1931-07-24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex):
I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) to a matter which is of concern to many of the people whom I have the honour to represent. In Essex county this year we have the largest acreage of melons ever grown in that county, and our crop is ready for the market. On July 6 the Department of Agriculture recommended'to the Department of National Revenue that duty values be established on July 26. To-morrow is July 26, and I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he will see that these values for duty purposes are established to-morrow.
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: In answer to the hon. gentleman I may say that I will discuss the matter with my colleagues.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 113, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time . and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Parading while nude.
Mr. ESLING:: I am confident that all
hon. members will be in accord with this amendment, the primary purpose of which is to provide more fitting punishment for a
fanatical class of Doukhobors who defy our Canadian laws by gathering on public highways and in close proximity to the highways in an absolutely nude condition. I want to give members of this committee what might be called a close-up view-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Kemble Esling: I hope the chairman will
understand that I am speaking metaphorically when I say I want to give hon. members a close-up view of this fanatical class. While hon. members may get some amusement from it I should like them to understand that this is a very serious situation.
These people were brought to Canada as far back as 1898. They were bonused to come here; a huge acreage of land was set aside for them in Saskatchewan and the government went to considerable expense in placing them upon that land and getting them started. Shortly after 1900 a large number came to the district of West Kootenay and settled in that beautiful valley along the Kootenay river between the city of Nelson and the Columbia river. To-day in that district there are some three thousand of these people, who are divided into three groups. First there is the community group, living in one section and directed by their leader, Peter Veregin. And then there is an independent group composed of Doukhobors who have purchased land of their own and withdrawn from the community. Then there is a third or fanatical group who are usually known as the sons of freedom. They lead the procession in these nude parades and exhibitions.
The three peculiarities of Doukhobors and particularly of the fanatics are these. First of all, there is arson, they do not hesitate for one moment to burn anything. Their second peculiarity is nude parading. And the third is defiance of the law'. They have absolutely no regard for Canadian law. First of all they burn schools; they burn churches; they dynamite public halls. The department of the Postmaster General has before it now a claim for damage done to a federal post office which was dynamited only a short time ago. Then they show their defiance of the law by refusing to register births, deaths or marriages. Nobody knows who is who among these fanatics. They proceed in this country on the assumption that the land is God's land and they know no laws but God's law. They do not intend, therefore, to subject themselves to the laws of any province or of the Dominion. When I say they refuse to pay taxes, I mean that they refuse to contribute to the community treasury for the payment of taxes on community-owned land.
Criminal Code

To bring to the house the seriousness of the situation I may point out that the party represented by hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for the coming to Canada of these Doukhobors. They brought them here; do not let them forget that. They have a lot to answer for. These people were brought in in 1898, when they were given land and a cash bonus. In 1912, after the Conservative government had come into power, they said, "We want no more Doukhobors." They are invading all the fields of labour. They know no hours of work, and no rates of wages. In 1912 the Conservative government put up the bars. They said they would have no more of it. And that prohibition continued until 1928, when the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King), anticipating an election and thinking they might be of great help to his party, took down the bars again. But immediately this government came into power they stopped the further entry of Doukhobors.
We realize that the provincial government is responsible for the enforcement of law. But there are circumstances beyond which it is impossible for a provincial government to go. The costs are too great, and if the truth must be told-and I say this advisedly-these people are numerically too strong for this government or the provincial government to keep them within bounds. I have always contended and still contend that the federal government, having brought them here, must share the responsibility for their conduct and the cost of their maintenance while here.
Hon. gentlemen think it trifling for me to refer to fires, but it is not an occasional fire that takes place. I have just received from the Minister of Education in British Columbia a list of schools which have been burned, and the information will be almost appalling to the house. I will mention only those fires that have occurred from June 1929 to the end of the year. In that time they burned seven schools valued at $14,700. They were small country schools. In April 1930 they burned a community hall valued at $2,500. On July 1-it will be seen that these fires are close together-they burned another school valued at $2,200, and the same night they dynamited a brick school which cost $7,700. And then we come to Christmas of 1930. At a place called Thrums they were preparing the Christmas tree. A boy got out of a oar with a basket of toys and tree trimmings, and just as he was proceeding to the hall the place blew up. It was only his lucky detention for a few minutes that saved his life. Now we come to March 1931-that is since

we have been here. In that month three schools were burned. On June 2 they destroyed one and attempted to bum another, and they burned the Presbyterian church. These fires all take place at about the same hour, eleven o'clock at night. They cut the telephone wires and take particular care to avoid discovery.
I have another letter from the Minister of Education in British Columbia, which gives a good idea of the situation. He states that-by reason of these fires it is necessary for all schools to be guarded. In his letter of June lr he says:
I am quite sure that if the guards were taken away the schools would all very shortly be burned.
He cites this particular school at Krestova in the district adjoining mine, where he says the fire started while two Canadian teachers were asleep in the building.
As for the statement that the cost of the provincial government is too great, I would point out that the loss by fire in this district in the past two years amounts to a total of $50,000. These fanatics have destroyed schools, churches and community halls to that value. And in the rampage of 1929, to arrest the Doukhobors and keep them in gaol six months cost the provincial government $35,000. There you have $85,000 of actual loss and expenditure to govern a community of some 4,000. Hon. gentlemen who live in places with a population of about 3,500 know that the policing of such places does not cost more than $5,000 per annum.
I want to come now to the matter of community parades, and I am sure I shall have the most rapt attention.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What do you mean,
"rapt"?


Mr. EULER:: "Unwrapped", I should say.


William Kemble Esling: Let me explain. This does not mean one person here or there disrobing for the benefit of passersby; the fact is that these people gather in groups of fifty and seventy-five, marching along the highways and through the fields. And in other instances they make special exhibitions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Kemble Esling: This is not a laughing
matter. I want the committee to appreciate the seriousness of it. During a recent convention of the farmers' institute, one whole morning was spent discussing the seriousness of this situation. It might come home more closely to hon. members if they had their life savings tied up in a ten-acre plot of ground

Criminal Code
and a Doukhobor came along and bought the land alongside. Only one thing can be done- move out.
There was the great rampage of 1929 and then another only a few weeks ago. The last letter I received from this district states that !he Doukhobors are again on the rampage. One lady writes me that as her children were coming from school they were confronted with a number of naked Doukhobor men and women. She tells me of two little girls who were on their way to her house and who came rushing in frantic and shocked by the fact that two naked Doukhobor men had accosted them on a public highway. The committee will remember the recent rampage into Nelson when 108 of these naked Doukhobors were placed in gaol. They had started a trek of some ten miles and as they approached Nelson the fire trucks and all other kinds of trucks and wagons were used to barricade their way.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


William Kemble Esling: It will not be carried for
a while. Twenty-four special constables were sworn in to assist the provincial police. One of these constables had a naked Doukhobor woman on each arm, and they just picked him up as if he were matchwood, laid him down on the road, and sat on him, one on his head, and one on his body.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


William Kemble Esling: If we could take some of the long, thin hon. members opposite or some of the short, thick ones and put them down in the middle of the road on a hot August day with two naked Doukhobor women weighing 300 pounds sitting on them, then they would probably realize that these people are beyond control of the law.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Kemble Esling: I am glad to hear hon. members laugh because such laughter reflects the attitude of indifference taken during the last six years by both the provincial and federal governments. These Doukhobors have burned churches, school houses and buildings; they have tom the uniforms from inspectors, the tunics from police officers and the clothing from federal enumerators. They have used sticks of cordwood on the provincial police; they defy the law by refusing to contribute to the provincial treasury. They refuse to register births, marriages, and deaths, and they practise and preach open defiance to Canadian law.
This is the description of a situation almost inconceivable in Canada, and yet these are the people by whose votes the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King) hoped to defeat the Conservative candidate in West Kootenay. Some of these people enjoy the franchise because they were born in Canada, and I ask the committee if it can conceive of the great Liberal party being reduced to the extremity of encouraging such a class of people to vote. The Liberal workers went out into the hills and valleys to bring these people to the polls to vote at the last federal general election. On the morning of election day the Conservative candidate published a statement that he did not want a single Doukhobor vote, and I am proud to say that he did not get one. When the right hon. gentleman publishes his memoirs I hope he will include a picture of this memorable happening on July 28 last. Just imagine a milling mass of men and women who could not speak English with the Liberal workers showing them how to mark their "X" after the name of the Liberal condidate. These Doukhobors were receiving their orders from Peter Yeregin, so that one man controlled the votes of 1,500 people. They were challenged, but challenging did not do much good because it was impossible to know who was who. The scrutineers did not know what their names were or where they came from. All oaths had to be taken through an interpreter and when the polls were closed there were 600 Doukhobors on the outside trying to get in. The Conservative agents saw' that the polls were closed on time, and that oaths were administered to all who applied for ballots. The Conservative candidate polled two votes from returned men who happened to be agents there. The Labour man got one vote, and-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


William Kemble Esling: -the Liberal candidate got the other 248 votes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. GOTT:: The chairman must call order.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did, but not very loudly.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


William Kemble Esling: I want the committee to
realize the debauchery of the great Liberal party in the last federal election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the hon. member should confine his remarks to the section before the committee.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This is the hon. member's speech of the session.
Criminal Code


William Kemble Esling: I am referring to the
amendment to the criminal code which provides for a three year term in the penitentiary in place of the six months' imprisonment which is now the penalty for Doukhobors who go naked. If this amendment had been in force two years ago, these naked fanatics would not have been able to vote for the Liberal candidate.
The provincial government has amended its elections act to disqualify from voting any Doukhobors or others, male or female, born in the province or elsewhere, who claim exemption from military service. These Doukhobors were admitted to Canada unconditionally exempt from military service. I look to this government to bring in a similar amendment before another election is held. Those who are not willing to fight for their country, should not be permitted to run it. If this amendment is not effective, I would suggest that in so far as the men are concerned, other means should be taken to restrain their exhibitions. Perhaps the most effective means would be the lash. Some citizens have suggested that these people should be placed on a couple of islands out on the Pacific.
I am sure that the committee, after hearing what is the true state of affairs, will take a more serious view of the Doukhobor situation in this country. I know some hon. members may get some amusement out of this, but let me tell them that the men, women and, indeed, whole families who are* subjected to these obscene exhibitions are not in a very comfortable position. I am sure if hon. members lived amongst these Doukhobors they would feel just the same as do those who complain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This clause in the bill
has been drafted to meet a situation which has certainly a very serious aspect. The actions of a particular portion of the community known as the Doukhobors, more especially in British Columbia and perhaps also in Saskatchewan, have become nothing short of a menace and an insult to all right thinking people who live in certain portions of those provinces. The matter has been brought to the attention of the Department, of Justice by the government of British Columbia, particularly by the premier and the attorney general, and also by certain organizations and individuals of that province. The description of these nude parades as related to the committee by the hon. member for West Kootenay who has just taken his seat, has not been overdrawn. I have heard similar stories from officials of the province of British Columbia. The trouble
[Mr. Lapointe.!
is that the section of our criminal law which now applies to indecent exposure is not sufficient in the way of penalty to stop these parades. The present law provides that a fine of $50 and a term of six months' imprisonment at hard labour may be imposed. The provincial authorities have had many prosecutions and both fine and imprisonment have been imposed, but this has not had the desired effect on these fanatical people who insist on carying on these nude parades.
It has been suggested by those who know the situation best that if the penalty were increased as proposed in this bill to a maximum of three years' imprisonment, probably the most fanatical of this particular community would be made to respect the law. They look upon the shorter term of six months a3 more or less of a holiday and as no very serious punishment at all, and they openly boast that they are being kept at the expense of the province. It is suggested that these penalties be increased. I think the committee will agree that these nude parades as they take place.now in these Doukhobor communities, should be stopped. They are, as I say, an insult and a menace to the right thinking people who live in those particular portions of Canada. With that end in view these amendments have been prepared; I think we have covered the case as fully as we can in the language we have used, and I would ask the committee seriously to consider these clauses.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What would the minister consider necessary in the way of clothing so that a person will not be liable under paragraph (d) ?


Hugh Guthrie: The last sentence provides it.


Ernest Lapointe: It is pretty vague.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is not. It reads:
For the purposes of this subsection anyone shall be deemed to be nude who is so scantily clad as to offend against public decency or order.


Ernest Lapointe: But that will leave it
pretty much to the discretion of the judge as to what sort of costume offends against public decency. After all, we have heard much about the Doukhobors this afternoon, but this clause does not mention them at all.


Hugh Guthrie: No. It applies to anybody.


Ernest Lapointe: It might be made lo
apply to bathers at many fashionable resorts. I think my hon. friend will agree with me on that. There are people who are more severe and strict in their views of this than

Criminal Code
others. I am quite sure some judges would find that a certain bathing suit does not accord with public morality, whereas others would find the same costume absolutely correct. I know there is a difficulty in striking a proper description of what would constitute a crime, but I am afraid the clause as it reads is a little vague.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we can depend upon the discretion and good sense of the judge who hears the case. In many instances under our criminal law we have to depend upon the good sense of our judges and juries


Ernest Lapointe: We have to help them though.


Hugh Guthrie: The language of the clause is:
Anyone shall be deemed to be nude who is so scantly clad as to offend against public decency or order.
That is taken in connection with the foregoing that they must be parading.


Charles A. Stewart: It does not apply to parading at all.


Hugh Guthrie: Just a minute. Let me read:
Everyone is guilty of an offence and liable upon	summary	conviction	to	three	years'
imprisonment who, while nude,
(a)	is found in any public place in company with one or more-
There must be at least two. A single individual would not be prosecuted.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, under paragraph (a) but not under paragraph (c).


Hugh Guthrie: The clause reads:
Everyone is guilty of an offence and liable upon	summary	conviction	to	three	years'
imprisonment who, while nude,
(a)	is found in any public place in company with one or more persons who are parading or have assembled with intent to parade or have paraded in such public place while nude, or
(b)	is found in any public place in company with one or more other persons, or
(c)	is found without lawful excuse upon any private property not his own, whether alone or in company with other persons, or
(d)	appears upon his own property so as to be exposed to the public view, whether alone on in company with other persons.
The last two paragraphs referring to a person appearing alone upon his own property or upon that of his neighbour would be sufficient.


Mr. JACOBS:: Does that apply to public theatricals and theatres? I do not see anything which protects them.


Hugh Guthrie: It applies only to places mentioned in the bill.


Samuel William Jacobs: A theatre is sometimes a public place.


Mr. MULLINS:: I am quite in sympathy with what the hon. member for West Kootenay has said. I saw the parade of the Doukhobors from Yorkton some years after they had arrived in this country. They came through the constituency of Marquette and one cannot compare the wearing of bathing suits with their nudity. I have seen bathing suits from Hollywood and I have also seen these Doukhobors parading through the constituency of Marquette, and the sight of the Doukhobors was most appalling. I am quite in sympathy with driving out of my part of Canada those individuals who will parade nude through the streets. We rounded these men up in Minnedosa and shipped them back to Yorkton. I am sorry my hon. friend has them in Kootenay.


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I press my question on the Minister of Justice as to whether there is any protection for theatres?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no need of protection for theatres.


Mr. OHAPLIN:: Do people need to go nude in theatres in Montreal?


Samuel William Jacobs: But some of those who
appear on the stage are, to put it mildly, scantily attired.


Hugh Guthrie: If they offend against
public decency, they come under this measure.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is a question of opinion. To some they offend against public decency where as to others they do not.


Hugh Guthrie: That is in the discretion of our judges and juries.


Mr. FACTOR:: Is it the intention of the
minister to make the penalty three years for a first offence, or not exceeding three years? The way it reads, a first offender would have to receive a penalty of three years,


Hugh Guthrie: Three years is the maximum penalty, but any less penalty may be imposed.


Mr. NEILL:: The Minister of Justice said just now, quite properly, that we could always trust to the good sense of judges and juries, but these people are not going to be tried by judges and juries, but upon summary conviction by one or more justices of the peace, and three years' imprisonment is a very heavy penalty to be left to the discretion of two justices of the peace. I do not know any
Criminal Code

other section of the criminal code where the penalty is three years' imprisonment on summary conviction.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, yes. Police magistrates or justices of the peace have power to impose very long terms, much longer than three years in many cases.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Is it not a fact that paragraphs (a) and (b) as distinguished from paragraphs (c) and (d) are to exempt the individual who parades in a public place alone in the nude.


Hugh Guthrie: Paragraphs (a) and (b)
refer to more than one person. Paragraph (c) would include one person or more than one person, and so would paragraph (d).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So if an individual paraded in the nude in a public place alone this section would not apply?


Samuel William Jacobs: What about turkish baths
and places of that sort?


Hugh Guthrie: That would not be a
parade, as I understand it. It comes under paragraph (c) or (d) if he is alone.


Mr. SPENCER:: It seems to me that the
second part of paragraph (d) is loosely drawn. I agree entirely with the Minister of Justice that certain people might think that certain bathing costumes are all sufficient while others would have bathers put on dress which would be just about as good as jumping into the water with your clothes on. It seems to me that something should be added there to protect bathers who appear in the ordinary costume.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not quite catch the last part of the question.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It seems to me that
something should be added to this clause to free from penalty in any shape or form those who appear in reasonable bathing costume.


Hugh Guthrie: The last clause is intended to apply to them. This is only intended to apply to people who are nude or so scantily clad as to offend against public decency. In reply to the suggestion of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre there might be an improvement made there by adding after the word "place" in the first line of paragraph (a) and after the word "place" in the first line of paragraph (b) the words "whether alone or," so that it would read "is found in any public place whether alone or in company with one or more other persons." I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. BURY:: Might I ask whether the first paragraph does not cover sufficiently the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre? Anyone appearing singly in a public place nude comes under the provision with respect to a person doing an indecent act where the public have access.


Hugh Guthrie: That carries only a six
months' penalty.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I suppose the idea was that stronger penalties were to be provided for these parades. The first subsection already provides for the ordinary act of indecency by a single person.


Charles A. Stewart: It seems to me that under paragraph (b) a justice of the peace who had strong views as to the amount of clothing a bather should wear could enforce drastic penalties if he so desired, on the ground that they were scantily or indecently clad.


Hugh Guthrie: There is an appeal against that.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but you are making these extreme penalties applicable, and the law now is sufficient to protect against that sort of thing.
Amendment (Mr. Guthrie) agreed to.


Mr. COOTE:: Was there any definition in the criminal code before of the word nude?


Hugh Guthrie: No. Nude has, of course, a meaning. It means without clothes, naked.


George Gibson Coote: I think some difficulty arises in connection with paragraph (d). Recently a magistrate in Toronto expressed the opinion that a woman would not be properly dressed for bathing unless She was covered from her neck to her knees. Few modern bathing suits would comply with that requirement, yet that particular magistrate would probably find justification in this clause for imposing a very severe penalty for those who were not so clad.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5.-Publication of false advertisements to promote sales, etc.
William Daum Euler: It seems to me that 'there is a contradiction in terms in this section. It says "contains any statement of fact which is untrue." Now a fact is a fact. A fact contains the truth, and a statement of fact or an enunciation of a fact must be true. It seems to me there is inconsistency there, and

Criminal Code
I was going to suggest something of this kind to carry out the intention, to substitute for the present language the words "what purports to be a fact, but which is untrue, deceptive or misleading."


Hugh Guthrie: We could meet that difficulty by simply striking out the words "of fact."


Samuel William Jacobs: It might be a statement of law, and then we would have to go to the privy council to find out whether it was true or not.


Hugh Guthrie: There is another consideration with respect to this section to which I would direct the attention of the committee. Formerly the penalty was provided for one who "knowingly" publishes, and the real change that is made here is to strike out the word "knowingly." The question has been raised by 3ome very prominent business people in Canada as to the propriety of striking out that word, and of putting a saving clause at the end of the section. They represent that many bona fide advertisers are mistaken in some of the statements they make, through no fault of their own in many cases, and that it is hard to penalize them for statements innocently made. The difficulty with the word "knowingly" in the clause as it now stands is that it imposes upon the prosecution the burden of proving that a certain thing was stated knowing it to be false or untrue, and very often the prosecution is not able to prove that knowledge on the part of the accused, and consequently the prosecution fails. If the word "knowingly" is struck out the section becomes much broader, as the committee will see. It has been suggested that a saving clause to this effect should be added at the end of the section:
Provided further that in any prosecution under this subsection a case may be dismissed if it be established to the satisfaction of the court upon proper evidence that the accused acted in good faith,-*
In other words, if it can be proved that he did not knowingly mislead by the statements he made. If this amendment were put in, the onus would be upon the accused to show that he had acted in good faith, and if he had so acted and convinced the court of that fact the court might forgive him of his offence. In the present section the word "knowingly" appears and the result is that prosecutions have failed because the crown has not been able to establish the fact a man has knowingly inserted a false advertisement, knowing it to be false. The amendment was originally asked for by many clubs, better
business associations, boards of trade and the like in Canada. I have no very definite views upon the subject, but I must say that the saving clause I have suggested might be advantageous.


Ernest Lapointe: Would it be added to
the present proviso?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, at the end of the
present section. Then as my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has pointed out, I think an amendment might be made by changing the words "which contains any statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or misleading" to the words "which contains any statement which is untrue, deceptive or misleading."


William Daum Euler: That is all right.


Hugh Guthrie: We would be striking out the two words "of fact" in line twenty-nine of section 5 of the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the minister so
move?


Hugh Guthrie: I have merely made a
statement to the committee.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The only point I see concerning the words "statement of fact" is that such statements might be considered by the courts in contradistinction to statements of law. It is usual and proper to talk about statements of fact as distinguished from statements of law without implying that a statement of fact is per se true. The words "of fact" are used in contradistinction to show that a statement of law is not intended. I had thought that was the intention of the amendment. If so I believe the words should be left in the section.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think the words are of great importance, one way or the other. My hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) may be right. We do not however find statements of law in connection with sales of goods. I would not pay much attention to the suggestion of my hon. friend in that connection. I think if the words "which contains any statement which is untrue" are in the section they will be sufficient to cover the points in question.


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Mr. MORAND:: I wonder if by removing
the words "of fact" merchants who advertise reductions from $4.00 to $3.99 would be affected. Such advertisements would in fact be untrue, deceptive and misleading. Yet he would not be making a statement concerning the kind of goods advertised.
[DOT]1138
Criminal Code


Hugh Guthrie: If a merchant cuts his
price, what more is there to it?


Ernest Lapointe: That is not misleading.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is not what the act is intended for.


Hugh Guthrie: I prefer that the words
"of fact" should remain in. If, however, the committee prefers they be struck out I have no serious objection.


William Daum Euler: I am not a lawyer and I
cannot express a legal opinion, but from the standpoint of an ordinary man the expression that a statement of fact is untrue is absolutely absurd.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is not absurd.
There are statements of fact and statements of law to which reference is made every day in courts. On statements of such and such a fact comments may be made, and on statements. of law other comments are in order. Certainly there is a distinction.


William Daum Euler: I am speaking as an ordinary layman, not as a lawyer.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think the section is particularly affected, no matter which way we leave it. I prefer that it should remain as it stands, but if the committee thinks the words "of fact" should come out, I have no obj ection.


William Daum Euler: Strike them out.


Mr. MAROIL:: In the section before us
there is protection for newspapers, but no protection for the ordinary printer who publishes circulars.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend is referring to the publisher of advertising circulars which are passed around?


Charles Marcil: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: This section provides
only:
Provided that any newspaper publishing any such advertisement accepted in good faith in the ordinary course of its business shall not be subject to the provisions of this subsection.
I think the words in the section ought to meet the case my hon. friend has in mind.


Charles Marcil: The printer who, in good
faith, publishes a circular should in law be protected as much as the newspapers.


Alan Webster Neill: Would not the minister consider an amendment which would extend to the persons who caused to be published any particular advertisement? For instance, a real estate man might in good faith advertise that

a railroad was going to pass through a particular town. Time might prove that his statement was deceptive. The amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice apparently applies only to newspaper publishers. Should not such protection be given to a person who causes an advertisement to be published?


Hugh Guthrie: The man who caused it
to be published is protected in the first part of the section. If the amendment I last submitted were carried, certainly he would be protected. If in good faith he published a statement about a railroad he would be protected.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought the minister said
the section applied only to newspapers?


Hugh Guthrie: There was a further
amendment which I said had been submitted to cover the case my hon. friend has in mind. I prefer the section as it stands now, with the amendment which was suggested and which I read a few moments ago. The result would be that the section would stand as it is, with the following amendment:
Provided further that in any prosecution under this subsection a case may be dismissed if it be established to the satisfaction of the court upon proper evidence that the accused acted in good faith.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: The words "the accused"
would cover every class of people.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Guthrie moves
that subsection (2) of section 5 of the bill be amended by adding at the end of the section the following:
Provided further that in any prosecution under this subsection a case may be dismissed if it be established to the satisfaction of the court upon proper evidence that the accused acted in good faith.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend intend
to delete the two words "of fact"?


Hugh Guthrie: On second thought I
believe the words ought to remain in the section. There is a distinction between a statement of law and a statement of fact.


William Daum Euler: The minister cannot say
that a statement of fact could be untrue.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes a statement of fact
can be untrue.


William Daum Euler: A statement of fact can
never be untrue; that is ridiculous.


Samuel William Jacobs: I agree with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). A statement is a fact or it is not a fact.

Criminal Code


William Daum Euler: It is absurd, absolutely, and
no harm will be done by making a change.


Hugh Guthrie: What does my hon. friend
suggest?


William Daum Euler: I am content to strike out
the words "of fact;' I made another suggestion however.	.


Hugh Guthrie: What was it?


William Daum Euler: I would suggest the following words "a statement of what purports to be a fact but which is untrue, deceptive or misleading." The minister will note the words "what purports to be a fact."


Hugh Guthrie: This section was pretty carefully drawn by the law officers of the department, and they seemed to think it was right.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: We know how these officials sometimes do these things.


Hugh Guthrie: I am rather inclined to trust their judgment more than my own in the matter.


Mr. YOUNG:: But this is to be interpreted by men who are not lawyers.


William Daum Euler: I would suggest to the minister that you cannot do any harm by changing it, and it would appear absurd to the average man as it is now.


Hugh Guthrie: But I do not think that apparent absurdity to the average man would be an absurdity before a court, which would understand what was a statement of fact.


William Daum Euler: But many magistrates are not trained in the law.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I will ask my colleague the hon. member for Argenteuil to move that the words "of fact" in line 29 'be struck out.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I beg to move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Soliciting or carrying on business of insurance.
Hugh Guthrie: This is merely to repeal the clause which was declared ultra vires by the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-False fire alarms.
William Daum Euler: What is the penalty there?
*22110-263


Hugh Guthrie: Imprisonment for up to one year.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the penalty now?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it either comes under the mischief clause or under municipal by-laws. This is inserted at the instance of the city of Toronto in particular, and of one other city in the west.


Samuel William Jacobs: It seems to me some distinction should be made with regard to the age of the offender or offenders. Very often this is a popular prank with boys in large cities.


Hugh Guthrie: The criminal code takes care of that now; they are excused up to a certain age.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Injury to animals.
Mr. BROWN:: What is the reason for that expression "not being cattle"?


Hugh Guthrie: Cattle and horses are provided for by other sections of the criminal code; this is for other animals which are not provided for.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister says cattle and horses are. provided for under other sections, so why should not the word "horses" be included here also?


Hugh Guthrie: The word "cattle" under the criminal code includes horses as well.


Edward James Young: Does this prevent the killing of a dog?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose it would. This is the section we passed last session, -but that amendment of last year only applied to attempts to kHl. This makes the actual killing an offence as well. I see that in the original section, 'before the amendment of Last session, the w'ord "wilfully" was inserted. Perhaps it would 'be well to have that word here also.


Edward James Young: Would not the word "maliciously" be better?


Hugh Guthrie: I was thinking of both words.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Or "unlawfully."


John Livingstone Brown: Does not the change take away the provision for an attempt to kill?


Hugh Guthrie: The attempt is covered by the amendment of last session, and we are changing that section to make both the killing and the attempt to kill an offence. I think "wilfully or maliciously" will cover it.

Criminal Code


Edward James Young: But you can kill willfully and still be justified.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I agree
that the word "wilfully" should go in there, but the word "maliciously" means something else.


James Arthurs: Under certain laws of
the province of Ontario a man is allowed to kill a dog legally when it is found pursuing various animals, and in certain other cases. A man might want to kill his own dog. I think the word unlawfully should be placed in this amendment.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Very often dogs become
a nuisance, killing chickens or worrying sheep. Something ought to be done to prevent that sort of thing.


Hugh Guthrie: The law allows you to
kill a dog under those circumstances. The word unlawfully might be added before the word kills.


Edward James Young: You would have to have
reference to other laws to know what that meant.


Mr. BENNETT:: No one can lawfully
wound or maim.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: Should not the
word unlawfully be put before the word attempts?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I move that the
section be amended to read:
Unlawfully kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures, or unlawfully attempts to kill. . . .


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-Summary trial in certain cases.
Charles Marcil: In my district jury trials
are very rare. Sometimes three or four years elapse before a jury is summoned. Trials are held by the magistrate. What offences are now to be referred to the magistrate? What changes are being made?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no change.


Charles Marcil: If there is no change I am satisfied. There are Indian reserves where cases of attempted murder are tried before the magistrate.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Formal judgment to specify grounds in law on which dissent is based.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
minister state the law as it is? I have it in mind but I am not certain.


Hugh Guthrie: At the present time a
person convicted may appeal to the court of appeal on any ground of appeal which involves a question of law alone; or, with leave of the court of appeal, upon the certificate of the trial judge that it is a case for appeal, on any ground of appeal which involves a question of fact alone or a question of mixed law and fact; or, with the leave of the court of appeal, on any other ground which appears to the court of appeal to be a sufficient ground for appeal-that is, to the court of appeal of the province. From that court of appeal there is an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada when there is a difference of opinion between the judges in the appellate court of the province.


Ernest Lapointe: And the dissenting judge must give his reasons.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. This section has been suggested by the judges of the supreme court.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. It seems that when appeals go there and the stated reasons are given as the grounds for appeal, it frequently happens that the reasons argued before the appellate division here are not at all those stated in the reasons. Often, new ground is taken for the very first time in the whole case. 'The judges in the court of appeal think that the appeal should be taken upon the stated grounds, and that only the grounds which are stated, upon which the appeal is based, should be argued before the appellate court here. The subsection now proposed reads:
(6) Whenever an appeal under this section is dismissed by the court of appeal, and any judge of such court expresses an opinion dissenting from the judgment of the court, the formal judgment of the court shall specify any ground or grounds in law on which such dissent is based either in whole or in part, and, on appeal under section one thousand and twenty-three to the Supreme Court of Canada, it shall not be competent to the appellant to raise any question of law not so specified.


Ernest Lapointe: If there are five points of appeal before the appeal court and the judges are in accord on four of those points, there being dissent on one, that one and only that one will be argued before the supreme court.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is narrowing the appellant's right in order to save the judges of the supreme court a little work. The appeal court might be wrong on the four points mentioned by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and it ought to be open to any appellant to have any ground

Criminal Code
available to him before the supreme court. 1 object to this as a restriction of the right of the appellant. If you grant a man a right of appeal on well-defined principles, as we have done in the preceding sections, then I think there should be no restriction to the final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Suppose the dissenting judge dissents only upon one point, as suggested by the exMinister of Justice. But there are other grounds which are equally potent and perhaps stronger, and the majority in the appellate court may be wrong on those points on which they are agreed. That frequently happens. Is the appellant to be barred from urging before the final court of appeal the very strongest points in his favour? This is an undue restriction and I object to the principle involved.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Sometimes the court does not pronounce on many of the grounds of appeal suggested to the first court of appeal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
quite true.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Then the appellant
would be barred from bringing those grounds before the supreme court. In many cases the court of appeal decides on one point, without going further into the case. The appellant, the crown, or the accused, would be barred from raising the other point before the supreme court. I think we would be narrowing the rights of appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. members for
Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) and York-Sun-bury (Mr. Hanson) have, I submit with deference, quite overlooked the fact that under our system of jurisprudence appeals are not to be taken in criminal cases beyond the court of last resort in the province. Up until recent times the principle has been that in criminal cases there should be no appeal upon any question. Of course, the privy council always retained the right to review a criminal case from any part of the king's dominions if it were found that justice had not been administered by due process of law. It was then decided that there should be an appeal in criminal cases on questions of law only, but the principle of our jurisprudence was that that right of appeal ended in the province. However, it was believed that if there was a dissenting judgment on a question of law, there should be a right to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. It will be observed that the dissenting judgment must be on a question of law. As the former Min-22110-263i
ister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has just said, it is now being provided that the principle of an appeal not going beyond the province is still being maintained, but where there is dissent with respect to a question of law, then the supreme court shall decide as to the validity or invalidity of the dissent.
If this whole matter is opened up we would be going contrary to the general rule and be wholly opposed to our system of jurisprudence. It will be recalled that in the two addresses delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of England when he visited the Canadian Bar Association, attention was drawn to the practice and procedure and the functions of the court of criminal appeal in Great Britain. In that case there are provided by statute certain questions which shall be considered by the court, but in a broad and general way this matter resolves itself into this: that the court of appeal shall not review the findings of fact by a jury-'that is the prerogative of a jury and not a court-the questions of fact having been decided, the only question which remains is as to whether or not, during the trial of the prisoner, the law has been properly interpreted to the jury. This question involves the legality of the reception of evidence and the propriety of the judge's charge to the jury. If an appeal is taken and there are one or more dissenting judges, it seems to me to be not unreasonable to ask that the dissent should be clearly indicated so that the question of law upon which there has been a difference of opinion should be settled by the court of last resort.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	The notes of the dissenting judges are not produced in the supreme court. As I understand this section, the practice will be to limit the appeal strictly to the points of law upon which the dissenting judge and his brothers have differed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With great respect to the Prime Minister who is a much more experienced lawyer than I am, I would suggest to him that we are departing from the underlying principles which govern appeals in criminal cases in this country. If we were right before in the evolution of the law, we are now taking a retrograde step. I submit that there have been cases and will be cases in which the majority of the court of appeal has been and may be wrong. In the case of an appeal where there is a dissenting judgment, I submit that the appellant should be given the reasons for the dissenting judgment and have open to him every ground of
Criminal Code

appeal which he had on his original motion to the court of appeal. That right is given in every civil case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a different thing altogether.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is different only in principle. I submit that this will be a restriction of the right of appeal, and I can see no good reason why that restriction should be imposed.


James Herbert Stitt: Mr. Chairman, it
seems to me that if this amendment becomes law there will be a restriction of the right of appeal and there certainly is a limitation of the functions of the supreme court. It might happen in a case at bar that the dissenting judgment would be given on the wrong point of law, and there would, in such a case, be no reasonable basis for appeal. I think it is right that there should not be a review on the finding of facts, but if there is to be an appeal on the law, why should there not be a complete appeal. Why should there be a restriction in criminal cases different from that applying to civil actions, especially when the liberty of the subject is involved.


Mr. GIROUARD:: Mr. Chairman, 1 desire to support the hon. members who are opposing this amendment. I do not believe there should be so many restrictions imposed on the supreme court, especially in criminal matters. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), there might be points of law which might arise in the supreme court, but which would not be mentioned in the formal judgment of the court of appeal. I do not think justice would be done to the prisoner applying to the supreme court for a revision of his case, if the supreme court were to answer: well, that point of law is not mentioned in the formal judgment of the court of appeal, and we cannot hear you. 1 do not believe that justice would be rendered, and I think the government would be wise to let the matter stand.


Ernest Lapointe: The restrictions on
appeal exist already. There is no right of appeal to the supreme court if there is no dissenting judgment. This bill provides that where an appeal is made because of a dissenting judgment, those reasons are the only ones which should come before the Supreme Court of Canada. I am rather in favour of the bill.


James Herbert Stitt: It would mean a
little less work for the supreme court.


Hugh Guthrie: I have not very strong
views on the matter and perhaps it might be well to let the section stand for another year for consideration. Perhaps all the words after "part" in the ninth line could be deleted. That would make the judge who dissents specify his grounds.


Ernest Lapointe: That would be an improvement.


Hugh Guthrie: The latter part of the
section which provides that it shall not be competent to the appellant to raise any other question of law would be struck out. I will ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) to move this amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to point out to the committee that it is in the formal judgment of the court that the grounds on which such dissent is based are specified. It must be in the formal judgment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Y'es, the judgment roll.


Mr. DUPRE:: I move the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 15.-Bail.
Hugh Guthrie: This is the bill of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) that was before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: It has been brought to my attention, since this bill was printed, that there is an anomaly in one of the appeal sections, section 1025, subsection 3, which reads:
Any person whose acquittal has been set aside may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada against the setting aside of such acquittal.
The case which has arisen or will arise is this: Certain people are indicted on a charge of conspiracy. One of them is convicted; three others are acquitted, and in the case of those three the crown appeals to the provincial court of appeal. The provincial court of appeal convicts them. From that conviction, under the section which I have read, they have an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the other man who was convicted in the first instance, has no appeal. The result may be a favourable judgment in the supreme court in respect of the three, while the unfortunate man who was convicted in the first instance, has no appeal and stands convicted, although they have been tried together for the same

Criminal Code
offence. The suggestion has been made that that sentence should be clarified by adding these words:
And any person who was tried jointly with such acquitted person and whose conviction was sustained by the court of appeal may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada against the sustaining of such conviction.
I will move that as a new section, amending section 1025. It will be section 16 of the bill and the next will be section 17, that is the one with regard to the provision for coming into force.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
On section 12.-Injury to animals.
Hugh Guthrie: I think I could put in a more adequate wording than that in the proposed amendment. I will make it read in this way:
Who unlawfully kills, or attempts to kill, or maims, wounds, poisons or injures, or attempts to maim, wound, poison or injure.
That would cover the difficulty that was raised.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Mr. REID:: Before the committee rises, there is a little matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the committee and the Minister of Justice. It is in connection with section 286, subsection 3 of the criminal code which reads:
Every sale, loan, gift, barter or exchange of any property, by any lottery, ticket, card or other mode of chance depending upon or to be determined by chance or lot, is void, and all property so sold, left, given, bartered or exchanged, is liable to be forfeited to any person who sues for the same by action or information in any court of competent jurisdiction.
I do not know whether the minister has considered this or not, but he probably knows better than I do that advantage has been taken of this subsection to a large extent during the past few months. Lotteries are not legalized in Canada, but we have many people who participate in them and I think it is very unfair when they win a prize and as their names cannot be kept private, an informer should be entitled to lay a charge and thereby obtain their winnings.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is the hon. member
moving an amendment?


Thomas Reid: This is under the criminal
code. I do not know how I can bring the
matter up otherwise. I believe if the winnings on a lottery ticket should go to anyone, they should go to the government. We have had cases of wives laying information against their husbands so as to prevent informers from obtaining the winnings. I should like to know if the minister has considered the matter, because it is obnoxious that we should so encourage informers, and I do not believe the act was ever intended for such a purpose.


Hugh Guthrie: I have had many communications and I know my predecessor has also had many on this subject, because there is a tremendous file in the department on this question of lotteries and the recovery of lottery prizes. I was inclined to suggest an amendment to this very section providing that any money recovered in an action of this kind should be recovered for the benefit of the crown; but as the matter is pending in the courts and several actions are pending in British Columbia I thought it was not wise to make any change in the law at this time. There are two opinions on the matter. Some people think the effect of the section as it stands at present is rather to promote the starting of fictitious suits amongst friends and families for the purpose of securing these winnings. Others say that the whole penalty clause should be wiped out; that people should be allowed to buy these tickets and that if they are successful in drawing a prize, they should be permitted to retain it. Others have represented that if the forfeiture ol money won as a prize in this way should be made- to the crown and not to the individual, this might cure the evil without any further legislation being necessary. As soon as the pending litigation is settled, we shall have to consider the matter.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: With the permission of the committee I should like to say a few words with regard to section 2. I would rather speak now than on the third reading.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is moved by Mr. Woodsworth that we revert to section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 2-Parading while nude.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Unfortunately I was not in the chamber when this section was under discussion. I have been a good deal in touch with the Doukhobors ever since they have been in this country. I learn there has been considerable levity in the committee concerning these people and it is for that reason I think a few words should be said on their behalf. Only some 8,000 Doukhobors
Criminal Code

came to this country about forty years ago. 1 do not know what the natural increase has been, but I suppose at the utmost there would be only 15,000 or 20,000 in the country to-day, a certain number of them in Manitoba, a much larger number in Saskatchewan, a few in Alberta and quite a large colony or several colonies in British Columbia. I think it is only fair that the phblie generally, perhaps especially the eastern public, should not be prejudiced against this group of people, who on the whole are very excellent citizens. The fanatical group among them is comparatively small. They constitute a very small proportion of the. entire number of Doukhobors. It is quite true that the whole group have some very peculiar characteristics. They may be said to be the Quakers of the Greek Orthodox church. They came into existence many years ago because of their attitude towards the state-they were opposed to the use of arms-and also because of a protestant attitude towards some of the evils then existing within the Greek church. Essentially they are a group of high-minded and heroic people, so much so that they attracted the attention of Count Tolstoy, who learned a great deal of his philosophy and of his special viewpoint of Christianity from these selfsame Russian peasants. In fact he was so much interested in them that I understand that a good deal of the proceeds of his book Resurrection went to assist in bringing the Doukhobors to Canada.
It ought to be understood then that the Doukhobors are not a lowdown, degraded people. Let me give the house one illustration. Several years ago I was asked to participate in a conference of young Doukhobors held on the plains of central Saskatchewan. The members of this conference consisted of students attending the various educational institutions-high schools, normal schools and the university. The leader of the group was a graduate of Saskatchewan university, and a lawyer of good standing in the city of Saska-'toon. His wife, a very charming woman, is the daughter of a former professor of Queen's university. They have a beautiful home in the city of Saskatoon. I admit that that is an exceptional family, but the fanatical ones are also exceptional, and it seems to me very unfortunate that the public of Canada should be given the idea that the Doukhobors are simply a troublesome, degraded set of people. On the whole the vast majority of them are living clean, decent, honourable hard'-working lives. Several years ago when some of the local residents at Nelson, not liking the fact that a great many of the Doukhobors bought 
wholesale instead- of patronizing the local merchants, got up a petition to the British Columbia government, a commission was appointed to investigate, and it found that there was no crime amongst them and no poverty, that ithey were among the best citizens of the province. That gives some idea of the other side of the question.
I quite frankly admit that this small group about which we hear so much has created a good deal of difficulty. They are fanatical. I am not quite sure whether they are mentally sound, but as with many such religious sects they are subject to hallucinations and queer ideas, and undoubtedly a number of them have broken the law in this country. They have burned down schoolhouses, and in the early days some of them burned their implements and went on a crusade eastward to Winnipeg and a little further east. Those pilgrimages are examples of the fanatical side of this religious movement.
Let me further point out that this curious practice of disrobing is not one that arises because of some perverted emotion or lax sexual ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the beginning as practised some years ago it was rather a religious practice. Those who know anything about the history of fanatical religious sects may remember certain groups among the Protestants in the New England states who were guilty -if you call it "guilt"-of very similar practices in the early days. With these Doukhobors the idea seemed to be in the beginning that in some way they had to get back to primitive conditions, to show that they were not dependent on all the various trappings of civilization. I am inclined to think that in more recent days they have resorted to this practice as a sort of protest since they found that it annoyed the authorities, and called attention to some of their grievances. But I would impress on the house that this practice is not the outcome of immorality as we commonly understand the term.
Further, may I point out that the present generation of Doukhobors have been born and brought up in Canada. If they are guilty of practices that are considered antisocial or that are not desired in this country, we can no longer deport them because most of them are native-born Canadians. That brings me to the real difficulty, that in the past we have largely neglected all of these classes of immigrants. I know that the public schools have done magnificent work among the non-English speaking people, and they have attempted to do some work among the Doukhobors, and have accomplished much

Criminal Code
good work in Saskatchewan. I remember that fifteen years ago I was talking to one of the school inspectors in the district occupied by the Doukhobors in British Columbia, and he said that about the only reason he was interested in trying to establish schools among the Doukhobors was in order that at least a few of them would be able to defend themselves from the exploitation of some of the people round about them. In many respects he thought the comparatively simple life they were living was a very desirable one. I am not making out this particular fanatical sect as being all we would desire, but I would say that we ought to have some knowledge of the background of these people in order to understand some of their fanatical acts.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I was asked a little
while ago to bring back the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) to the question before the committee, namely, amendments to the criminal code. Of course, my hon. friend is speaking with the consent of the committee, but I would not like it to be thought that I was prejudiced in allowing my hon. friend to speak when I had to stop another hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall not trespass on the courtesy of the committee very much longer. I was suggesting that we must understand the background of these people. One reason why they try to get away from the enumeration of the census is that they fear that they may be brought under military conscription, which is fundamentally opposed to their religious convictions. Further, their idea seems to be that they are a peculiar people, and should be let alone as far as possible to live out their own community life -a sort of imperium in imperio.
Undoubtedly one difficulty has been that they have not been very fairly treated in the past by some of the authorities in this country. Some years ago when they first came to this country they were allowed to live together, holding and working their land in common. That was their understanding of the condition under -which they had migrated. Then there came a change in .the department. A Minister of the Interior was appointed who did not know or care about the previous arrangements, and he forced them or tried to force them to make individual entry and to live as other Canadians were doing. They refused to do that, and there was taken from them at that time land that was valued at something like $10,000,000. They feel, on account of some of these experiences, that they have not been dealt fairly with in Canada. Repressive measures which from time to time have been used against them have not improved the situation.
I have no particular objection to the bill. I suppose that the citizens of this country have to take some means of maintaining Canadian standards along these lines, but I would suggest that this way of dealing with a problem of this kind is not going to be effective. We are not really touching the problem. What we have to do is in some way learn to understand these people, understand their point of view, do a good deal of educational work among them, and not consider that merely by repressive measures we will overcome these deep-seated religious instincts and social practices which have been prevalent among this particular group for at least several centuries.
I venture to bring these considerations before the committee first as a protest against the idea that this particular fanatical sect represents the whole of the Doukhobors, secondly to counteract the idea that they are any more immoral than any other class of people, and thirdly in the hope that either this parliament or some other group of people in Canada would adopt a more constructive way of dealing with these people whom we have admitted to our country. They and their problems undoubtedly will be with us for years to come.
I wish to express to the committee my appreciation for allowing me to speak at this stage.


Mr. STEVENS:: I should not like the suggestions of the last speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) to go without some measure of challenge. Let me make the point perfectly clear that this amendment to the criminal code is not directed at any group of people anywhere who have observed even the laws of common decency dear to the heart of all persons living under what we might term western civilization, and in the temperate zone. I will admit that in the tropics conditions might be different. I should not like the idea to go forth, either, that these people are the victims of repressive measures. My hon. friend himself remarked that the Doukhobors have been in Canada for approximately forty years. During that time they have been under the control of a series of governments. That is, different parties have been in control both in the provinces and in the Dominion. I think I can say without exception that of all the people who have entered Canada from the outside none has
Criminal Code

received such patient consideration as this particular sect known as the Doukhobors. Neither at this nor at any other time have the authorities directed repressive measures against a single Doukhobor who observed- I will not say the laws, because few of them really observe our laws in spirit-but who have been free from doing violence to all sense of decency in this country.
My hon. friend states further that they have been forced into this course of action to defend themselves against exploitation, and as an illustration he said that the business men of Nelson were jealous of the Doukhobors because to some extent they had succeeded in establishing a communal system. There may be personal opinions, but as a matter of fact there has never been any effort by any authority to interfere with these people in their peculiar economic theories and ideas.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was trying to say that complaints of t'he business men of Nelson had led to the appointment of the British Columbia commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But my hon. friend took care to leave the impression with the committee that because the business men of Nelson were critical of the communal system they had inspired a certain amount of unfavourable or-shall I say-repressive action. That is not the case. Generally speaking I would say these people are thrifty. They are hard working and administer their affairs well. Those of us who know them fully recognize that fact. Speaking of the Doukhobors around Grand Forks, Brilliant and Nelson those who observe the amenities of civilization, shall I say-and they are in the majority-are looked upon as thrifty and decent settlers, and as such are welcomed in the community. Those are not the people however at whom this legislation is directed.
We have been forced to the action we are now taking. Why? Because for forty years the people of Canada have patiently endured some of the most absurd spectacles, some of the most ludicrous efforts on the part of a group of fanatics to enforce their own peculiar notions and idiosyncrasies. In the present instance however we have something more than that. To-day in Grand Forks, Brilliant and Nelson there are men who owe allegiance directly to the present communistic system existing in other parts of the world and who are taking advantage of their innocence, if you like, the ignorance and prejudice of these people to lead them into an anti-law method of activity or system of action in the province of British Columbia.

To-day they are being led by that class of people. My hon. friend spoke concerning a family and drew a picture of what might have been one of the most cultured families in Canada. His picture described a highly educated people, and he stated further that none of the present generation indulged in the practices to which the bill refers. What are the facts?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Again I interrupt.
I did not say that none of the present generation indulged in these things.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I took those words down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend
misunderstood me. I said that most of the people who indulged in these actions were born and brought up in Canada and could not be deported. My statement was exactly opposite to my hon. friend's understanding.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend drew a
very attractive picture of a cultured family. Let me tell him and this committee that what has brought the present action to a head has been recent activities taken by the group to which he refers in connection with the taking of the census. Who were the people who began these latest mischievous and ludicrous nude parades? It was a group of young girls just out of high school who met the census takers who had gone patiently to interview them. If necessary I could show correspondence to prove my statements, but I state that those census takers went to those people, day after day, even going to the extent of taking some of the saner ones with them to try to get the required information from the people they were interviewing. We did not care so much about getting all the answers, but it was our desire to learn their names so that they might be properly enrolled. What did they do? Led by some of the educated young women who were graduates of the high school at Vernon, British Columbia, they commenced to disrobe right in the public place when the enumerators appeared. It is that sort of thing which has brought the government to take the rather extreme action proposed by the present legislation.
My hon. friend has very charming diction; his voice and language are always excellent and tuned to convey the precise view he wishes to express. I notice he said in a very minor key, "some have disregarded the law." "Some have disregarded the law"-Mr. Chairman, hundreds have disregarded the law. They gathered in mobs which were described this afternoon. During the last two years they have dynamited schools, post offices,

Criminal Code
community halls, and the grave of the late Peter Veregin. There is grave suspicion, although probably not definite proof, that while on a train, one member of the local legislature was bombed. While in the Doukhobor section a bomb was placed under his seat. There has never been at any time in connection with any group in Canada so much violence as has been practised by these people. The patience and tolerance of the rest of the people in the neighbourhood has been simply phenomenal, I think. I do not think my hon. friend can cite a case where the people in the localities in which these outrages have occurred, the Canadian people who are entitled to some consideration and some modicum of protection by the law, have risen up and attempted to resent with violence the action of these people. It is true that when a nude parade started into Nelson, consisting of hundreds of these fanatics, either last year or the year before, action was taken. These people marched right to the city of Nelson; they were not residents of that city but were simply thrusting themselves into the town with their nudity and their crudities. Were the people of Nelson to stand idly by and do nothing? This is what happened: The chief of police and the mayor of the community called on the people for help; a number of special constables were sworn in, and they met these fanatics at the edge of the town and herded them off the main streets. In some cases fire hose was used to prevent their advance.
My hon. friend is not doing justice to himself or to this house when he seeks to leave the impression that in introducing this clause in amendment to the criminal code the government is in any sense using what he terms repressive measures.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are these not repressive measures?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend went on
to say that this disrobing practice was a sort of religious rite. There is very little about it that is religious now, although that may have been the case two centuries or ten centuries ago, in the early history of these people. Certainly it is not a religious rite at the present time; it is done absolutely for provocative purposes. When these people are faced with an effort on the part of the officers of the law to enforce some simple respect for the law, immediately this disrobing practice begins, because they know it is one of the most embarrassing things with which an officer can be confronted.
I am not going to say anything more other than to remind the committee once more
that if we are to protect our public buildings and institutions and the sane, respectable and law-abiding citizens of this country from the outrages which are perpetrated by a faction of these people, if you like to call them that, then we must have more teeth in the law in order'to enforce it. We-and when I say "we" 1 mean Canadian citizens generally-have been more than patient with these people; I do not think any country in the world would have tolerated this sort of thing as long as it has been tolerated in this country. Certainly they would not have received any such consideration south of the international boundary, and I doubt if there is a country in Europe where they would have been treated so leniently. Talk about repression; talk about religious rights; there is not a country in the world where there is more general liberty given the people to indulge in their own peculiar religious beliefs than is the case in Canada. I do not know of any instance when the Canadian people, regardless of the law, have interfered in this respect, but I want to say that we Canadians owe some duty to our families and to our own people, and this amendment is designed as something which will enable us, under the law and with constitutional authority, to do that which hitherto we have not been able to do.
I may say that I would much prefer to have this difficulty overcome by other means. Never, until this moment, have I uttered a word against the Doukhobors in this country, though I have been m pubic life for some years. I have vainly hoped that, as the years went by, it might be possible to win these people from some of these mad practices in which they indulge, but these outrages have become so common that I have given up that hope. They continue to indulge in this obscene practice, it is nothing more; if my hon. friend wants to get further particulars he has but to go to the inner records of the department which would not make a very savory recital here. If he will look up those records he will get away from the idea of a gentle, devout religious observance to a true appreciation of the obscenity of many of these practices and these nude parades. It is most unfortunate that we have to discuss the matter here, but certainly those in authority must be given some power and some weapon with which to protect the decencies of Canadian life.
Mr. LaVERGENE : I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I think I would be derelict in my duty if I did not, in a few words, express to the committee the lesson which this house and this country should
Canadian Red Cross Act

learn from the circumstances which have been exposed this afternoon. It is over forty years since these people first came to this country, and at t'he time they were brought here the migration of the French-speaking Canadians from Quebec was frowned upon 'by the western provinces. I am sure I am saying what I may call the naked truth-


John Livingstone Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, has not sufficient time been given this subject already?
Mr. LaVERGNE: I think it has, but I am going to say a few words more. I am sorry if what I say grates on the nerves of the hon. gentleman, but I think this is rather important.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. gentleman is very fond of calling other hon. members to order.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Yes, and I remember a few moments ago calling another hon. gentleman to order, but with the consent of the committee he proceeded. What I have to say will not take very long, and it is rather important; my hon. friend, Who lives in the west, could profit by the lesson himself. We have been filling our country with the scum of the world through paid and bonused immigration, and to-day we must admit that if we had followed the policy of filling our country with our own Canadian citizens we would not have been obliged to pass laws such as the one now under consideration. I think, as a Canadian, it is my duty to say that governments in the past were most guilty in adopting that open door immigration policy, which meant an open door immigration to the scum of the world and a closed door to immigration coming from the old provinces of Canada, especially from the province of Quebec.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Will not the hon. member admit that the great majority of those immigrants are loyal, valuable and useful citizens of Canada?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Certainly; I will admit
that, but now we have proof that while we were receiving immigrants from all the different races of Europe we had not the necessary population to assimilate them. Here we have a small group of eight thousand or ten thousand people who have been here forty years and who are not assimilated as yet. Not only have they not adopted Canadian institutions; they have not adopted western civilization, and I claim we should profit by the lesson. Chickens are coming home to roost; I think "chickens" is the proper word, after the illustration we had
IMr. LaVergne.]
given us this afternoon of young girls disrobing before census enumerators. If the fair name of Canada has been spoiled it is our own fault. We should have been more careful with our immigration; we should have opened our door only to races which could be readily assimilated. I repeat what I have said for the last thirty years, that the best immigration is that which comes from within our own country. We should have settled our western provinces with Canadians or with such races as the British or the French from the other side of the Atlantic who, until about twenty-five years ago, were barred by the policy of the government, to-day it costs less for an immigrant to come from Europe and settle in the west than it does for a Canadian from Ontario or Quebec to go and settle there. These facts should open our eyes, and instead of quibbling and raising points of order we should try to put into force a broader, a cleaner and a more Canadian policy for the future.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 131, to amend The Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not necessary for
me to add very much to the explanation I gave the other day. This amendment adds a few words to three paragraphs of the society's incorporating act. It provides for an increase in the number of the governing body, and grants certain powers, making clear what was implied in the opinion of the corporation's legal advisers, there having been some difference of opinion in that regard. In view of the fact that the Red Cross Society was the agent chosen in the treaty of Peace to carry out certain very important undertakings, is so recognized, and will be called upon to do a great deal of work during the winter, the government has introduced the bill, enabling them to add to the numbers of the governing body.


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

Bonus on Wheat


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that the governor in council may authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of five cents on every bushel of wheat exported from the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan of the crop of 1931, and to make provision for the determination of amounts payable thereunder, and for regulations to carry out the purpose of the act and prescribe penalties to be incurred for breach of the act or regulations.
He said: The bill to be founded upon this resolution provides for the payment of 5 cents a bushel in ithe provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. It is proposed that the money shall foe distributed through the machinery of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and that it shall be paid' to the person who is the producer of the grain. It was hoped that some provision might foe made for following the grain through Canadian vessels to the ports of ultimate shipment, but although we were very' strongly urged to have such a provision in the resolution and in the bill it was found as a practical matter impossible to do so. The lake shipowners urged it very strongly, as did the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Simpson), but there was no machinery by which we thought it could be done. Therefore the payments will be made direct by the elevators through the machinery of the Board of Grain Commissioner's. If the house will go into committee on the resolution and allow the matter to be advanced a stage or two, there will be full opportunity' to discuss the bill in committee.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this on all wheat marketed?


William Richard Motherwell: The resolution is somewhat different from the statement in the budget address. On that occasion it was intimated that the freight was to be absorbed on all wheat shipped for export, meaning abroad, I suppose. The resolution, as I understand it, includes interprovincial trade. As I see it, the local mills in each of the three western provinces will be discriminated against. If a farmer wishes to sell, say to ithe Robin Hood mill at Moose Jaw, or to any other mill in the west, he will not be eligible for the 5 cents if the mill is in his own province. So that the farmer or other seller will not sell to the local mill unless
he gets 5 cents more per bushel than the ordinary market price. The only means by which the seller could get the 5 cents would be to sell to a mill in an adjoining province or for export abroad. If he sells to a mill in another province, under the terms of this resolution he will be eligible; if he sells to a mill within his own province he will geit nothing. Should the local mill take his, the farmer's wheat and pay him the ordinary price plus the 5 cents the miller will be at that disadvantage with competitors both abroad and interprovincially. That is the way it appears to me.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Mr. MoMILLAN (Huron):	Would the
Prime Minister give his reasons for proposing this resolution?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are three reasons.
The first is the low price of wheat in the markets of the world. It is a well known fact that the sudden collapse of the wheat market brought about a condition in western Canada which is being felt all over this country, particularly in eastern Canada. This section of the country relies to no small extent upon the purchasing power of the western population, and this purchasing power has been so lessened by the reduction and diminution in the price of wheat that it has assumed almost national proportions.
The second reason is brought about because of the first reason. The price received for the grain does not bear that relation to the cost of production which it did heretofore.
The third reason is the necessity of a measure of relief for western Canadian producers. I have been told by those who are better able than I to speak with authority that the effect of this measure will be excellent and that it will lessen the amounts which we may be called upon to pay for direct relief in cooperation with the provinces.
Then there is the psychological effect which perhaps the hon. member will not underestimate. The great wheat producing areas of Canada lie between the lakes and the mountains. It is the products of that territory which have given Canada a reputation abroad as a wheat producing country. A population discouraged by a great reduction in the price of their products and because of a calamity which lias overtaken them as far as successive crops are concerned, will be heartened by the fact that to this, extent the parliament of Canada recognizes their situation. Perhaps the bill founded upon this resolution will give a better explanation than can be given in a
Bonus on Wheat

mere sentence or two. It is proposed to utilize the machinery of the grain act, and the money will be distributed through that agency directly to the people who are affected. I learned only yesterday that in the opinion of those interested in the grain business the effect upon whose who have lost their crops will be very considerable, even though they will not benefit. There are many other reasons for this resolution which I could mention, but I think perhaps the hon. gentleman understands why this legislation is proposed.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: I am glad to
hear the reasons given by the right hon. gentleman for this legislation, but .they do not satisfy me. As all hon. members know, the situation in many sections of the three western provinces is such that there are tens of thousands of needy fanners who will not have a single bushel of wheat this year. The latest report is that there are 100,000 who will require relief because of an absolute loss of :rops.
The right hon. gentleman has given four reasons for" this legislation. The first reason is the low price of wheat; the second reason is the low price when compared with the cost of production; the third concerns relief, and the fourth is the psychological effect. I fail to see any real reason why the government should adopt a sectional policy such as this. If relief is to be given, why not make it general. I think I am within the judgment of the committee when I say that we who live in other than the western provinces have refrained from placing before the house the situation which confronts the farmers in our provinces. The condition in almost every section of the province of Ontario with which I am familiar is such that at the present time it is almost impossible for a farmer to make ends meet.


Thomas Reid: Will this apply only to wheat for export?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will apply to wheat delivered to any licensed elevator in the western inspection division, commission merchant, track buyer, or grain dealer as defined by the Canada Grain Act.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say' that this five-cent subsidy was to be administered by the grain commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Board of Grain Commissioners.	[DOT]


John Vallance: It will apply to all wheat marketed?
(Mr. Bennett.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: All wheat sold to any licensed elevator in the western grain inspection division, commission merchant, track buyer, or grain dealer as defined by the Canada Grain Act.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Chairman, before we go into the details of this measure, I think we should first discuss the general principle. In all probability during the discussion of details some hon. member opposite will rise and ask us if we are in favour or opposed to this measure. That is the kind of criticism which has been levelled against us. The Prime Minister has given certain reasons for the introduction of this measure, and at this stage I accept them as good reasons. In spite of what the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) has said, I do not think that the condition of the farmers in the three western provinces can be compared with the condition of the farmers in Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces of the Dominion. The latter, although they are suffering from low prices, have the promise of an abundant harvest. But even before conditions had been aggravated as they were by the drouth in the west, the farmers in western Canada suffered very severely from the drop in prices. Although the Prime Minister may at the present time take the position that these serious conditions are the result of what has arisen during the last few months, I take this opportunity of stating, as I did on a former occasion, that even before present conditions arose, the situation in the west was very severe and perhaps the Prime Minister by this time realizes that fact.
I am quite willing to admit that the reasons which have just been mentioned by the Prime Minister are good ones. The burden has rested very heavily upon the western provinces. A short crop last year in many sections and a very low price meant that in many cases farmers were due to lose their equity in their farms, and since they were bearing in a special degree the burden of those low prices, it seemed to me well that the whole burden should not be borne by the west but that part of it might be borne by the people of Canada. But a few days ago the Prime Minister mentioned another reason which I am not going to accept as a good one. In discussing certain items in the tariff he stated that this might be considered as a compensation to us-


Richard Bedford Bennett: A compensating adjustment.

Bonus on 'Wheat


John Livingstone Brown: I shall accept the termfor burdens that were laid upon us because of the tariff. I cannot accept this as a compensating adjustment for the burdens that have been laid upon us by the tariff, nor will the people of western Canada accept it as such. As' I said, I will accept it for the reason the Prime Minister mentioned a few minutes ago.
A few days ago the Prime Minister drew a picture like this: he spoke of a quarter-section of land with 150 acres of that quarter-section in wheat and an average of ten bushels to the acre, amounting, on the basis of a bonus of five cents a bushel, to $75. Then he said: No farm in western Canada is taxed that amount by the tariff. That is one of those questions in absolute mathematics which are so simple to the Prime Minister, but as a matter of fact that condition does not exist in the west. The picture is simply a figment of his imagination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the yield too low?


John Livingstone Brown: To begin with 150 acres is
not the average acreage of a quarter-section put into wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have known 180 acres


John Livingstone Brown: So have I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing wrong
about that.


John Livingstone Brown: But it is not a true picture of the condition that exists in western Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say it was.


John Livingstone Brown: Then it is giving an entirely false impression to suggest that the average farmer in the west will receive $75 on a quarter-section. I am not going to discuss this matter at any greater length.


John Vallance: The resolution reads:
May authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of five cents on every bushel of wheat exported from the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
From the reply to a question that I asked the Prime Minister, I find now that this is not an export subsidy, but a producer's bonus. Am I right in that assumption?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Substantially that is
right. I will discuss it later in detail.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: While this money is to be paid out for the benefit of those who are producing wheat, may I say a word in connection with the barley producers. Manitoba produces almost as much barley as wheat, and the former is of particular concern in the constituency from which I come. I feel that if the wheat growers deserve some consideration in this regard, surely the barley growers should also. Again, when we consider the freight rates, they operate very materially against the domestic shipments of barley, more so than with regard to shipments for export. Has the government anything to say as to giving some assistance to the barley growers of Manitoba who are most concerned in connection with this matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is abundantly clear
that the government did not propose to deal with other than wheat, and without going into the reasons at length, I may say this: It is wheat that has given to Canada the name of a food producing country. Manitoba hard has given this country a name in every part of the world for the production of wheat, and it is because of the situation in that regard that we have dealt with the matter as we have. If we dealt with barley we should also have to deal with rye, and if we dealt with rye we should also have to deal with something else. That is entirely beyond our ability, even if we desired to do so, and it would be beyond the scope of the intention of the government in that regard. We have already endeavoured to give some assistance to the barley producers by the effort to substitute barley for corn. That question has been discussed at length in the house and I do not propose to go into it again.
In reply to the hon. member for Lisgar I may say I took the illustration of a quarter section with 150 acres in wheat, and I took the low yield of ten bushels an acre. I said that this would give the farmer $75 which was more than he would pay on his quarter section-or he might have a half section-by reason of any tariff in this country this year. I know many such farms and the yield has usually been at least 50 per cent more than ten bushels per acre.


Mr. VENIOT:: What will be the approximate cost of this bonus?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might cost $6,500,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Not on
a 350,000,000 crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will not be that
nor half that this year.


William Richard Motherwell: I think we may
take it for granted that the object of this resolution is to make the growing of wheat at present prices five cents less unprofitable than it would otherwise be. To that extent
Bonus on Wheat

the bonus is of benefit. As I have already pointed out it is only such wheat as is exported from the various provinces that is eligible for the bonus of five cents.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: The resolution says so. I heard something read once or twice from some other document, but I did not quite understand it. As far as the resolution before us is concerned, it is only the wheat that is exported from the respective provinces that can earn the five cent bonus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. member did not hear me. I endeavoured to say that the words "wheat exported" will be construed in the bill as meaning all wheat delivered to any licensed elevator in the western grain inspection division, commission merchant, track buyer or grain dealer as defined by the Canada Grain Act.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not hear
that. Will that include anyone who buys or sells wheat for feed stuffs or seed grains.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the use to which this wheat is put is not a factor.


Edward James Young: I gather the object of the
government in granting this five cent bonus is to assist the western farmers in their present plight, particularly those who are in the dried-out districts. Could the Prime Minister give us any estimate of the average yield per acre affected in the dried-out districts of the western provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is
asking a question which he would claim, and properly so, greater ability to answer than I. So far as I know, in the dried-out areas to which he refers there will be no yield at all. There may be some green feed, but that is all. I pointed out that this cannot bring any relief to those who have no grain. It was never intended to do so, but it will enable those who have to help those who have not, and a gentleman whose opinion I do regard says that the value of that cannot well be over-estimated. If the committee will allow the resolution to pass and the bill to be introduced, they will have the details before them and then will be better able to appreciate what is intended. I am quite content that the second reading should stand, or we could pass it, by consent, and in committee discussion could take place, and we could let the bill stay in committee for further discussion.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 140, respecting wheat.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the house is agreed,
we can give the bill a second reading without in any sense committing members of the house to any principle involved in the bill.


Peter John Veniot: There would be full opportunity for discussion of the principle in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.
Mr. BENNETT moved the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will not go into
committee now, but perhaps at the next sitting of the house, in view of the fact that there is so much supply to be voted.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Has the bill
been printed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but I do not think the French copies are ready.


Peter John Veniot: May I make a suggestion?
I understand the Prime Minister wishes to go into supply to-night. There are a great many members absent who are interested in supply. Perhaps we could go on with this bill in committee to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said yesterday that we must go on with supply.


Charles A. Stewart: I wouid
seriously object to going on with this bill to-night. Supply has been before us for months, and surely we can get rid of some supply. We have not seen the bill, and it seriously affects western Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I took the hon. member's view myself. I think he will agree that that is the view I took. I said to the right hon. leader of the opposition that I did not think the bill had been translated into French. The second reading was only taken by consent, and I am obliged to the house for doing that, to give hon. members an opportunity to consider the bill without having committed themselves to the principle.

Dairy Industry Act
I should like to get on with supply to-night. Although we have been a long time at it, there is a considerable number of items to be disposed of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can we not
pass another bill or two before six o'clock?



FISH INSPECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) moved that the order for the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Fish Inspection Act, be discharged.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) moved that the order for the second reading of Bill No. 78, to repeal the Biological Board Act, be discharged.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the order for the second reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928, be discharged.
He said:	The technical officers are not
ready to proceed further with this bill at the moment, and wish it to stand until next year.
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126 for the relief of Rebecca Jacobs Wiseblatt.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 127 for the relief of Ada Jane Woodhams Bush.

Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 128 for the relief of Marie Rose Agnes Belanger Gauron.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 129 for the relief of Minnie Fagan Rabinoviteh.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 180 for the relief of Annie Bick Barder.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No 137 for the relief of Pearl Whelan. -Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 138 for the relief of Bruce Raymond Diamond.-Mr. McLure.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 16, an act to amend the Dairy Industry Act (increase of penalties)-Mr. Gobeil.-Mr. LaVergne in the chair. *
Mr. GOBEIL:: Mr. Chairman-


Wilfrid Girouard: Does the sponsor of the bill close the debate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Samuel Gobeil: Convinced as I am of the merits of the bill, and having listened attentively to the reasons brought forward by hon. members opposite who opposed it, I wish to make a few remarks so that if the bill does not pass the responsibility may rest in the proper place.
This bill was not presented to the house because of the fancy of the hon. member for Compton, or through political motives, as was suggested by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), but because of a necessity existing in connection with butter. As I stated on a former occasion the matter of adulterated butter came before the annual convention held last fall of the dairymen's association of the province of Quebec. May I say that that convention brings together a body of men representative of the dairy industry in that province. At the meetings of that convention there are about 55 or 60 inspectors of cheese and butter factories of the province, the heads and officials superior to those inspectors, the directors and professors of the dairy school at St. Hyacinthe and several of the factory owners in the province. Certainly that body of men is in a position to give an opinion as to what should be done in the best interests of the dairy industry. This question was brought before the board of directors, of which I have the honour to be a member, and the board finally came to the conclusion that the adulteration of butter could not be stopped with the existing penalties. Therefore the board passed the resolution which I read on a previous occasion, and that resolution was brought before the convention, where it was adopted. As a result, Mr. Chairman, this bill was presented.
I was amazed at some of the reasons put forward by some hon. members opposite in opposition to this bill. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard) discussed the various subsections of section 5. I might remind the hon. member and the
Dairy Industry Act

committee that these subsections are exactly as they were previously; not one word has been changed. I would also remind the hon. member that the act which is being amended was passed by this house in 1928, when the Liberal government was in power and when the hon. gentleman was sitting on this side of the house. Certainly he had every opportunity to discuss these subsections at that time, and if they were not in the best interests of the dairy industry they should have been amended when the original bill was passed.
One of the principal objections to the bill was that we should give more latitude and more discretion to judges in the application of the law. As I said in the beginning, those who have had the responsibility of making complaints and trying to secure convictions were of the opinion that the existing penalties were not sufficiently severe to stop the adulteration of butter, and the discretion allowed the judges is just as it was before this amendment was introduced. There again not a word has 'been changed; the judge can impose anything from the minimum fine to the maximum fine, so it only remains to decide whether or not those penalties are sufficient. That is the reason this bill has been brought forward, because the men in the trade claim that these penalties are not sufficient to stop that adulteration.
Another objection put forward by hon. members who oppose this bill is the question of good faith on the part of those who produce butter. I do not blame the hon. genltle-men; they would like to convince their electors that they are safeguarding the interests of the butter makers, so they say it would be too bad if some farmer or butter maker who produced butter with more than 16 per cent of moisture content should be fined S500. Surely this cannot be a question of good faith. The man who buys 400 or 500 pounds of butter, puts it in a mixing machine and adds 200 or 300 pounds of oil certainly cannot plead good faith. But they ask, "What about those who are found with more than 16 per cenlt of water in their butter?" I say, Mr. Chairman, that not one of those people has been convicted under section 5 o'f this bill. I hold in my hand the record of convictions for 1930, which numbered 91. Of that number 71 were convicted in connection with butter containing over 16 per cent moisture, while 18 were convicted for the real adulteration of butter. Of the 71, all were convicted under the section of this bill which provides a minimum fine of $10 and a maximum fine of $50, and the officers of the department here tell me that over 90 per cent of those convicted were fined

the minimum of $10 and costs. Of the 18 who were found guilty under section 5, all were convicted because they had adulterated butter in the real sense of the word. So I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to point to one case in which a butter maker or a farmer has been prosecuted for producing butter containing over 16 per cent moisture or less than 80 per cent butter fat and fined under section 5 of this act which I am trying to amend.
I do not desire to cast any reflection on those who oppose the bill; I take it for granted that they are capable men in their respective walks of life. The hon. member for Comox-Allberni (Mr. Neill) speaking the other day to the tariff item concerning chickens and ducks, said he found it strange that those who discussed that item were lawyers, doctors and other professional men. So, while I take it for granted that all the hon. members who spoke against this bill are practical men in their respective walks of life, yet the people who considered this question last jrear at Mont Laurier were more acquainted with the question than the hon. members who have opposed this bill. I find that of the seven or eight members who spoke against it four or five are lawyers, one or two are doctors, and one is a newspaper man. There was not one fanner in that number. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there must be a farmer on the opposite side of the house, and I should like to hear him express an opinion on this question.


Charles Marcil: Are these figures which the hon. member is giving now for the whole Dominion, or only for the province of Quebec? Further, could the hon. member tell me how many of those convicted were farmers and how many were butter makers? Has he those separate figures?


Samuel Gobeil: The total figures for 1939
were, 98 in Quebec and 26 in Ontario. In 1929 the convictions in some of the other provinces were: Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 1; Saskatchewan, 1; British Columbia, 1.


Charles Marcil: How many in Quebec
were farmers and how many were butter makers?


Samuel Gobeil: I cannot answer accurately
but I know, generally speaking, that most of them were factory men. I should have been glad if farmers on the other side of the house had given us their views. The farmers on this side have spoken in favour of the bill. I do not reflect on others in saying that, when I need legal advice, I go to a lawyer rather than to a doctor or any other professional

Dairy Industry Act.
man. I regret that the hon. member for St. James saw fit to make a political speech on this bill. I do not intend to follow him, because it seems to me that whatever I or any other Conservative candidate may have said during the last campaign has nothing to do with this bill.


Mr. POULIOT:: Hear, hear.


Samuel Gobeil: The question referred to
by the hon. member for St. James is one to be settled between my electors and myself at the next election. I wish the hon. member were here because I would invite him, when that time comes, to discuss with me in the county of Compton all matters affecting the dairy industry.


Jean-François Pouliot: All those you invite will
accept.


Samuel Gobeil: I fully realize that if hon.
members opposite wish to prevent this bill from becoming law they can easily do so. They have only to talk for half an hour and very likely the bill will not come before the house again. That is why I have made these remarks. I know that the whole dairy industry is behind the bill. Every thinking farmer is in favour of it. The main objection of hon. gentlemen opposite has been that the poor farmer who is caught with more than 16 per cent of water in his butter will be fined $500. They know that this has never happened under section 5, because the officers are very careful. Those who adulterate butter are well known; there are only a few of them in Montreal. Everyone in the trade knows them and this bill will put a stop to the practice. If hon. members who represent rural constituencies are sincere in their criticisms they will allow the bill to become law.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a few words to say on this bill. My hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil) will admit that in Quebec there is a distinction between butter factories and creameries; they are not at all the same thing. The butter factory is the place where in the country they make butter, and the creamery is where it is made in the city. This is a very important distinction. I regard it as an evil that so much milk is being sent to-day from the country to the city for manufacturing purposes. I do not think that many hon. members will contradict me on that point, because some business is needed to encourage the farmers and give them every chance in their struggle. It is unfortunate that in Quebec as no doubt elsewhere, factories are being closed because the farmers are sending their milk to the city 22110-264
instead of having it made into butter or cheese in the locality. How is that done? My hon. friend from Compton, who is a director in dairy societies, must know that the creamery people falsify the records, giving to the producer less fat than he is entitled to and then raising the price. It is a fake, and is done to deceive the farmer. The farmer is paid for less fat than his milk contains, although the price he receives is apparently higher. That is how so many farmers have been deceived into sending their milk to the city creameries instead of taking it, as many do, to the local butter factory. This is an evil, and I submit that my hon. friend's bill, though his intention may be good, is simply un coup d'epee dans l'eau-a sword thrust in water. I suggest that the important thing would be to have some inspectors in these creameries. I have no technical knowledge of the industry, but I was told that these creameries are not as rigidly inspected as the butter factories. It is of the utmost importance, and it would be in the interests of the local buttermaker, to have these creamery factories veiy carefully inspected, to make impossible the falsification of records. If this were done the farmers would know exactly what price they were getting for their product; they would know what price the creameries were paying for a stated quantity of fat. They are entitled to know just how much fat their butter contains.
Let me tell my hon. friend that I am not ashamed of being a lawyer. I represent a rural constituency and I am proud of the fact, and I should feel that I was not doing my duty if I did not speak for them here. I have at heart the interests of those I represent. I am not making a political speech; I am speaking on the authority of people who know just as much about the industry as the hon. member for Compton. There is an evil which we must stop, and the only way to do that is, at the earliest opportunity, to amend the law, providing for the strictest inspection of creameries so that the farmers shall not be deceived. It will be just as well also to put some restraint on the farmers. The important thing is to prevent the falsification of the records. The bill reads:
Any person who violates any provision of sections five or seven of this act shall be guilty of an offence and upon summary conviction, shall be liable-
And then follow the penalties, which are heavier than those in force at the present time. What is meant by "any person"? The rural butter factory is generally operated by a single man. He is either the owner of the

Dairy Industry Act.

factory or is employed by a syndicate or society of farmers who own it. However, it is entirely different in the cities. There the creamery is usually owned by a company w'hich has a president, a general manager, several employees and lots of watered stock. Who would be responsible in that case? Would it be the president, would it be the manager, or would it be the poor employee who is acting under their instructions?


Samuel Gobeil: It would be the same as
before; the law is not being changed.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are here to improve
the law, and I know my hon. friend is sincere in his efforts to that end. I believe this amendment would make the law more severe without making a distinction between the factory in the city and in the country. I think such a distinction should be made. This amendment does not achieve the result aimed at. I do not know how it is in other provinces, but I know there is some trouble in Quebec city and Montreal. The people in the rural districts should be told that the reason they do not receive more money for their products is the deduction for transportation made by the creameries in the cities.


Wilfrid Girouard: This
measure aims at increasing the penalties provided by the Dairy Industry Act. When the bill was discussed in the house some time ago, I pointed out why, in my opinion, this measure was unjust and vexatious towards the farmer. I do not intend to go over the reasons which I then gave; I simply wish to answer an objection which was raised. Some hon. members on the government side have stated that this measure does not apply to farmers. They certainly are under a false impression. It is only necessary to read the act with the proposed amendment in order /to convince oneself that the provisions apply to eveiybody, to dealers as well as farmers. It is precisely with reference to this point that I wish to make a few comments. Subsection (b) of section 5 of the act reads as follows:
"No person shall
(b) mix with or incorporate with butter, by any process of heating, soaking, rechurning, reworking, or otherwise, any cream, milk, skim-milk, buttermilk or water to cause such butter when so treated to contain over sixteen per centum of water." [DOT]
"No person shall," these words therefore apply to everybody, and, according to the proposed amendment, a person violating the section just read would be liable to a fine of $500, and, in default of payment to im-

prisonment for a term of six months. Therefore, a farmer who, in good faith, mixes with the butter or introduces in it water to cause such butter when so treated to contain over sixteen per cent of water, is liable for a first offence to a fine of $500, anil in default of payment to imprisonment for a term of six months. I state that inasmuch as this measure applies to farmers, the act is unjust and arbitrary. That is why I move, seconded by Mr. Pouliot, the following amendment:
That clause I of the present bill be amended by adding after subsection (c) of section 10 of the Dairy Industry Act, the following subsection :
(d) The present section does not apply to farmers who manufacture or sell butter made from the dairy products of their farm.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ON ESI ME GAGNON (Dorchester) moved the second reading of Bill No. 132, to amend the Civil Service Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what I said on Monday last when I had the honour to move the first reading of this bill. I will say briefly that one of the features of my bill is to exclude the outside service from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
Now, with respect to appointments, it is my desire to incorporate into the act the recommendation made in 1924 by a committee of the Senate which considered this question at length and reported to the effect that in connection with promotions the Civil Service Commission should cooperate with the government. I also wish that with regard to dismissals the ministers of the departments be given the power to make dismissals themselves. The law as it stands provides that an employee can be dismissed only by the governor in council, and I think the amendment which I have in view is not very drastic in its terms. The change I propose is very small; if a minister has no right to dismiss an employee for cause, it is of no use to speak of the powers of the government. .
As I said, I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time because I am well aware that many members on both sides of the house are anxious to express their views and that at this stage of the session

Civil Service-Outside Service
it is not probable that my bill will become law. May I add that one reason why I have presented it to the house at this stage is to enable hon. members to study it earnestly with a real desire to do justice to the country as well as to the civil service. I am proud to say to hon. members opposite that one of the distinguished members who are anxious to amend the Civil Service Act is none other than the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), who is now the chief organizer of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec. I am also proud to say that on the 24th of June those who like my humble self are anxious to amend the Civil Service Act found another champion in the distinguished leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Let me emphasize the fact that on that date the hon. leader of the opposition stated in the most emphatic terms that he rather favoured the exclusion of the outside service from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. He went even so far as to state that in 1924 when he voted against the Spinney amendment he was wrong and he added that he now favoured the nomination of postmasters in rural districts by the Postmaster General.
I leave my bill to the earnest consideration of the house. I am prepared to discuss the matter free from party prejudice. As I said last Monday this question is not a party one because no such amendment as I have in view can be made unless all parties concur in it.
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: The
major portion of this bill I support very strongly. I have been a sympathetic supporter of the Civil Service Commission because I have taken time to study its functions and the work it does, but any hon. member who believes that the Civil Service Commission appoints applicants to the outside service will be sadly disappointed. Practically all that it does is to put a rubber stamp upon the recommendation of a member of some other department. Therefore I am supporting this bill first because the Civil Service Commission does not examine the application and the applicant. That is done by a member of some other department. It was a surprise to me to learn this. A short time ago I had a very good example of it. An application was made for an outside position in the district from which I come, and I had occasion to follow up that application. A returned man, who had been a resident of that district only a few months, was given first choice-although I think when a position is locally advertised, length of residence
22110-264i
should be one factor in making an appointment. The men who were named on his application as recommending him repudiated having given their names and refused to recommend him for the position. But I want to be fair. Some two months before, this man, having drifted into the district, was recommended by these three men, who were officers of the local battalion, although they had not much information as to who he was. The man was supposed to be a very good shot, and on securing the good will of these three officers he obtained their recommendation for another job which he did not get. He had given them a promise and an oath of service, both of which he repudiated and refused to carry out. When the matter of the second position came up, these men could not recommend him and he gave their names without their consent or approval. Subsequently when they were asked to give recommendations, they repudiated having given their names. The chairman of the commission says:	I do not think that is
serious, because it is a matter of his character and on a former occasion' these three men recommended him. If a man repudiates his oath and his promise, what else is left of his character and how can any man recommend him for a position? Nevertheless, the commission accepted these three names. When I asked for the letters repudiating them, the commission did not have them on file. They were put away in a little bag, but they had the former papers on the file. These papers were not addressed 'to the Civil Service Commission but to somebody else.
In addition to that, two other returned men had applied for this position, one being a graduate of the school of science-one of our best universities. I want here and now to express my disapproval of the classification made of these men by an inspector of the Public Works department. The man who had drifted into the locality, who had been there for only a few months, was given 80' per cent, while the man who was a bona fide resident, whose family had been in the district for fifty or sixty years, a returned man with a good service record, and a graduate of the school of science, was given only 60 per cent. I ask hon. members if in such a case the Civil Service Commission performed any function at all? I give it credit for having done something in the past, but examples of this kind surely will confirm one's opinion that it does not make the appointments.


Charles A. Stewart: What was
the position?

Civil Service-Outside Service


Arthur Edward Ross: It was a minor position, that of inspector of dredges, and a graduate of a school of science would be far better qualified to fill it than anyone else. In addition to that he was a returned soldier, but the man who had no qualifications was given 80 per cent by this inspector, while the graduate of the school of science received only 60 per cent. No officer of the Civil Service Commission ever saw that man or examined him, and yet you say that the Civil Service Commission make the outside appointments. That is the method of appointing officers to the outside service. Any man who shakes his head can get up and try to disprove it if he likes. I have here a list of the men upon whose recommendations in every case the appointment depends. Here is an official document. I have not the time to read it now, but it is upon the recommendations of these officers in every department that the Civil Service Commission makes the appointments.


Charles Marcil: The law should have been amended, and the Civil Service Commission provided with inspectors. They have to rely now on the inspectors of the various departments.


Arthur Edward Ross: They have their own inspectors. These inspectors are their choice; they select these men.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not think they have any outside inspectors, have they?


Arthur Edward Ross: Why not? *


Charles A. Stewart: They have inspectors on the staff here.


Arthur Edward Ross: If they have not their own men, it is so much the more proof of my statement. For appointments to the inside service, written and oral examinations are held, and through their examiners the commission makes the appointment, but for appointments to the outside service the commission has to depend on other people than themselves.


Charles A. Stewart: Was this just, a temporary appointment for the summer?


Arthur Edward Ross: Most of these are.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Very good, then. Take the position of postmaster; that is a permanent position. Who makes the recommendation for that appointment? An official of the Post Office Department. Would it not be better to let the Post Office Department appoint their own men? As it is their inspector goes out and examines the applicants-and remember,

this is not a temporary position, but a permanent one. Upon the recommendation of that inspector, in over 90 per cent of the cases the Civil Service Commission makes the appointment. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that these are sufficient reasons why the outside service should be removed from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. It will really not be doing anything more than what we are actually doing at the present time, because as it is now each department makes its own recommendation, and upon that recommendation the commission acts.
Secondly, there are many applications made which never reach the Civil Service Commission at all. They are pigeon-holed by certain officials in the various departments. We have proof that many of these applications do not reach the commission. They are first gone over by officials of other departments, and in many cases the applications are pigeonholed and never reach the commission.
In the third place, the Civil Service Commission, having appointed the men, cannot take care of them after they are appointed. The men are dismissed without any examination or investigation by the Civil Service Commission whose employees they are. The department can simply go to work and have a departmental investigation, and out the man goes on their recommendation without any approval or disapproval by the Civil (Service Commission.
I shall not take up any more time. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that these outside appointments are not now made by the Civil Service Commission upon any examination that they conduct, the commission simply acting as a rubber stamp of approval of the recommendations of other departments.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
hon. member include in that sweeping statement the -whole outside service as well as what the bill provides?-because there is a number of permanent officials in the outside service. Would my hon. friend take them all out from under the jurisdiction of the commission.


Arthur Edward Ross: I absolutely would if they have not any better system than they have now.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend knows that the permanent service is not appointed in that way. He is speaking of temporary appointments for the summer.


Arthur Edward Ross: A large number of the positions is temporary, but I have mentioned others that are permanent, such as postmaster, and

Supply-Post. Office
collector of customs. Who appoints them? The Civil Service Commission have not the original information, and they have to depend upon the officials of other departments.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Would my hon. friend
state that the civil service examinations held at outside points in the different cities are a complete farce?


Arthur Edward Ross: I made a distinction between the oral and written examinations for the permanent positions in the inside service, but the outside appointments are not made in that way.


Charles Marcil: I had the honour of supporting the original bill passed by this house creating the first Civil Service Commission, and I have followed the work of the Civil Service Commission very closely. I was a member of two or three committees that investigated the operation of the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Act, but I have not the time to refer to them to-night. I think the time has arrived when the government should seriously take into consideration this civil service question, and see if a remedy cannot be found. The big civil service associations of Canada have already protested against the adoption of any such measure as is proposed by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). Circumstances have changed since 1908 when the Hon. Sydney Fisher introduced his bill creating the Civil Service Commission, and since Sir Robert Borden sponsored his bill extending the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission to the outside service. Conditions have so changed due to the war and otherwise that the time has come, I think, when the whole Civil Service Act should be overhauled. When next we meet, and I trust we shall all meet again, I hope that the government will be in a position to give us a matured plan which will do justice to all parts of the country, to the civil servants as well as to the public.


Mr. F. T. SHAVER (Stormont):: I see
there are only two minutes left, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to place myself on record as thoroughly in accord with the principle of this bill. I have the honour to represent a constituency in which there is a large number of outside civil servants, in the departments of railways and canals, national revenue, and post office, and I do not think that the efficiency of these civil servants or of the service itself would be impaired if the outside service were taken from under the control of the Civil Service Commission, and if the members for the constituencies had the
right to recommend to the minister who should be appointed to the various positions.
I know that some may consider this a retrograde step. There are some members who would not want to take upon themselves this added responsibility. But I also know that there are in the civil service at Ottawa men holding very important positions. I know of one who came from my own village, who for over forty years has been a very faithful and efficient civil servant; and he was appointed under the old system. I am ready as the member for the constituency to take the responsibility of recommending honest and efficient men for any positions which may become vacant. I believe it would be in the interests of the civil service itself. As was expressed in a debate a few days ago by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), it is in the interests of each member in making recommendations to see that only capable and efficient men are recommended.
I see I have not time to give any further reasons why I should support this bill. I wish merely to express my entire sympathy with it, particularly with that section which deals with the outside service.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will proceed to government orders.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and allowances, $18,394,800.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $16,500,000.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service or in protecting His Majesty's mails, or to the dependants of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged, payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,235,175.
Yukon territory, $150,000.-Total, $36,339,975.
Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Postmaster General be kind enough to inform me as to how long Mr. Charles Garon has been acting as postmaster at Rimouski?


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I think it is
since November last.


Eugène Fiset: Would the hon. Postmaster General inform me also
Supply-Post Office

whether he intends to appoint a permanent postmaster at Rimouski; and whether he will give the customary consideration to veterans who are candidates?


Arthur Sauvé: I intend to
fill this post as soon as possible and we are at present considering recommendations as regards veterans who have applied for the position.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to have some details from ithe minister concerning reductions in revenue during the last year, referring particularly to the revenue derived from the sale of postage stamps, postcards, and so forth.


Arthur Sauvé: The revenue for the year
1930-31 will be approximately $31,000,000. a decrease of almost $2,000,000 as compared with the year 1929-30. This decrease was brought about as the result of general economic conditions.


Peter John Veniot: In the year 1929-30 postage stamps, postcards and so on brought in a revenue of approximately $27,000,000. I should like to know what reduction there was in that connection. How much less came in during the past year?


Arthur Sauvé: The revenue from that source during the yast year was $25,769,781.18.


Peter John Veniot: A reduction of almost


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.
Mr. VENIOT. How much newspaper postage was paid in cash?


Arthur Sauvé: The postage paid in cash for newspapers was $1,628,366.87.


Peter John Veniot: There is a difference there of $100,000. How much was received in cash for postage on third class printed matter? I wish to learn w-here the revenue is falling off.


Arthur Sauvé: On third class printed matter the amount w'as $1,114,811; on metered mail matter $2,342,077, and on parcels $3,801,368.70.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the house to any extent, nor say anything which might displease my good friend the Postmaster General; I simply wish to make a suggestion to him. There are a great number of merchants in our rural sections who have been selling much less within the last few years because of the large purchases which are made at Eaton's, Simpson's and at Dupuis'. These large firms are drawing on the money [Sir Eugene Fiset.J
reserves of our rural districts. It was not as bad when Eaton's had only a store in Toronto, but to-day it has branch stores almost everywhere. I am aware that it has a large store in Montreal and another in Moncton, and the sales which are carried on by this firm, as well as by Simpson's and Dupuis,' are very detrimental to our countryside merchants; these firms sell for cash. Our rural merchants often accept farm products in exchange for their goods and also give them long terms of credit. The hon. Postmaster General who represents a rural constituency, is well aware that farmers have the habit of paying their bills around All Saints Day and at Easter, twice a year. Meanwhile, sometimes during six months, the rural merchant is obliged to carry all this credit so as to allow the farmers an opportunity of selling their products in order to settle their bills with them.
I would suggest to the hon. Postmaster General, who has so much influence with the Prime Minister, being also the Minister of Finance, to come to an understanding with the latter in order to place a prohibitory rate on the mailing of catalogues to rural sections. I think that such a step would be appreciated throughout the country.


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to thank the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for his kind words. I wish to say to him that I also regret the abuses which may .result from these new commercial methods; however, the Post Office Department has no means at its disposal of correcting this evil. Nevertheless, my hon. friend's suggestion is worthy of consideration.


Charles Marcil: Has the hon.
Postmaster increased the rates on parcel post?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Charles Marcil: Then why not
increase them?


Arthur Sauvé: The question was not brought up.


Charles Marcil: Why not increase them? It would ensure a revenue to the Post Office Department. The trade carried on with these firms has been very extensive within these last years; the man on the street is asked to pay three cents on a letter, yet nothing further is requested from these firms w'ho are greatly harming the trade in our rural sections.


Arthur Sauvé: The comments of the hon. member for Bonaven'ture are certainly worthy of consideration.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I was trying to get some
information from the minister, but some of my hon. friends on this side of the house interfered. I intend to stay on my feet and I hope my hon. friends will not interrupt until I am through. For instance, I should like to know the falling off in postage on parcels from other countries. In 1929-30 the amount received was $776,411.


Arthur Sauvé: In 1930-31 it was $456,213.55.


Peter John Veniot: Over $300,000 less. In the
1930 revenue there is an item representing Canada's share in the sale of the Pacific and West Indies telegraph and cable service. There will be nothing coming from that source this year, which will be an additional falling off, so there is practically $600,000 of a drop there?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Then what were the deductions this year from the gross revenue?


Arthur Sauvé: The deductions were about


Peter John Veniot: Just about the same as
before?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Does the Post Office
Department keep a special commissioner in Saskatchewan to investigate charges of political activity preferred against postmasters, or is this done by the commissioner maintained by the government to investigate such charges against employees of all government departments? I should like to ask also how many commissioners have been appointed in Saskatchewan, how many are there now, and who they are.


Arthur Sauvé: I understand two commissioners have been appointed; one has been investigating political complaints and there is one other, as my hon. friend knows.


James J. Donnelly: What salaries are they
paid?	[DOT]


Arthur Sauvé: The salary is $20 a day and expenses.


James J. Donnelly: Is Mr. Elliott still
working as an investigator?


Arthur Sauvé: Not now.


James J. Donnelly: Was he discharged?


Arthur Sauvé: I think so.


James J. Donnelly: On what grounds?


Arthur Sauvé: On certain representations.


Charles Marcil: I have no protest to make against the system enforced by the hon. Postmaster General in connection with dismissals of postmasters who are guilty of political partisanship; the act exists and it must be carried out. When a complaint is lodged against a postmaster, the minister orders an inquiry and a commissioner is specially appointed for the purpose. In the county df Bonaventure I was privileged in having the visit of a fellow citizen from Rimousk i, who carried out numerous inquiries. I have nothing to say against the work he carried out and which seems complete; he is a member of the bar and he understands his work. However, I must protest as to his method of procedure. When a commissioner, having such extensive powers, visits a village or a parish to hold an inquiry, the latter, to my mind, should be held either at the post office or in a public place. At present, in my county, these inquiries are generally held at the home of the person who has made the charge or has caused it to be laid and who, moreover, hopes to replace the postmaster in question. I think that this procedure is of a nature to lower the prestige of the commissioners in charge of the inquiry'.
I therefore contend that these inquiries should be held either at the post office-like the inquiries carried out by the inspectors of the department-or in a public place, and that a previous notice, with a reasonable length of time, should be given as to the date of the inquiry. If a postmaster thinks fit not to be present at this inquiry, it is his concern, however, some postmasters or, again, some other persons might wish to deny these charges, but they have not the opportunity because they are not notified in advance.
I have neither the time nor the desire to discuss any further these inquiries which are held in my county for I may add the old saw, "to the conqueror belong the spoils." Such is the way the matter stands to-day and it has always been so.
Government positions will always be sought by people, especially in time of crisis, even if those positions are not very remunerative, however, my protest concerns the way these inquiries are canned out. I 'think the Postmaster General would enhance the prestige of his commissioners by giving them instructions to that effect.


Arthur Sauvé: The case to
which the hon. member for Bonaventure refers to, to my knowledge, is an exceptional one. I do not think that such a procedure will be found in other counties. Our aim is to look into the charges which are made to
4162	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office
us. We then send a commissioner to hold an inquiry according to the rules of evidence. We do not instruct them to carry out this inquiry at the home of the person who laid the charge but in a house where the public can have access.
However, if a commissioner happens, in certain cases, to go to the complainant's home, it is perhaps because there were no other places available.


Eugène Fiset: I
should like the Postmaster General to allow me to emphasize somewhat the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). What the hon. member for Bonaventure complains of, also exists in the county of Rimouski, and conditions in the latter place are, perhaps, worse than those mentioned by the hon. member for Bonaventure, since the two commissioners in charge of inquiries were ex-Conservative candidates who had both stood for the county of Rimouski and had besides taken part in the last election.
It was therefore almost impossible for any one charged of meddling in politics to obtain fair play under such conditions. I would not object to any of these gentlemen being appointed as commissioners to take charge of inquiries outside the county where they were candidates.


Arthur Sauvé: The commissioner is under oath. Often we see judges called upon to hear cases in which their past electors figure. There is no objection.


Eugène Fiset: What would the Postmaster General think, for instance, of the fact that, while in charge of such inquiries, the commissioner delivers political speeches in the county where are held these inquiries?


Arthur Sauvé: My jurisdiction does not extend to speeches, and if I remember well, I have never received information nor complaints to that effect.


Eugène Fiset: I do not blame the Postmaster General.


Arthur Sauvé: However, if inquiries were not held according to the rules laid down on evidence, if those who are charged were unjustly dealt with, it behooves them to complain to the department. I will note the representations made to me by the hon. member for Rimouski.
' Mr. MARCIL (Translation): When a vacancy is to be filled by the Civil Service Commission, does the inspector of the department visit the locality to inquire as to qualifications of the candidates?
I Mr. Sauve.]


Arthur Sauvé: Exactly.


Charles Marcil: Is there a
fixed time to send this report of the inspectors to the Civil Service Commission or does it remain in the possession of the department and, if so, for how long?


Arthur Sauvé: The report is forwarded to the Civil Service Commission.


Charles Marcil: How long is it held?


Arthur Sauvé: There is
no fixed time, but I suppose it is as soon as possible.


Charles Marcil: I wish
to especially refer to the interesting village where, since a number of years, I have passed my summers, Bonaventure which is the largest parish of Bonaventure, and where the postmaster, who was charged with political partisanship, died shortly after the inquiry. The vacancy was created by a natural cause, even before an order in council was passed dismissing him. Since his death, his widow has acted as postmistress, even before his death she was in charge of the office, acting as an assistant. She is relcommended for the post by the Rev. Mr. Gauthier, the parish priest, and by Mr. Charles A. Forest, manager of the local savings bank, they are neither political friends. Previous to making an appointment, I would like the Postmaster General to consider the situation of this Mrs. Forest, widow of the late postmaster who rendered great services to the department, and to further give consideration to the exemplary way she carried out her duties. I must state that the father and the son were in charge of the post office for forty years, and this, to the satisfaction, evidently, of the Post Office Department. I should like to see the hon. Postmaster General grant the wishes of the parish priest and the principal business people of this village, and leave Mrs. Forest in charge of the office which she has administered to the entire satisfaction of the department and the people.


Arthur Sauvé: My hon. friend for Bonaventure may rest assured that I shall examine the entire file and shall exercise the greatest discretion in this matter.


Peter John Veniot: What was the cost of the railway mail service for the year ended March 31, 1031?


Arthur Sauvé: It was $7,S00,000.


Peter John Veniot: That was the estimate; but was that expended?

Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: I do not understand the question.


Peter John Veniot: For 1930-31 the amount I asked for was $7,800,000. How much of that was expended?


Arthur Sauvé: In 1930-31 the expenditure for railway mail service was $7,714,151.11.


Peter John Veniot: In 1930-31 we increased the estimate by $100,000. The estimates now before the house show a reduction of $150,000 for railway mail service. I hold that you cannot carry on the railway mail service with that reduction. You will have a deficit in that service and will have to come back for supplementaries. The other day the minister, giving a survey of his department, said they were cutting down expenses because certain railway mail services had been dispensed with owing to the change in railway arrangements. He said that the department had no control over the railway service. That is quite true. But where a railway was giving a daily mail service and it was deemed necessary, for purposes of economy, to cut down the service to three days a week, the Post Office department must provide for those three days which have been taken off the railway service. Unless you make that provision you are crippling the mail service of the Dominion. If, because of the reduction in the number of days of railway service, you decrease the amount you pay for that service, you must add to your regular road or highway service a sum sufficient to take care of those three days. What provision is being made for that?


Arthur Sauvé: I did not quite follow the last remarks.


Peter John Veniot: The hon.
Postmaster General stated the other evening in his speech, that the amount paid to railways for the mail service had been reduced because the railways were not giving to-day the mail service they previously gave, owing to the necessity of curtailing expenses.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: I shall explain my point; previously a railway which gave a daily mail service, now gives but a tri-weekly service. The mail which was previously carried daily is now carried only three times a week by that railway. If you reduce the amount paid to the railway for a given section, you are forced to increase the appropriation required to give a daily service to the people who have lost three days of service by railway. If on the one hand you
reduce the means of communication by railway, you must on the other hand increase them, otherwise, and if you do not do so, you are not giving the public the same service as in the past. Now, I find no increase in the appropriation asked for the mail service by public routes. You will, therefore, not have sufficient money to give the public the service to which it is entitled and which it had in the past.


Arthur Sauvé: In answer to my hon. friend, I may say: when the railway mail service is curtailed, we cater as much as possible to the needs of the section affected by other services, such as motor buses, etc.


Peter John Veniot: You do not follow me, I think. Perhaps, I do not express myself clearly. For instance, in my own county, take the Caraquet railway which gives, instead of a daily mail service, a tri-weekly service. The Post Office Department was kind enough-and I congratulate it-to grant us an additional service by railway; but you cannot take from the appropriation voted for the railways the money required to pay for an increased service on a public route. That money must absolutely be voted separately. You cannot appropriate that money because you have reduced by $150,000 the amount voted for the railway service and you have not increased the amount for mail service by public routes. You have not, therefore, funds applicable to that service and the result will be that you will have a shortage at the end of the year. Next year, at the outset of the session, you will be forced to ask parliament for supplementary estimates, and I shall oppose it because your leader has openly stated that in future there will be no more requests to parliament, at the opening of sessions, for supplementary estimates.


Arthur Sauvé: I think that
the hon. member did not quite understand what I said a few moments ago, because, after listening attentively to all his explanations, I am obliged to give him the same answer.


Peter John Veniot: Whether the
answer is the same or not, it cannot be correct, because you have not the money to meet this situation. You have reduced the appropriation of the railway mail service by $150,000 andivou have increased appropriation for mail service on highways; you must therefore have further appropriation voted to keep up the latter service, because this mail route service to-day, is the same which existed when I was a minister.
Supply-Post Office


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is
less expensive.


Mr. MALONEY:: I have great sympathy
with the attitude taken by the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). Has this railway mail service been cut down outside of the hon. member's county?


Peter John Veniot: Yes; the minister will
admit that it has been cut down in every province.


Martin James Maloney: Where?


Peter John Veniot: I am not here to answer
for the minister. The railways have cut down their services; in places where they were running six trains a week, they are now running only three.


Martin James Maloney: Are we justified in permitting such a reduction in the mail service of this country?


Peter John Veniot: No, we are not, and that
is what I am fighting against.


Martin James Maloney: I agree with the hon.
member.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is perhaps a unique
occasion, but I agree with the hon. members for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney) and the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). I will continue my remarks in French.
(Translation):	Mr. Chairman, I have but
a few words to add: it is with reference to the daily mail service of the Tamiscou-ata railway, which crosses the county of Temiscouata and runs as far as Connors in New Brunswick. Since its construction, in 1888, this railway has had a daily service, and all the parishes along this line had a daily mail service. Since July 20, this service has been discontinued and these parishes have but a tri-weekly mail service. That is .the reason why I am asking the hon. Postmaster General, who seems well disposed, if it would be possible, without any greater outlay than that previously made for the county of Temiscouata, to carry daily at least until the autumn, the mail by motor truck, from Riviere-du-Loup to Edmundston.


Arthur Sauvé: I am informed by the officials of the department that we have, in the appropriations, as a whole, a sufficient amount to take care of the needs of the mail service. In the case pointed out by my hon. friend from Temis-eouata, I wish to state that, when a service is dispensed with through the decision of the railway commission, we endeavour to replace it by motor-buses-[DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, such
is the case.


Arthur Sauvé: -or by some other means of transportation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, I leave this matter with the hon. Postmaster General and ask him to kindly attend to it.


Peter John Veniot: With reference ,to the Temiscouata case, the hon. Postmaster General perhaps forgets that this question has already been placed before him and that I have, this day, received from his department a very gratifying letter stating that the mail service will be resumed again along the highway between these two points. Therefore, the Postmaster General, has already granted the request of the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Arthur Sauvé: I grant as far
as it is possible reasonable requests, and especially when we have the funds enabling us to comply with the requests thus made to us.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister granted my request as regards the Temiscouata mail service, evidently on the strength of my letter.


Peter John Veniot: There has been a reduction of $150,000 in the item covering mail service by railway. It has been stated that this reduction is due to the curtailment of railway service, in many cases a daily service being cut down to a tri-weekly service. It is stated also that the reduced mail service is being offset by the use of buses, automobiles and teams. The vote for mail service by ordinary land conveyance has not been increased, and I am afraid the minister will be faced with a deficit. However, that is not my business; the minister will have to accept the responsibility. I would point out to him that the money voted for one service cannot be used for another.
I have no desire to take up unduly the time of the committee. I know the minister is anxious to get his estimates through. Were it not that the session is drawing to a close, I would discuss these matters in detail. There is a matter, however, to which I should like to direct the attention of the government. In this regard the minister, being a new member of the cabinet, may not be wholly responsible, but the older members were well aware of all the circumstances. An increase iii postal charges has been put into effect which should provide at least 84,000.000 in extra revenue, and if business improves as it

Supply-Post Office
should, this increased revenue may amount to practically So,000,000, which would wipe out the deficit. During 1929 and 1930 the then opposition, now the government, blamed me for not heeding the demands of the rural mail carriers for an increase in salary, but no provision has been made in the present estimates to grant such an increase. During the' last election circulars were broadcast throughout the length and breadth of Canada in which I was depicted as having a heart of adamant because I would not listen to the cry of these poorly paid servants of the government. As it is expected that this session will close by the end of next week, there is not the time available to go into this matter in detail, and therefore I will leave aside all contentious discussion. The estimates will not permit of increases being paid this year, but I hope the government will remember its promise and grant these increases next year.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Since the house has
decided to stay in continuous session and inasmuch as none of us seems to have any business to return to, for the first time this session I propose to take up only a few minutes in order to ask the Postmaster General to see to it that a little heart or soul or cream of human kindness is put into that great post office machine. It is true, as the ex-Postmaster General has said, that a square deal for the rural mail carriers was advocated by many on this side of the house, and I suppose I really led in that matter. It seems too bad that of all the public servants in the Post Office Department, the rural mail carrier is the only man who has, every four years, to tender for his position. The man in the city who to-morrow morning dons a suit of clothes paid for by the Post Office Department, walks around a few hours, goes out in the afternoon and walks around a few hours more, receives SI,400 or $1,500 and two suits of clothes a year and has a retiring allowance; but the fellow who hitches up the old .mare and drives over the muddy roads or snowbanks gets the least consideration of all. I have advocated a square deal for these rural mail carriers. The ex-Postmaster General is correct when he says that this party is on record in this respect, and when the finances of the country become more buoyant, when the deficit in the Post Office Department is wiped out, we shall look to the present government to give some relief to the rural mail carrier.
I do not intend to take this matter up in detail; I am going to give the Postmaster General just, two examples. I took the exPostmaster General to task in connection
with this case: In a little village in my constituency the rural mail carrier, who got nine hundred and some dollars for his route, had to travel a certain distance to the post office. Later it was moved a short distance. The Post Office Department sent a public servant, who was getting possibly $3,000 or $4,000 in addition to liberal travelling expenses, to measure that distance, and it was discovered that the poor mail carrier by virtue of the moving of the post office had to travel thirty-one rods, a few feet and a couple of inches less; therefore they reduced his salary by something like $11.37! These figures are not exact, I may say, but they are approximate. In other words, the Post Office Department spent perhaps $100 out of the treasury of Canada in giving a highly paid public servant a beautiful trip in order to cut a few dollars off the wages of a struggling mail carrier. That is the general principle against which I wish to protest. It is a twopenny-ha'penny business. That was the ex-Postmaster General; this is the present Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: It is the same law.


George Spotton: Yes, the same law. In
the village of Belgi-ave in my constituency a gentleman was getting ninety-five cents a day for making three round trips to the railway station, a distance of almost a mile, or I believe they call it seven-eighths of a mile. Then one train was cut off, and this man was immediately notified that because he had to make only two trips to the depot instead of three, by some rule of thumb or Chinese mathematics his pay would be reduced by thirty-two cents-I am not talking by the book-and he would receive sixty-three cents a day for making those two trips. Such action is beneath the dignity of this administration. No administration can do such a thing as that in regard to any one of my constituents, whether he be with me or against me. This man, of course, will not accept the reduction; the job will be put up for public tender, and if I can do anything in that community to have the present Postmaster General pay $2 a day for that work, let me assure the committee I will do it.
As regards the general principle, we have been trying to "keep up with the Joneses" in this country and the Jones family has wrought havoc in private life. We are spending hundreds * of thousands of dollars on the air mail service, which was a little toy for the ex-Postmaster General to play with. We need very little of that except in the hinterland or for taking the mail to those who live in the far-flung parts of Canada.
Supply-Post Office

The idea of sending a bird with a broken pinion from Toronto to Montreal when there are several fast mail trains a day between those two cities! To do that is absolutely foolish. It is an expenditure I cannot condone in the face of the fact that the man who gets up at. five o'clock in the morning receives only sixty-three cents a day for making two trips to Belgrave station. I do not know how the department figures it out. This man has a capital expenditure just as any financial or business organization has. He has himself, a horse, a 'buggy and a cutter to finance, and simply because he makes only two trips instead of three the horse cannot get along with three shoes instead of four or with two meals instead of three. I do not know by what method it is computed that this man shall have one-third of his pay cut off. I am not blaming the present Postmaster General; he is new in the saddle; he has his feet in the stirrups, and by another year we shall expect him to be an expert rider. I am prepared to give the present Postmaster General a chance, but I resent any such picayune, twopenny-ha'penny paring as has beep going on in connection with men who carry the mails from town post offices to depots. Why is it that because a train is temporarily taken off in the summer their pay is immediately reduced?
I have one case in mind. Go to the department and they will say to you: If two trains come in fifteen minutes apart, that is one trip. If a man is driving a bus, his passengers are supposed to wait because of His Majesty's mails, while the money that should be spent on the rural mail service is spent in the air from here to yonder. The man has to keep his passengers sitting in the bus or make a special trip. I wish t'o ask the Postmaster General to look into this and see that those hard and fast rules, those little regulations of the Medes and Persians that have been left on his doorstep, those little vexatious things, are corrected. The idea of cutting a man's pay from ninety-five t'o sixty-three cents and then letting millions go through the hopper without a word of protest! The time has come when these men who toil must be paid what is coming to them, while the men who toil not nor spin will lose a little of their purple and fine linen.


Peter John Veniot: I wish to call attention to the way in which these Estimates are made up. They are the same every year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter John Veniot: If you ask that an item of 136,000,000 be carried without its being gone into in detail, I can say to the committee it
fMr. Spotton.]
will not be passed in that way. The item is subdivided into many other items and it is not fair to ask the committee to pass the bulk item of $36,000,000. If hon. members will turn to page 70 of the estimates, they will find the total for post offices amounts to $14,645,040. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to have that pass. I would say now that the chairman may call it carried.


Arthur Edward Ross: I should like to say a few words on that. Will the minister explain these reductions for post offices?


Peter John Veniot: I am coming to that. Now that I want to have something passed, it appears the committee does not want to pass it. I am asking the chairman to say "carried," and he will not.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Unfortunately the vote is a bulk vote, and it is not my province to change it.


Peter John Veniot: I am going to point out
what items of the bulk vote could go through without opposition. There can be no objection to the next item, for the offices of district superintendents of postal service. Then comes the mail service by rail. We have discussed that I think as fully as we need. The next item is mail service by steamboat. I cannot understand how there is a decrease of $45,000 in that item, but if the minister says that that reduction is necessary, I am not going to raise any objection. One reason for it might be the diminution of correspondence between foreign countries, so that not so much space on the steamers would be required as formerly. That can go through. The next item is mail service by ordinary land conveyance. Both myself and hon. gentlemen opposite have expressed ourselves on that, and we will see what can be done later. The next item, mail service by air, I would ask the minister to let stand by itself for open discussion. Then we have miscellaneous expenditure. There is an item of $13,750 for commission to postmasters. There is no objection to that; it is the same amount as last year. The next is an item for travelling charges and expenses for district superintendents, inspectors, and so forth. That is all right. The item for stationery and printing has been fully discussed. Next is an item for manufacturing postage stamps, showing a reduction of $40,000. I cannot understand how, in the light of the changes that have been made since the opening of this house, it is possible to carry on that work with a reduction of $40,000. The printing of postage stamps last year cost practically $260,000.


Martin James Maloney: You paid too much.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: They did not cost too
much. There is a fixed price on that, and the amount paid each year increases with the volume of business of the post office. The government has introduced the three cent stamp, and that will further increase the cost for printing. Hon. gentlemen need not interrupt. If there is to be obstruction of that kind, I can obstruct too. I have enough material here to keep the minister employed for a fortnight; I do not propose to do it, but if hon. gentlemen opposite want that kind of obstruction to. go on, I can carry it on too. The next is an item for hand stamps. That is all right. My hon. friend across the way (Mr. Ross) wished some information under miscellaneous expenditure, I think.


Arthur Edward Ross: I was going to ask the present Postmaster General about it.


Peter John Veniot: I am not going to give any information. I was mentioning items to which I have no objection.


Arthur Edward Ross: Every member is interested
in his own post office. I notice that there are a good many reductions here for post offices. What is the reason for the reduction of $3,720 at the Kingston post office?


Arthur Sauvé: It is made up as follows:
Difference between salaries of employees promoted or who have left the service and the salaries of the new appointees to replace them, $1,380; three positions dropped, $3,240; less 7 statutory increases of $120, $840 and one statutory increase of $60.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why were three positions
dropped ?


Arthur Sauvé: I will give the names in a
moment.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I understand that the
postmaster for the city of Ottatva will soon be superannuated. Will the Postmaster General kindly assure the committee that when his successor is appointed, the appointment will be made by promotion within the service, and on the merit system only?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Personally I a>m content that every item in the minister's estimates should pass except those concerning the mail service. Let it be understood that the mail service estimates must stand over until a later time.


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot allow the air mail service estimate to carry without making some remarks.


Arthur Sauvé: My hon. friend has an hour. I understand that the other items are carried.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


John Vallance: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that only the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) has consented to the passing of the items? What about the rest of the committee? I do not think he constitutes the whole committee.


Peter John Veniot: I think I said that so far as I was personally concerned they might go through.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Well, I suggest that the chairman read the items so that we may proceed.


Peter John Veniot: I shall have no other
criticism to offer to-night or during this session except with regard to the air mail service, on which there is some information I wish to get from the minister.


Arthur Sauvé: I understand
that there is but one appropriation covering all items, we can discuss right now' all such questions and ithen vote.


Mr. HEENAN:: Before the items are carried may I ask the minister whether it is the policy of the department to give contracts at a very reduced rate to school boys to carry the mail between stations and post offices when there are married men and returned soldiers who have applied for that work? I have in mind a contract for carrying mail from the station at Dryden to the post office, for w-hich there were eleven applicants-six married men, four returned soldiers, and one school boy, I learn from the returns that it was given to the boy at a very reduced rate so that he might put himself through college. That was in a district where there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of unemployed men, many of them returned soldiers.


Arthur Sauvé: We have followed the
established procedure; the work was given to the lowest tenderer.


Peter John Veniot: The work could not be given to a minor.


Peter Heenan: I think the minister has been misinformed. Surely a contract cannot be given to a minor whose parents can guarantee for him so that the boy may put himself through school when at the same time returned soldiers whose families are starving are out of work. Surely that cannot be the policy of the department.
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: If the boy is under the age of eighteen years we cannot give a contract. If a complaint is made, it is considered.


Peter Heenan: Well, I shall not say what the minister can give, because it appears to me that this government can do almost anything. Is it the policy of the government that a school boy whose parents can give a guarantee may have a man's job when there are married men who could have been given the same contract?


Arthur Sauvé: I have given my answer-we cannot give contracts to boys under eighteen.
Mr. VEN10T: But he has got it.


Arthur Sauvé: If the bon. member has any complaint I should like to have the name of the boy.


Peter Heenan: The present Postmaster
General has not been in office long enough to resort to this kind of manipulation. Surely it is not the policy of the government to give a contract worth about a thousand dollars a year to a school boy at $480 so that the boy may get through school. If (that is the policy of the government for heaven's sake don't let me hear hon. members opposite say any more about upholding the rights of labour. Of eleven men who made application a boy named William C. Gammon got the contract for 8480. The reason he received the work may be shown by the following letter written by the district superintendent of postal service :
The matter was further taken up with his parents through the postmaster, Dryden, and it has been further ascertained that he is a school boy and desires to go through college, financing himself with the contract payment. His parents are willing to sign the contract and assume full responsibility but feel that a four-year term would be more than the boy would care to do and suggest a two-year term as sufficient.
That is the most flagrant piece of robbery I have ever known to be practised on the people of the constituency I have the honour to represent. Men with families are refused work which a school boy obtains at a price of $480. His parents would not sign a contract for four years, so the term was changed to two years. I should like the Postmaster General to consider the cancellation of the contract and its being given to a married man.


Arthur Sauvé: The matter to which my hon. friend has referred is not one of policy, but is of a purely legal nature. If the boy is too young I understand he had no right to make a contract, and when a complaint is made the matter will be investigated.


Mr. QUINN:: I am surprised ito hear the remark of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) with regard to the awarding of mail contracts to school boys. The Post Office Department of the late administration of which my hon. friend was a member, awarded in my constituency a mail contract to a boy who at the present time is only sixteen years of age and is still going to school.


Peter Heenan: That was wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, but mv hon. friend did not open his mouth when he was sitting on this side of the house.


Peter Heenan: If it had been mentioned I would have done so.


Jean-François Pouliot: His name was McConachie.


Martin James Maloney: I am pleased to see that a reduction of $400,000 has been made in connection with air mail service. When reference is made to that service I think, the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) should blush. He cannot be made to blush, however.


Peter John Veniot: Not so easily as that.


Martin James Maloney: If I were Postmaster
General to-day I would expend on air mail service not $1,500,000 but less than $100,000. There are only two or three corners in this country where that service is required, one in the far north and another in the far west.
Sir EUGENE F1SET: And the third at Rimouski.


Martin James Maloney: The Post Office Department is supposed to be maintained for service and not for profit. If that be the case the Postmaster General should extend the rural mails throughout this country, though I will confess? to hon. gentlemen opposite that so far I have been unable to secure one route in South Renfrew since this government came into power.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to get some
information with regard to the air mail service. What was the amount expended on air mail service during the year ending March 31, 1931?


Arthur Sauvé: The total amount was about $1299,000.


Peter John Veniot: Reference has been made
to the Postmaster General reducing the expenditure on air mail service by some $412,000. Last year the estimate was $1,912,000, of which $1,299,000 was spent; this year the estimate is

Supply-Post Office
81,500,000, so the government has increased by about $200,000 the estimated expenditure for the coming year.
The reason $1,912,000 was estimated as necessary last year was in order to complete the connection of the route from the maritime provinces to Winnipeg via Montreal, either from Montreal to Toronto and from there on to Winnipeg, or from Montreal to the northern part of Ontario and then across to Winnipeg. Tenders were called for to cover that service; tenders were received, and it was estimated that it would require about $478,090 to do the work for the remainder of the year, and that in all the route might cost something like $600,000. That money was not expended by the former government; the contract was not let. The tenders were received and opened three days before the dissolution of parliament, and the awarding of the contract was left in abeyance until after the election. However, the department did spend about $1,299,000 on air service. I know there has 'been some severe criticism of the air mail service, but I believe if hon. gentlemen opposite and perhaps some on this side of the house would go more carefully into the great benefit it has been and will be in future I am sure they will cease their criticisms.
In reply to a question which I asked, the right hon. Prime Minister told the house that the government had the right to cancel existing contracts by giving one month's notice That is quite true, and we were told also that the notice had been given but that it was not the intention to cancel the entire air mail service as established under your humble servant. That month has expired, and I understand that a further notice covering an additional month has been given. I am anxious to know what routes are to be kept up. If this $1,500,000 passes this committee there will be sufficient money to maintain all the routes that were in operation last year.
We desired to link up the east and the west, because until that was done we could not hope to make the air mail service pay. We began in 1928 by establishing an air mail service from Rimouski to Montreal, and by so doing we were able to land transatlantic mail in Montreal more quickly than transatlantic mail could be landed in New York. This placed the business men of the Dominion on an equal footing to the business men of the United States, who formerly received their transatlantic mail from a day and a half to two days sooner than it was received by the north Atlantic route. That meant a great deal to the business people of Canada; it was appreciated by them and they took advantage
of it. Later in the same year we established an air mail service to the northern shores of the gulf of St. Lawrence and carried mail to those people who, in the winter time, formerly had very poor service. We then inaugurated an air mail service to the Magdalen islands, where previously they had not had a service in the winter. That service to the Magdalen islands has paid for itself, and the service on the north shore of the St. Lawrence has paid its way also, if I can judge by the poundage carried. We established air mail service to Prince Edward Island in the winter time when steamship communication was interfered with, and in fact at other times also in order to accommodate the business men of the island. We delivered mail by air from Moncton on a Saturday so that the mail would be distributed to the business houses that afternoon, and on Monday they answered the mail by an outward service. If that had not been done the mail would not have been distributed to them until three o'clock Monday afternoon, so by the air mail we have helped the business men of Prince Edward Island. That service is also paying its way.
We established air mail service to the far-flung sections of the west, up the Mackenzie river into Aklavik, three hundred miles within the Arctic circle, and that service, under a two cent rate, to-day is paying its way and has a surplus. Formerly we delivered mail by dog teams in the winter time and by boat in the summer time, and we paid $41,000 for a service which was of absolutely no use to those people. When we were considering inaugurating air mail service we called for contracts under both systems, the old and the new. There was a difference of only $5,000 or $6,000 between the cost of the air mail service and the cost of the old service, so we adopted the air mail service and instead of giving those people a mail once or twice a year we gave them several deliveries of mail a year. In the Mackenzie district, up to within eight hundred miles of the Arctic, we are giving a service equal to almost any other service in Canada, and to-day that service is more than paying its way. We gave a two cent service in the mining districts of Ontario and Quebec, and every one of them is paying its way to-day. We wished to give a more extended service to the commerce of Canada. We found that American business men, through their air mail service, were getting ahead of our Canadian business men and we therefore established a number of routes such as the route from Halifax to Saint John and then to Montreal, from Moncton to Montreal, from Montreal to Toronto, from
Supply-Post Office

Montreal to Schenectady, from Toronto to Buffalo, and through the prairie provinces. Those routes had a five cent service. They are not paying their way, but the increased volume of business, after the service has been in operation only three years, indicates that within two years it will pay. If it had been possible for me as Postmaster General to link up Montreal direct with Winnipeg, that service would be paying to-day.
Let me appeal to the Postmaster General not to cut out any important branch of the air mail service. I know that the service from St. John and Moncton on to Montreal is not paying, and my hon. friend says it never will pay. Very poor encouragement, coming from a member of the maritime provinces. But that is not so; the service will pay. In the last three months of the last fiscal year the service between St. John and Montreal increased over 30 per cent; and when it is linked up with Halifax, and we have a route from Halifax to Moncton, from Moncton to St. John, and from St. John to Montreal, the service will be used so extensively that it will pay.
Let me now give the figures to show the poundage carried over these routes. On the Amos-Chibougamau route the poundage was 2,224 and the cost $1,200. With that poundage at $1.20 it more than pays the cost. Take the Amos-Simcoe route: the poundage was 3,305 and the cost $1,100. .On the Fort Murray-Aklavik route the poundage was 62,747, to that outlandish and far-flung section of Canada. Over that route we have a postal parcel rate carrying all the furs from that section to civilization. On the Leamington-Pelee island route the poundage is 17,103, and on the Montreal-Alfoany route it is 21,689 pounds of first class matter at $3 per pound. There you have, within $7,000, this important route paying its way. Take the Montreal-Detroit route: the poundage is 39,040. There there was a deficit. The business in increasing, however, and the moment we link up with the network of the American air mail service, getting communication with Mexico, that service will pay its way. Then we have the Montreal-Rimouski route, carrying 53.042 pounds; the Peace River-North Vermilion route, 26,223 pounds, at $120 a pound, the cost being $3,200. Then there is the Quebec-Seven islands, Seven islands-Anticosti-Monc-ton-Magdalen islands route. The cost is $30,000, the poundage being 39,289. This is really two routes in one. Next we have the Narrows-Lake Sioux Lookout, with a poundage of 40,964; the Winnipeg-Calgary-Regina-Edmonton route, newly started, carrying 64,242

pounds. For the Winnipeg-Pembina route I have' not the figures. On the Moncton-Charlottetown route the poundage is 43,846.


Felix Patrick Quinn: What is the cost of the Moncton-Charlottotown route?


Peter John Veniot: That is $15,750. This is only an emergency route used in winter. On the Toronto-Buffalo route there is a poundage of 43,880. With regard to the Montreal-Ottawa route, I may explain that this was only an experiment. I knew at the time that it would not pay and I feel now it will not pay. But it was only once a week and was provided in order to connect with the boat at Rimouski. The Montreal-Quebec route, which is very costly, was also a trial route. When we came to carry out our plans for the Montreal-Queibec route we found we could not call at Quebec and at the same time continue on to St. John and to Moncton, owing to climatic conditions and locations. Quebec was therefore cut out of the general route, but was allowed to remain in for a short time so far as Quebec and Montreal were concerned. We had other routes such as the Lac du Bonnet, with a poundage of 40,715. The air mail service with the two-cent rate has"~more than paid its way.
There is a surplus of between $100,000 and $116,000; and this additional one cent, which I am informed by the Prime Minister will be added to all first class postage, will give another $199,000. The additional one cent added to the five cent rate already established, will give an additional revenue of over $230,-
000.	There you have an additional revenue, by increase in postage over these routes, assuming that the business keeps up. of nearly $400,000. The deficit of the past will amount to about $700,000 in round figures, so that with the extra postage and increased volume of business, this air mail service could be carried on and show a deficit of less than $300,000.
There are gaps in the service between the Atlantic and Pacific coast. One gap is between Sudbuiy and Winnipeg or Toronto and Winnipeg, and the other from Winnipeg to Vancouver. To give a complete service Winnipeg to Vancouver would cost about $370,000 or less per year, and such a service would pay for itself within a very short time. A plane could leave Halifax with 600 pounds of first class matter; it could drop and pick up mail on the way through to the coast, and this complete service could be inaugurated for $3,000,000. I leave it to the officials of the Post Office Department and the Department of National Revenue to verify these figures. This service would pay its way and bring the maritimes 64 hours closer to Vancouver,

Supply-Post, Office
If there is one thing I am desirous of seeing kept up, it is the air mail service. I think I can say without boasting that I had the courage to convince the government of the advisability of putting this service into operation. I saw that our friends to the south were taking advantage of our laxity in extending this service in Canada. I noticed that there was a meeting of financiers in Montreal and Toronto to form companies by which it was hoped to gain control of civil aviation in this country. It was shown that money could be made out of this proposition because these men were interested in air mail and commercial services in the United States, and were hoping to obtain a monopoly of the services in both countries. I knew that the policy of the Department of National Defence was to establish civil aviation in Canada; I felt that an air mail service would be a foundation for commercial and civil aviation, and I recommended that the government put the service into operation. I came before the house in 1928 with this proposal, and it was accepted. I never had anything else but the fullest faith in its success, and I have even greater faith to-day after two or three years of experience.
If Canada takes a retrograde step in the matter of air mail services our friends to the south will try to take advantage of it. At the present time there is an organization in the state of Maine which hopes to inaugurate an air mail service from Boston to Bangor, Bangor to St. Stephen, St. Stephen to Saint John, and Saint John to Moncton and Halifax. They cannot operate an air mail service in Canada without first obtaining the permission of the Post Office Department, and they cannot operate a commercial air service without first obtaining the permission of the Department of National Defence. Has the Post Office Department granted that permission? I am not opposed to its being granted provided it is stipulated that Canada may step in when she is ready to take over the service on the Canadian side. When we are ready we should be able to say: you will stop at the border and we will take the mail through Canada and deliver to you mail from Canada destined for the New England states.
The air mail service offers a means of encouragement to flying. We have to-day in Canada some of the best pilots in the world. Canada is recognized as having the best pilots anywhere. These men made their mark not only during the war but after they returned from the war. American companies are offering higher salaries to our pilots than they receive here, but they showed 22110-265
themselves to be patriots during the war and they are again showing their patriotism by refusing to go to the United States even at a higher salary. If Americans are permitted to establish an air mail service in Canada they will soon attempt to take over the commercial and civil air services and drive our own people out of the business. If this service is permitted to operate between Boston and the maritime provinces I hope the government will take care that it is nothing but an air mail service. These men should not be privileged to do any commercial work; they should be confined to air mail service.
I have made a particular study of this matter. The officials of the department will confirm the fact that I spent many sleepless nights during 1927 and 1928 when we were considering the details of this service. We had the expert advice of the best men in the Department of National Defence and the Post Office Department. When we were not sure of the steps to be taken, our officials went to the United States to investigate conditions there. The American air mail service during its first three years was an utter failure from a financial standpoint. The deficits were enormous because they adopted the wrong system-the poundage system, under which they could not hope to make a financial success. We in Canada, profiting by their mistake, adopted a mileage system. A mileage system prevails in nearly every portion of Canada except in one or two outlying places where hazardous conditions prevail and under our contracts we specify a certain poundage at so much per mile up to that poundage, but above it so much per pound extra. When our United States friends found out that Canada was succeeding so well after its second year in the air mail service, what did they do? We had the pleasure of having our United States friends come to us and consult with officials of the Post Office Department and experts of the Department of National Defence to find out how it was that we were succeeding so well in our air mail service. After they had interviewed the officials I have mentioned, they returned home and changed their whole system. To-day the system adopted, following the Canadian plan, is operating a great deal more to their advantage than the one which they had previously used.
In conclusion let me say I do not mind honest criticism of an enterprise of this kind; I do not mind what criticism may be hurled at me for having inaugurated and undertaken

Supply-Post Office

that system in Canada, but I ask those who feel they should criticize to study first the whole situation as I have laid it before hon. members to-night. It is not very often I am able to say that I agree with the Tory party. I have been a long time in public life; I have been a Liberal by conviction; I have remained so; I see no reason why I should change, and for that reason perhaps my mind may be biased on some of the questions that the party which I am opposing may bring up. But this is one question on which I think we can agree. I urge upon the government that they continue the policy that has already been inaugurated and extend it as necessity requires. If they do so, they will receive my hearty support.
Let me say just one more word in conclusion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: The third conclusion.


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend does not like it he can leave. I happen to have the floor, and I do not care whether he likes my way of doing things or not. While I have the floor the hon. gentleman has no right to interrupt me. I think I should say a word on behalf of those who are flying in Canada. Is it known to hon. gentlemen that Canada holds the record to-day for the fastest commercial air service in the world? I am talking now about commercial air service and not of those experts who fly for the purpose of making time. We hold the record of 248 miles an hour in the delivery of air mail, and this was not done for the purpose of making a record. We hold another world record for long distance run of 196 miles an hour. Canada has become famous throughout the world for her splendid pilots, men who were able to attain their present standing by participating in the inauguration of the air mail service of the Dominion.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) on the great task he performed in connection with aerial mail service. He brought out many good points in his speech, however, I must state that if we have found it necessary to modify the policy which he laid down, it is because of economic necessity and also because we have to take into consideration the decrease in revenue of our department due to the crisis which prevails throughout the country. When our finances are in better shape, we shall do our utmost to keep up with the country's progress as regards aerial mail and other matters.


Peter John Veniot: Can the Postmaster General point out what mail routes will be discontinued or will there be any discontinued?


Arthur Sauvé: First, there is
the Toronto-BuffaJo route.


Peter John Veniot: Will there be any others or will this be the only one?


Arthur Sauvé: There will be
the temporary contracts, such as Montreal-Moncton.


Peter John Veniot: That will be
continued.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes. We are
looking into the matter and we have up to August 15, to decide. In the meantime, we shall see what it is possible for us to do.


Peter John Veniot: If you do
not intend to continue, I object to having the appropriations voted.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The previous speaker, the
ex-Postmaster General, made reference in his lengthy remarks on this item to the air mail service between the maritime provinces and Montreal. The Postmaster General and his department are quite familiar with what has been done and promised with respect to this service. Representations were made to the former Postmaster General by the people of Halifax for an air mail service in order that that city might be connected up with the Canadian air mail service. The former Postmaster General promised the people of Halifax that an air mail service would be established if they would provide the proper facilities for an airport. On that understanding and guarantee the city of Halifax purchased a large strip of land in the western portion of the city and equipped it for the reception of airships, but I regret to say that promise was not carried out.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot let that go by
without correcting the hon. member.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I have listened to the hon.
member for three quarters of an hour.


Peter John Veniot: But the hon. member is
making a statement which is not correct. I have a right to correct it.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I stated that the hon. member promised the people of Halifax he would give them an air mail service if they would provide the proper facilities for an airport.


Peter John Veniot: They had not their port
facilities provided last July.

Supply-Post Office


Felix Patrick Quinn: I did not say anything of
the kind. I said that on the strength of that promise-


Peter John Veniot: How could I keep the
promise if they did not carry out their part?


Felix Patrick Quinn: I will repeat the words of
the right hon. leader of the opposition, Mr Chairman, and ask you to preserve order. I would say to the Postmaster General that the port of Halifax, at great expense to the people of the city, has now provided its part. Representations have been made repeatedly by delegations to the minister and the department from the city of Halifax, the mayor of Halifax, who was here only a few weeks ago, the boards of trade of the city of Halifax and of Dartmouth, Moncton and Saint John with regard to the improvement of the port of Halifax in connection with an air mail service. Halifax, as is well known to all Canadians, is the finest harbour on the Atlantic seaboard and the nearest ocean port to Europe. For these reasons I would ask the minister to take the matter into very serious consideration before making a final decision with regard to the refusal of the department to carry out the promise which was made some time ago to provide an air mail service between Halifax and the cities in the western part of Canada.


Mr. RALSTON:: I want to ask the Postmaster General a question with regard to a return, No. 253, which was brought down some time ago, and particularly with regard to the mail service on Cape Sable Island. In the first place I may remind the Postmaster General that recently the mail contracts there have been cancelled and new contracts let. Apparently on the 13th of May a contract existing for the carriage of the mail between Stony Island and North East Point wharf was cancelled and a new contract let at the same rate. Would the Postmaster General give me the reason why?


Arthur Sauvé: I will give my hon. friend
the reasons to-morrow privately, for I have not them here.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend
also permit me at the same time to ask another question? Perhaps he may get the information with regard to this as well. I find by this return that on two occasions, on February 3, 1931, and on February 28, 1931, the department, through Mr. Anderson, the superintendent, addressed a letter to W. H. Currie, of Shelburne, and asked him for his recommendation and advice whether or not the mail contracts on Sable Island should be
continued. The letter of February 3, 1931. mentions that the contract for the Clark's Harbour wharf and Orion wharf mail service will expire on June 30, 1931. The contractor is Gilbert E. Atkinson, and the rate $350 per annum. The next paragraph reads:
I should be glad of your advice as to whether it would be in the public interest to allow this service to remain with the present contractor whose name is given.
The letter is addressed to W. H. Currie. Esq., Shelburne, N.S., and is signed by G. C. Anderson, superintendent. On February 28, 1931, another letter is addressed to Mr. Currie with regard to the contract for the Clark's Harbour wharf and Orion wharf mail service, stating that it would expire on June 30, 1931, and the same information is asked for. Then on page 50 of the return comes a letter headed. "Shelburne Coast Guard," reading as follows:
Shelburne, N.S.,
March 5, 1931.
Mr. G. C. Anderson,
Superintendent of Postal Service,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:-
Re: Mail Carrying Tenders
We recommend the following to put up for tender:
Thomas Freeman, Sable River West and Sable River Railway Station.
Thomas Harrington, Sable River and Railway Station.
Gilbert E. Atkinson, Clark's Harbour Wharf and Orion Wharf.
Mrs. Etta MeGarron, Barrington and Brass Hill.
The following contracts we recommend for renewal:
Charles D. Hagar, Roseway and Railway Station.
J. C. Sears, Jordan Bay, East Side and Jordan Railway.
Joseph E. Golden, Gunning Cove and Railway Station.
Clarence Long, Birchtown and Railway Station.
The letter is signed by W. H. Currie, President, Conservative Association.
I want to ask my hon. friend the Postmaster General how it is that he is writing to Mr. Currie asking for advice in these matters?


Arthur Sauvé: Generally we follow the
practice that has been adopted in the past. I will give the information to-morrow to my hon. friend.


James Layton Ralston: On whose recommendation does the Postmaster General write to Mr. Currie asking for this advice?


Arthur Sauvé: I will give that information.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Currie is not even the defeated candidate in the county of Shelburne.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Peter John Veniot: Will the Postmaster General have any supplementary estimates?


Arthur Sauvé: For a few dollars.
Progress reported.	[DOT]



HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication from the Civil Service Commission, addressed to the Honourable, the House of Commons:
In accordance with section 12 and section 61 of the Civil Service Act, the Civil Service Commission have submitted the following change in compensation for approval:
"Chief Page-
It is recommended that the compensation of this class, which is at present:
*Annual: $780 840 900 900 1,020 1,080 1,140 be revised to read as follows, effective from July 1, 1931:
Annual: $1,080 1.140 1.200 1.260 1,320 1,380
The duties and responsibilities attached to this position are considered to warrant a higher compensation."


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 27, 1931.