh Guthrie: The power that created
it can change or destroy it. I do not advocate its destruction, but I say that the minister is not blocked, nor is this government blocked if it desires to bring in an estimate containing the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act." That action would be perfectly valid; it is constitutional it is the will of parliament which is supreme. The minister is not supreme; he is bound by not only the letter but the spirit of the act. So is this government 'bound by the act, and we expect them to live up to it. I am pointing out to them a way out of the difficulty. The minister says that he realizes that these men are underpaid. He says, "I have made a plea to the commission and the commission will not grant it; I know their case is a just one, but the commission will not consider it." The position has only to be stated to reveal its absurdity. My complaint is that the Postmaster General has not shown any willingness to grant these men a living wage. A government which can



Supply-Post Office

squander millions of dollars and still have $60,000,000 of a surplus in the treasury, surely can find a way to pay a living wage to men who, as everybody in Canada knows, are not receiving such a wage.


Peter John Veniot: To prove to the house that the hon. gentleman is not interpreting the opinion of the postal workers, in a part of Canada at least, I would like to read to the house a telegram which I received this morning. This telegram is dated at Toronto, which is not exactly a Liberal stronghold, and is addressed to the Postmaster General at Ottawa. It reads:
We, the postal workers of the department in Toronto, desire to go on record as strongly opposing the tactics being used to discredit you and your efforts in promoting the improvement you have and are inaugurating in the service.
That is sent on behalf of some three or four thousand postal workers in the city of Toronto. The telegram is signed by E. J. Purvis.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Peter John Veniot: He is one of the head
executives.


Mr. HEAPS:: I have received letters from
the city of Toronto within the past few days which ask for the very things which have been recommended by the hon. member for South Wellington. I have one letter signed by A. MeMordie, the national president of the organization.


Hugh Guthrie: I have received letters
also.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to deal for a
moment with the remarks of the Postmaster General. It seems to me an extraordinary position that we find ourselves in at the present time. We have the Liberal party, through the Postmaster General, saying that they are in favour of giving to the postal employees an increase in their pay; we have the Conservative party also committeed to the same principle, and I am sure I can speak for all those who sat in this corner of the house that we are also in favour of giving to the postal workers an increase in their present remuneration. Therefore the house is practically unanimous on a certain course of action, and there are three individuals who stand in the way of that action being consummated. If the government were anxious to put into operation the increase in the salaries of the postal workers, I believe, they could very easily find ways and means of doing so.


Hugh Guthrie: We will do it if you give us a chance.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. When the Postmaster General spoke a few moments ago he said, I think, that he had advised his colleagues in the cabinet that he was prepared that they should grant an increase to the postal employees. I hope I am not doing an injustice to him, because I could not hear very well what he had to say. I jotted it down as he spoke, and I understood him to say that he could not convince his colleagues in the cabinet.


Peter John Veniot: I did not. I would not
say that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I said: I hope I am not
doing him an injustice. I understood him to say that he could not convince his colleagues to insert in the estimates an item for an increase in salary to the postal employees.


Peter John Veniot: No. Take it back .


Abraham Albert Heaps: If he did not say that, I
absolutely withdraw that statement. I could not hear him very well. Did he convince his colleagues to that effect?


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. member will
allow me, I said that in communicating with the commission and asking them to grant the increases we recommended, I wanted it done because it was the intention to place the item in the estimates for this year. I was doing it with i,he consent of the government, and therefore I was laying down the government policy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is there at the present juncture to prevent the placing in the estimates of an amount that will take care of the increases to the postal workers? I understand the question was raised that the Auditor General might object to such an item being placed in the estimates. I think the government can do in that respect exactly as they have done in many others. If there is any doubt on the question, they can say something like this: "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act," this item goes into the estimates. Then we overcome the difficulty so far as the Civil Service Act is concerned. For instance, the Washington item for $100,000 in the estimates reads:
Representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments.

Supply-Procedure
If this appears so many times in the estimates for 1930, there is no reason why the same thing should not apply in regard to the postal workers.
Let me go a little further. The Postmaster General referred to the question of observing the letter of the act, stating that by not granting to the postal employees the increase proposed, he was not overruling the Civil Service Commission. He knows as well as I do, and as well as any other hon. member does, that within the past few days the government have overridden a decision of the Civil Service Commission in regard to salaries. I am referring to the question of the salaries of the technical employees. The Civil Service Commission made a recommendation to the government. It makes no difference whether they recommended an increase or anything else; the fact is they made a recommendation to the government, but the government refused to accept it. The government have also refused to accept the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission in connection with the salaries of the postal employees. Why should there be a difference between the higher paid men and the lower paid men of the service to the disadvantage of the latter? If the government were to show any consideration in this particular question, it should be to the lower paid men in its service. They have appointed a commission. This commission was constituted by order in council, so that the whole government were responsible for its appointment. The other day I asked the Postmaster General to do exactly with the loiter paid postal employees as the government did with the technical employees who may be receiving anything up to $7,000 or $8,000 a year. The postal employees have appealed to the minister; they have appealed to the Civil Service Commission; they have appealed to parliament, and they have been turned down in every case. What are they to do? If they went on strike, we would hear a howl from one end of the country to the other. What does the Postmaster General expect these low paid postal workers to do at the present juncture in order to obtain redress? If he can answer that question, I shall be satisfied.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot answer that question.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I want that question
answered, and yet the minister sits in his place and says that he is unable to answer it. I know it is a difficult question; but will he answer this one:	How does he expect
a government employee and his family to live on $85 a month? I know he cannot answer 78594-119.$
that question. We as members of the house have some responsibility in this matter because they are employees of the government, and as was pointed out by the hon. member for South Toronto, we ought at least to be model employers in regard to those who work for the government. I do not think there is in the house anyone who will say that $85 or $100 a month is anything like an adequate living wage.
Let me come to other cases where the government are able to grant increases. In regard to the deputy ministers they grant them increases amounting to $1,000 and $2,000 per annum and the question of the Civil Service Commission does not enter into the matter at all; but when the question is one of the lower paid employees, there always seems to be an obstacle in the way of giving them that to which I believe they are absolutely entitled.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-PROCEDURE RESUMING ON THURSDAY OR FRIDAY DEBATE ON AMENDMENT-RULING OF MR. SPEAKER

Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house,
may I be allowed to give the ruling I promised
yesterday?
On Wednesday, April 17, Mr. Robb moved that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.
Mr. Stewart (Leeds) moved in amendment that all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this house, the Postmaster General has acted in a most arbitrary manner and in utter disregard of the letter and the spirit of the Civil Service Act in connection with the recent appointment of a postmaster at the town of Simcoe.
Debate thereon was interrupted on Wednesday at six o'clock by the adjournment of the house under standing order 6; and on Thursday, the 18th, when the order was called for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, I had to leave the chair without question put, under standing order 28. This rule which does away with a motion for the house to go in supply on Thursday and Friday was passed in 1913. The revision of 1927 did not deal with this matter.
The leader of the house- having agreed that debate continue on Mr. Stewart's amendment, there was no necessity to give a ruling, but the house requested that I render a decision in order to settle the practice which should be followed in the future under the same circumstances.
1S80
Supply-Procedure

I have listened with great interest to the able argument set forth by several prominent members and I have carefully compared our standing orders with those of Great Britain. Standing orders 6, 7 and 28 must be construed together in accordance with the broad statement laid down by Lord Mansfield, namely:
Where there are different statutes in pari materia, though made at different times, or even expired and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed together, as one system and as explanatory of each other.
I have come to the conclusion that if debate on the amendment to the motion for leaving the chair is interrupted by the eleven o'clock adjournment, as was the case last year, the procedure is not annihilated but suspended by the operation of standing order 28, because standing order 7 provides that:
All business not disposed of at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
It is well established under our practice that the expression "next sitting," "next sitting day" and "next sitting of the house" when used to state the time until which a question is ordered to stand over do not mean the following calendar day, but rather the next day on which it will be convenient to resume the proceedings on that question. It seems, therefore, that if debate is interrupted at eleven o'clock under standing order 7, the question is not superseded or lapsed, but it can be resumed without a motion to that effect on the first occasion that motion is made for the Speaker to leave the chair for supply, which may be on any of the three first sitting days of the following week. Sir Erskine May's comments on this point do not entirely apply to our House of Commons because the eleven o'clock rule at Westminster is not the same as ours. I am of the opinion that no motion is necessary for the resumption of this debate when it is interrupted at eleven o'clock.
But the situation is different if the interruption is caused by adjournment of the debate at any time or by the adjournment of the house at six o'clock on Wednesday. Standing order 27 provides that the question then under consideration shall stand in a certain precedence on the order paper, but no order is therein given to proceed with it. In that case, I am of the opinion that May's comments, as found at page 527 of the 13th

edition, will apply. The procedure on the amendment lapses. But can it be revived?
The answer must be given from the broadest point of view possible. It must not be forgotten that when the house passed standing order 7 compelling adjournment at eleven o'clock, it very materially curtailed the length of debate in such cases as the one under consideration.
Formerly an amendment involving want of confidence could be discussed from Monday until Wednesday at six o'clock in the afternoon without interruption and the question could be exhausted in that time, but now with only six hours' sittings on Monday and Tuesday and three hours on Wednesday, it seems that the minority or, as it is called, the opposition, is at a great disadvantage, as Thursday may be reached before all the members who wish to speak have had an opportunity to do so.
If the question lapses, an expression of opinion cannot be given by the house on what may be a most important grievance. The government's policy can neither be vindicated nor challenged. I do not think such a situation was ever contemplated by the authors of standing order 28 or by the committee which recommended standing order 7 in 1927. It is a well-known principle in parliamentary law that the House of Commons can rescind its own decisions, suspend its own orders or revive any superseded motion.
No notice is necessary in Great Britain for a motion to revive an order of the day which has been dropped or set aside by abrupt adjournments or any other procedure. But our standing order 45 leaves no room for doubt. Every resolution of the house, and that means every decision, must be preceded by a notice.
I think I am on safe ground in ruling that when an amendment like Mr. Stewart's is removed from the order paper by the operation of standing order 28, the question itself does not lapse, but the procedure thereon is suspended over Thursday and Friday, and a motion to resume (I say advisedly "resume" and not revive) may be made after notice, but this resumption must take place the first time that the ministry moves the house into supply, and by neglecting to do so on that occasion, the mover waives his right to bring up his amendment at a later date.
In giving a decision which will settle our parliamentary jurisprudence for the future, I must not lose sight of the principle that the

Questions
right of the commons to challenge the administration of public affairs should be fully preserved.
This house,
as Lord Palmerston said,
is the mouthpiece of the nation, the organ by which all opinions, all complaints, all notices of grievances, all hopes and expectations, all wishes and suggestions which may arise among the people at large, may be brought to an expression, may be discussed, examined, answered, rejected or redressed.
In the present case, Mr. Stewart (Leeds) should have moved after due notice that the debate be resumed on his amendment as soon as the government made the motion that I leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.
Last year, debate could have been resumed automatically and without a special motion on Doctor Tolmie's amendment which had been interrupted at eleven o'clock by the operation of standing order 7.
Two different situations arise in the premises because the application of standing order 28 depends upon the interpretation of standing orders 7 and 27.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 24, 1929