1932-05-20

RAILWAY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. C. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dun-das) presented the third report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Mr. CASSELMAN moved that the recommendations contained in the third report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines respecting the refund of $204 in regard to Bill No. 33, respecting the Montreal Central Terminal Company be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present the seventh and final report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. I am very happy to say this is a unanimous report. It is as follows:
The select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government beg leave to present the following as a seventh and final report:
Your committee to whom was referred for consideration and report the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, and the various bills presented to parliament relating to the operations of the railways and shipping owned and controlled by the government, held eighteen public meetings, in the course of which they examined many witnesses, including three directors and the necessary executive officers of the company including the president.
1.	Bill No. 21-
5.	our committee had under consideration Bill No. 21 "An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize additional provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931."
The object of this bill was to authorize the Canadian National Railways to issue additional securities to the extent of $11,372,498.86, for the purpose for the year 1931 of financing where the amounts available from net operating income and investments were insufficient.
In other words the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1931, which authorized the issue of securities to the principal sum of $68,500,000 the estimated requirements for 1931, was insufficient for the purposes of the railway to the extent above mentioned, and



S132 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Shipping-Report
this bill became necessary by reason of the ascertained income deficit arising from the operations of the railways, and full explanation of this bill was given in the House of Commons by the Minister of Railways and your committee reported the same without amendment.
2.	Bill No. 34-
Your committee also had under consideration Bill No. 34 "An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1932."
The object of this bill was to authorize the Canadian National Railways to issue securities to the extent of $61,500,000 for the purpose during the year 1932 of financing where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient. This sum is made up of the following:-
(a)	Net income deficits, including profit and loss, but not including interest on Dominion
government advances, not exceeding	$42,784,610
(b)	Equipment principal payments, sinking funds, miscellaneous maturing or matured notes and other obligations secured
or unsecured, not exceeding.. 11,681,651
(c)	Construction and betterments, including coordinations; acquisition of real or personal property, and working capital,
not exceeding	 7,033,738
Total	$61,500,000
The detailed statement of the financial requirements and estimated capital expenditures for the year ending December 31, 1932, was placed before your committee, amounting to the said sum of $61,500,000, and while the management of the system last year expressed their intention of reducing operating expenses and have put into effect economies which they affirm will approximate $28,000,000 in the years 1931 and 1932, yet the difference between estimated operating revenue and estimated operating expenses for the current year falls far short of meeting the interest on the funded debt in the hands of the public, w'hich, without regard to any interest due to the government, this year amounts to the sum of $56,849,244.65, an increase in 12 months of $1,634,267.18. Reference to the annual report of the company shows that the net additional capital expenditure for the period of nine years from January 1, 1923, to December 31, 1931, amounts to the sum of $419,669,620.64 which has imposed an additional annual interest burden of $20,936,821 for the same period and accounts for approximately 37£ per cent in the increase of the annual interest charges due to the public.	There is also
$1,357,650 due the government for interest on unfunded debt.
In the light of the aforegoing it is difficult for your committee to appreciate, from a business standpoint, the wisdom of some of the capital expenditures made and included in the total increase above referred to. Doubtless had the present world depression not so adversely

affected the system or continued for such a great length of time, better results from these capital expenditures would have accrued to the system. In view, therefore, of the results of the past two or three years, your committee strongly recommend that until there is marked improvement in the earnings of the system, capital expenditures should be limited strictly to the barest necessities, always consistent with efficiency.
Your committee had under consideration also the annual report for the year ending December 31, 1931, and have agreed to report the same.
3.	Operating Expenditures-
The operating expenditures for the year 1932, exclusive of eastern lines, are estimated at $139,304,000, while the operating revenues for the same period are estimated at $157,248,000.
The operating revenues for the year 1931 amounted to the sum of $177,273,738, or approximately $20,000,000 more than the estimate for 1932.
In view of the rapid decline of the operating revenues, your committee are impelled to recom-men'd that the most stringent economy be exercised by the management in all the controllable operating expenditures, and in this regard your committee recommend that with respect to executive officers and other salaried officials of the railway, a thorough revision of salaries downward be made. In the report of your committee for the year 1931, a specific recommendation to that effect was passed and in response thereto the report from the subcommittee of the board of directors, directed to the lion, the Minister of Railways and Canals, dated the 16th February, 1932, was submitted to your committee. This report announced that on July 31, 1931, a horizontal cut of ten per cent, affecting all officials and officers in receipt of salaries of $4,000 and over, became effective, and has resulted in an annual saving of $545,652, affecting in all 828 officials and officers. This means that the annual cost of the said 828 officials theretofore amounted to approximately $5,456,200. The sub-commitee of the board of. directors were of opinion that specific rather than further horizontal reductions in salaries should be made, and stated that an examination of the salaries exceeding $5,000 Avas under way, having in view additional economies. No subsequent report lias been received, but your committee concur that specific rather than a further horizontal reduction in salaries should be made, and in this connection desire to point out that in a statement submitted and produced to the committee, it would appear that as of July 21, 1931, there were 96 officials receiving $10,000 and over and 37 officials receiving $15,000 or over. Your committee are of opinion that the salaries paid to the high officials are excessive and should immediately be substantially reduced.
Your committee would further point out that there would seem to be a multiplicity of officials and the number of higher paid officials should be substantially reduced, especially those acting in the capacity of assistants to heads of departments. Your committee therefore recommend that the sub-committee of the board of directors set up to deal with this matter be instructed to put into effect immediately the principles underlying this recommendation.
Included in the activities of the sub-committee of the board dealing with the salaries of the

Railways and Shipping-Report
executive heads and other officials, was the subject matter of the remuneration received by the president. Under the terms of his contract of engagement dated September 23, 1929, the president shall receive a fixed annual salary of $75,000 per annum, without any extra fees or remuneration of any description. It has come to the attention of your committee that the president is still in receipt of an additional $5,000 fee from the Ontario Car Company and the special annual allowance for expenses not to be specifically accounted for approved by the board of directors on November 18, 1929, amounting to $15,000, and your committee recommend that the matter of the receipt of said fee of $5,000 shall be again considered by tbe board of directors with a view to its possible cancellation. With respect to the special allowance of $15,000 your committee recommend that the payment of the same be reviewed by the board of directors as being inconsistent with the terms of his contract of engagement.
Following the recommendation of your committee of last year, made on the suggestion of the president, a Royal Commission on Transportation has been set up by the government and is now functioning. This commission has not yet finished its labours or reported its findings. Your committee are not desirous of anticipating the findings of the commission but your committee are of the opinion that the report of the commission which it is anticipated will be brought down shortly should be studied with the greatest care, not only by the government itself, the systems of railways concerned, but by the Canadian people generally, so that the views of the commission may be thoroughly understood, and if deemed advisable given effect to at the next session of parliament.
4.	Maritime Freight Rates Act and Eastern Lines-
Your committee have also had under consideration item No. 317 in the estimates providing for the payment to the Canadian National Railway Company as required by the Maritime Freight Rates Act of the deficit incurred during the period under review on eastern lines. The amount of the estimated deficit is $6,217,400, and in addition the sum of $1,750,000. representing the estimated amount by which the revenues of the lines will be lessened during the year by the reduction of rates applicable to eastern lines by the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. In view of the legislation existing your committee are of opinion that the amounts asked for are necessary and proper to give effect to the letter and spirit of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and in the operation of the eastern lines. Your committee are, however, of the opinion that the two items above referred to, the deficit in operation of the eastern lines, and the amount required in operation of the eastern lines, and the amount required to reimburse the national railways for reductions in tolls under the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act should not be included in the same estimate. and should be severed and shown separately, even if legislation to effect that end is necessary, and respectfully recommend that appropriate action in the premises be taken so as to provide that the amount required to provide for the payment of the deficit in operation on the eastern lines be entirely severed from the amount required to be paid in reduction of tolls under the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
Your committee has also had under consideration item No. 316, being the amount required under the Maritime Freight Rates Act to provide for payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1932-33 of the difference, estimated by the Board of Railway Commissioners and certified by the said board to the Minister of Railways and Canals, as and when required by him, occuring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls, referred to in section 9 of the said act, on alt traffic moved during 1932 by the independent railway companies mentioned therein, and your committee are of opinion that this amount is necessary to implement the provisions of the act in that regard and should be granted by parliament.
5.	Canadian Government Merchant Marine-
Your committee have had under consideration
item No. 314 in the estimates, relating to loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, to be applied in payment of deficits in operations of the company and of the vessels under the company's control during the year ending December 31, 1932, amounting in all to $440,009, a decrease of $148,500 over the previous year.
Your committee have also considered the balance sheet of the company and are of the opinion that the said sum of $440,000 is required for the purpose of the company and should be granted by parliament. Your committee reiterate their views and believe that the time has come when the government should, if possible, abandon the policy of operating a government merchant marine, and if possible arrange for a sale or lease of the fleet, and where practicable, and not contrary to imperial or inter-dominion relations, make arrangements with other shipping companies so that the trade of Canada may be protected.
6.	Canadian National (West Indies) Service-
Your committee have had under consideration
item No. 315 in the estimates, relating to the loans to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. Limited, to be applied in payment of deficits in operations of the company and of the vessels under the company's control, during the year ending December 31, 1932, and interest requirements, which amounts to $820,000 as compared with $755,000 for the year 1931.
The year ending December 31, 1930, resulted in an operating loss of $523,136.98. while the operating loss for 1931 was $446,568.53, which is slightly above the amount of the subsidy previously paid to an independent company by the government for a much inferior service. Your committee are in agreement with the principle that this steamship service is a matter of treaty obligation and should be continued, but your committee are of opinion that the utmost vigilance should be exercised by officials directing and in charge of this steamship line so that, if possible, the cost of operation to the dominion should be reduced to a minimum, consistent with efficiency, and at the earliest possible moment turned into an operating profit. The service performed by this line on both routes is an excellent one and should be constantly brought to the attention of the Canadian people whenever and wherever possible with a view to their patronizing the service.
3134	COMMONS
Railways and Shipping-Report
With respect to the traffic originating in the British West Indies, served by the ships, your committee are of opinion that every effort should be: made to induce the residents and commercial interests in such colonies to patronize the service thus made possible for them at so great an expense by the Canadian people, to the fullest possible extent.
7.	Expense Accounts of Officials-[DOT]
Your committee have had under consideration the question of expense accounts of executive and other officers of the company. After fully considering the matter, your committee desire to record their belief that there should be a much stricter supervision of all expense accounts, and before payment they should be supported by vouchers and that other necessarv evidence of payment should be presented to a properly constituted committee of directors set up for the purpose of examining and passing on same and that payment of all such expense accounts, whether submitted bv the president executive heads or all other officials should be strictly limited to business purposes and that with respect to company entertainment accounts, only those authorized by the same separate «mcl controlling body should be approved. Last year your committee made a strong recommendation in reference to this matter and reiterate what was then said, especially in relation to such matters as club dues, entertainments and donations. A system of control similar to that in vogue in the best regulated industrial houses, finance and other institutions is required, and your committee earnestly recommend that the board of directors forthwith put in effect such effective control as is necessary in the premises. The subject matter is one that cannot be effectively dealt with by a parliamentary committee but the principle involved is an important one, and in the opinion ot your committee the best qualified body to deal with the matter is the board of directors.
These recommendations should apply specifically to all officers of the company irrespective of their rank or station.
8.	Audit-
According to the evidence submitted to your committee on a previous occasion it has b^en shown that the government employs a reputable hrm of chartered accountants to make a running audit of the railway operations. The auditors sign the annual report and give a certificate attached to the consolidated balance sheet in which they state:-
"We have examined the books and records of the companies comprising the Canadian National railway system for the twelve months ended the 31st December, 1931. The investments in road and equipment appearing in the of the companies as at the 1st January, 1J23, were accepted by us.
We certify that, in our opinion, the above consolidated balance sheet is properly drawn up 8° a.s exhibit a true and correct view of the attains of the system as at the 31st December, ailc* we further certify that, in our opinion, the relative income and profit and loss accounts for the year ended the 31st December, 1931, are correctly stated."
^ our committee are of opinion that the audit now in effect is not sufficient and should go much further, and the auditors should be empowered to go into every phase of the system's operations with power to call atten-
tion to any matter calling for comment in their judgment similar in principle to the powers vested in the auditor General of Canada.
9.	Financial Control-
Heretofore there has been control of the capital expenditures of the company but down to a comparatively recent date the expenditures on operation were vested entirely in the executive heads of departments, and were subject only to the review of the president. No such power should be vested in any one man or small group of men under the same control.	In no sense can such a system be
deemed to be effective, and in the opinion of your committee, this position should be remedied forthwith.
On the 2nd June, 1931, a special by-law No. 18 was enacted by the board of directors establishing a finance committee under the authority of the statute relating to the company, which by-law was duly ratified by order in council No. P.C. 1398, passed on the 17th June, 1931. There was already governmental control of capital expenditures under the statute.	By-law No. 18 provides for the
setting up of a committee of the board of directors to be known as a "finance committee" to consist of three members of the board, namely, the president of the company who was to be the chairman of the committee, the director holding the position of deputy minister of railways and canals, and the director holding the position of vice-president in charge of the legal affairs of the company. The by-law further provides that such finance committee shall, notwithstanding anything in any other by-law to the contrary, have supervision and control over all matters relating to the capital expenditures of the company, and particularly in respect to the provision of the moneys therefor and the allocation of such moneys. The by-law as enacted and confirmed is silent with respect to expenditures for operation and maintenance and in the opinion of your committee the scope of the by-law should be immediately enlarged by appropriate action on the part of the board so as to provide that two additional members of the board shall also be members of the finance committee and that all expenditures for materials and/or supplies, or expenditures of any other character, save and except payrolls, amounting in value to say $25,000 or over, should first be passed upon by the finance committee and subsequently ratified by the board or the executive committee. Your committee are of the opinion that such a provision would have a healthful and beneficial effect not only on the volume of purchases, especially as unanimity on the part of the entire committee is necessary under the terms of the by-law, but also the manner and character of purchases, and your committee earnestly recommend that immediate steps be taken by the board to give effect to the principles underlying this recommendation.
10.	The President's Residence-
Your committee had under consideration the fact that on the eighth of August, 1930, pursuant to a resolution of the board of directors passed on September 23. 1929, the residence No. 1415 Pine Avenue, Montreal, was leased by the railway company for a period of ten years, as a residence for the president at an annual cost closely approximating $20,000.

Railways and Shipping-Report
Having regard to all the evidence adduced and having special regard to the president's contract of engagement, dated September 23, 1929, as ratified and confirmed by his contract with the government dated October 25, 1929, whereby the prisident agreed to serve as president and chairman of the company, including the various constituent and subsidiary companies comprising the system, and for the full and entire services to be performed from time to time for the fixed annual salary of $75,000, without any extra fees or remuneration of any description, and in addition, but subject to the by-laws, rules and regulations applicable, all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the duties of his office or offices, your committe are of opinion that the leasing of the residence appears to your committee to be in contravention of the contract of engagement and even if legal was unwise and should not have been authorized.
The whole transaction in the opinion of your committee was a successful attempt by the board of directors to do indirectly what could not be done directly by expenditure on capital account, namely, to procure a residence for the president free of rent, taxes and repairs, and your committee consider that the action of the board of directors in this regard indicates that while they may not have exceeded their legal powers they did not exercise that degree of prudence, care and judgment requisite in the premises.
Your committee recommend that the whole transaction be reviewed and investigated by the directors, with a view to ascertaining its legality, and if possible obtaining its recision.
11.	Off-Line Offices in the United States-
In recent years a large number of off-line passenger and freight offices have been established in leading cities of the United States, with a view to obtaining traffic for both branches of the service.
Data received with respect to the expenses of and gross receipts from all such offices show that results have been fairly satisfactory with respect to freight traffic but with respect to passenger traffic the results achieved so tar liave not been commensurate with the cost.
Your committee investigated with some care the situation with respect to the New York passenger office now located at 673 Fifth Avenue. The initial cost of acquiring these premises and of alterations amounted to the sum of $429,223.05, and the annual cost of operation including the rental of the premises 505 Fifth Avenue, formerly occupied as passenger offices and which are still under lease and at present unoccupied, is now $252,902. The °toss amount of passenger traffic sold in 1931 was $502,353, including transportation sold on other lines.
Your committee recommend that the whole question of the New York and other off-line passenger offices should be carefully reviewed by the management in conjunction with the board of directors.
Your committee further recommend that careful consideration be given by the management and by the board to the question of closing such of the offices, both passenger and freight, as have not achieved satisfactory results, and also of cooperating with other railway systems by joint arrangement so as to effect as much saving as possible.
12.	Pensions-
A memorandum respecting the various pension schemes in effect was submitted to your committee.
On December 31, 1931, there were 2,476 retired officials and employees on the pension list and the total pensions paid for 1931 amounted to 1,248,000.83.
These pension systems comprise: -
(1)	The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway employees provident fund, which is still in force.
(2)	The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada superannuation and provident fund, scheme, closed in 1907 and the presently subsisting Grand Trunk scheme.
(3)	The Canadian National Railway pension scheme, set up in 1929, and in force at the present time.
All of the above mentioned schemes have legislative sanction and authority, but inasmuch as in a return filed with your committee it appears that during the past five years numerous employees received pensions in excess of what the pension schemes applicable to such employees call for your committe are of opinion that attention should be called to this apparent excess of jurisdiction.
Your committee are of opinion that the whole situation respecting pensions should be reviewed, not with any view to reducing statutory pensions but with the view to putting the pension schemes on a sound economic basis, including, if deemed desirable, the inclusion of . the principle of contribution.
Your committee is of opinion that inasmuch as the pension schemes now in effect are statutory the payment of amounts in excess of the amounts called for by such schemes are not justified in principle, and your committee recommend that the attention of the board of directors be called to this situation, with a view to taking such action in the premises as may be deemed desirable and just, having regard to the fact that the principle of pensions is an established principle and crystallized into legislation.
13-	.
Your committee realizing that the exercise
of political patronage or influence in the operation of this publicly-owned enterprise would do great injury recommend continued vigilance on the part of all concerned, to avoid the introduction of practices so detrimental to the public interest.
Your committee recommend that the proceedings and evidence taken be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the House, and that 700 copies be printed in blue book form, 500 in English and 200 in French.
Your committee are glad to state that the report is unanimous.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence is tabled herewith, all of which is respectfully submitted.
R. B. Hanson,
Chairman.
By unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Duff, that the seventh and final report of the select standing
[Stage Direction]
Railways and Shipping-Report
committee on railways owned, operated and controlled by the government, be concurred in.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make any reference to the past of the railway system. In that past there may be something to forgive and much to forget. In the report itself, I find much that is pious and something that is practical. It is encouraging in that it is unanimous; it shows that an attempt is being made to lift the railways out of party strife, that is eminently commendable. But what is discouraging is that to-day, when the country is faced with such terrible obligations and when such heavy demands are made upon its purse, no suggestion has been made whereby the tremendous losses resulting from the operation of the roads might be further and substantially and immediately curtailed.
An hon. MEMBER:: What about the royal commission?


Mr. HACKETT:: It is true that a royal
commission has been appointed, composed of very eminent ma. We have reason to hope that a finding will be made which will enure to the benefit of the people of Canada and help both railway systems. But as I had occasion to say some time ago, this report cannot be made available for some time, and it cannot be made effective until the lapse of further time, I was therefore hoping that out of this understanding which appears to have been arrived at by the members of all parties who formed the committee some practical and unanimous suggestion might come whereby the tremendous expenses of useless competition could at least temporarily be curtailed.
We had it from the president of the national system that the expense of competition was very great indeed, and there was an inference from what he said that tremendous savings could still be made without seriously impairing the effectiveness of the service, if competition and the expense arising from it could be eliminated. I am of those who believe that if this committee could have accentuated that fact, that if a unanimous committee representing all parties in the house had impressed upon all the roads in Canada the absolute necessity, for the time being, of keeping down these expenses, it- would have been productive of results. We have heard on all sides forebodings, ominous statements have been made of the perils which overhang the country today ; yet here is an opportunity of saving, some $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 in the operation of the two railways, in the next twelve

months. The principal obstacles in the way of effecting those economies are the faces that have to be saved.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a unanimous and forceful recommendation from the committee would have had to be heeded both by the government-owned roads and by those privately-owned. We have been told that this drain upon the financial energies of the country is the greatest financial peril that confronts us to-day, and it seems to me regrettable that the committee has not considered the possibility of temporary and immediate economies.
With regard to the merchant marine, the report is about what it was last year. There was a recommendation last year that the service be suspended and that the boats be given away or cease to be operated. They have been operated for another year and the net result is that another half million has been lost. And apparently the same procedure will be followed again this year. I understand that hon. gentlemen of the special committee have agreed not to debate this report. I am not bound by that agreement. I hope, however, that I have said nothing which is controversial in a party sense, which will provoke recriminations from the other side of the house. I firmly believe what I have said, and believing it, I felt it was my duty to speak as I have.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: It seems to me that it is
hardly in order that a report of this character should be submitted to the house and a few minutes later concurrence moved. I take it that a report of as great importance as this ought to lie on the table for a day at least, until members have had on opportunity of reading it. It is not good practice that we should simply pass this report as a matter of form, even though it comes as a unanimous report from the committee. How-.ever, I should like to make a few remarks with reference to what has been said by the last speaker (Mr. Hackett). He suggests that there has been no report on the major problems of transportation in this country. I had thought that we all understood that the committee could not very well discuss these problems while they were under consideration by a royal commission, so that under the circumstances I do not see that the committee could have done anything else than it has done at the present time. But when the hon. member, in closing his address, suggested that he hoped he had not raised any controversial questions, I must enter my protest against his assumption that we all agreed with him.

Railways and Shipping-Report
The hon. member suggests that there are tremendous losses resulting from the operations of the road. By centering attention on the Canadian National Railways he is apt to give the impression that it is because of the public ownership of this road that the losses have occurred. I submit that there are tremendous losses resulting from the operation of the Canadian Pacific Railway at the present time. If anyone will consider the way the shares of the Canadian Pacific have dropped within the last few months, he must be convinced that that road also is in a condition which is far from satisfactory.
It is quite true that the Canadian Pacific Railway does not come under review in this house as the Canadian National does. As someone suggests, it is a pity that it does not, since it has been so largely built up by public funds; and since it has been maintained by the public, seeing that there is no other way of maintaining it, there being often involved the payment of heavy freight rates by the public to say nothing of subsidies. Under these conditions, it does seem to me that its operations might come under review in this house. It is hardly fair at any rate to criticize to the last detail the operations of the Canadian National Railways and let the other road go without criticism.
As I tried to point out last year, when the report of the committee was under consideration, by centering attention on all these details of the Canadian National Railways, the public is led to think that there has been the utmost extravagance. Undoubtedly, there has been extravagance. But I submit that similar extravagance is a commonplace in other corporations. Someone mentions Lucerne. Yes; and a score of things connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway which are extravagances do not come under review in this house, even though the expense must ultimately be borne by the people of Canada.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Do two wrongs make a right?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but it is not always wise to center on one wrong to the absolute exclusion of another.


James Dew Chaplin: All we had to do was to examine this road.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not in the slightest blaming the committee; I am prepared to vote for the report of the committee. I cannot see how the committee can report otherwise. But I do point out that we are examining only one road; indeed I am not for the moment discussing the report of
the committee but rather the statement made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett).


John Thomas Hackett: What statement?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The statement was made that there were tremendous losses resulting from the operation of the road.


John Thomas Hackett: All railroads in Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is all I want to hear-from all railroads in Canada.


John Thomas Hackett: That is what I said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not what the speaker said; he said there were tremendous losses resulting from the operations of the road, that is, the Canadian National Railways. In all fairness I want to point out that there are also tremendous losses resulting from the operation of other roads.


John Thomas Hackett: That is what I said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not catch that, but as long as it is admitted, that is all I want. The member for Stanstead also referred to the useless competition being carried on and urged that it should be curtailed. He quoted the president of the Canadian National Railways as saying that savings could be made if competition could be eliminated. I have no doubt that that statement is true and I agree with it. I am very glad that we are getting away from the old idea that competition is the life of trade and are beginning to learn that the contrary is true. We are beginning to learn that railway operation is by its very constitution in the nature of a monopoly. I quite agree with what I believe to be the position taken by the hon. member, that sooner or later we will have to have an amalgamation of the roads in this country, but I contend it should be not only an amalgamation of the railroads but an amalgamation of our whole transportation system including railroads, motor service and air service. I think that will have to come sooner or later but when it does come some of us will insist that it will not be a private monopoly but rather a great public service. Like the hon. member for Stanstead I hope I am not saying anything which will prove to be very controversial. If we are all agreed on my proposal, there is not very much more to be said on the matter. However, I think I have as much right to take my statement for granted as has the hon. member. It seems to me that there is a useless waste in all competition and we should not centre on this one particular instance. Competitive industry involves an enormous waste and if I

Railways and Shipping-Report
understand anything of the general trend today in business, not merely in transportation but in all productive industry, there is a tendency to eliminate waste and develop monopoly. I think monopoly is bound to come but when it comes we will insist that it must not be a private monopoly but a government monopoly. I hope that one of these days those principles which were so clearly enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) with regard to air control will be put into practice with regard to transportation control.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, there is only one observation which I should like to make. I should not like the country to understand that it would be possible by giving effect to any recommendation of the committee to make a saving of $50,000,000 in twelve months. It is perfectly ridiculous .to make any such statement because that cannot be done under present conditions in this country. We must realize this when we consider the sum total of the revenues of all Canadian railroads and appreciate that the railway situation on this continent is one which beggars all description. The shares of the New York Central Railroad are to-day selling for less than $12 whereas a few months ago they were selling at over $200 each. Practically the same condition exists in connection with the shares of the Pennsylvania Railroad. The Baltimore and Ohio Railway has passed its preferred dividends and the shares of all trunk line systems in the United States have fallen to a market price that one could never have possibly anticipated. This has been brought about by lack of traffic and when you take the traffic of the two roads in this country and deduct the operating expenses it.will be seen that under no circumstances would it be possible with the traffic available to save a sum anything like $50,000,000 per annum or even a reasonable fraction of that sum. I merely mention this because I would not like a thought of this kind to go out to the country at this time. The Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation is giving to this matter that attention which I think has never been given before to the details of our transportation systems as affected by the railways of the country,


Mr. HEENAN:: May I inquire of the
chairman of the committee whether or not a recommendation is made that salaries and wages shall be further reduced?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not wages, but the salaries of the higher executive officers.


Peter Heenan: I was wondering whether
or not a recommendation of this kind should be included in the report of the committee unless the committee has ascertained that the salaries-I am not speaking about wages-paid by competing lines in the United States and Canada are lower than those paid by the Canadian National Railways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was some evidence given before the committee in that connection.


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: I note that the report makes no mention of the quarters of the right hon. Prime Minister at the Chateau Laurier, in Ottawa. I think that this item should have been included and for this reason I am entirely opposed to the report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) has been good enough to inform me that since yesterday his friends have been able to make arrangements in connection with the commitments previously made so that, with the consent of the house, we may meet to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock and sit from three to six o'clock. However, we shall have to take up that business which the hon. members whom the hon. member for Acadia represents would like to discuss. In connection with the business to be taken up to-day I should like to consult t.he convenience of the house. Our idea is to take up item No. 26 on the order paper at the moment and advance that a stage. Then if it is convenient to all we will proceed with No. 17, No. 20 and No. 22. The Post Office estimates have been fairly well advanced; we might conclude the discussion of them. Immediately after that we shall take up National Revenue which has been waiting for some days; then items, other than Agriculture with respect to Which it is desired by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and his friends that one item should stand, if that is convenient to other members of the house.
If it meets with the general consent of the house, I would move:
That this house shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m. on Saturday, the 21st instant, that there shall be an intermission from one to three o'clock p.m.. the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays and the house shall adjourn at six o'clock p.m.

Civil Service Act


Mr. BROWN:: Can the Prime Minister
tell us when he will take up order No: 21, second reading of Bill No. 74, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (coasting trade). It comes between Nos. 20 and 22.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have especially not
mentioned that, for the reason that in -connection with that measure representations have been made which I have been very closely investigating. The extent of the tonnage that is under the British flag in Canadian registry but owned outside Canada is apparently much larger than was thought or than appeared from the original investigations. There are some 800 Canadian sailors engaged on those ships and I am making some further investigations, before making any statement with respect to that, but on Monday something will be said in regard to the matter:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition):	So far as the
official opposition is concerned, the arrangement which the Prime Minister has outlined for to-day's business is entirely satisfactory. We also cordially approve the motion which he has made as to sitting to-morrow. As regards the balance of the business of the session, whatever order the government cares to select will be wholly satisfactory to us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act, and to provide for the payment of gratuities to members of the Civil Service Commission on retirement, and to officers, clerks and employees in lieu of retiring leave.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will the
Secretary of State just intimate to us what is proposed?


Mr. CAHAN:: The bill which will be founded upon this resolution simply carries into effect the recommendations made in the select special committee's report which is dated May 10, 1932, and the bill, in making amendments to the Civil Service Act, is expressed almost verbatim in the terms of certain sections of this report. On the advice of the Minister of Justice and of the law officers of his department, it is deemed advisable to carry these proposed amendments into effect by express enactment rather than by order in council as had been previously suggested.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cahan thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 99, to amend the Civil Service Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the bill is printed and will be available for distribution at once, so that members may have an opportunity of studying it between now and to-morrow.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 10, to amend and consolidate the Fisheries Act -Mr. Duranleau-Mr. Ross in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Fishery leases and licences.
Mr. ERNST:: There is an obvious error in the printing of this clause. In line two on page three the word appears as "hereafter." It should be "hereinafter." I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Licences for whale fishery.
Mr. DURANLEAU:: I think subsection (2) should be deleted; it was deleted in committee, and there must be an error in printing.


William Gordon Ernst: I move that subsection (2) of section 9 be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Use of nets regulated.
Mr. NEILL:: Why put certain words in brackets?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the words in brackets were those added by the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: They will not appear that way in the act?


Alfred Duranleau: No, the brackets will not appear in the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
On section 2fi-Use of explosives prohibited.
William Gordon Ernst: There again there appears to be an error in printing. The correct reading as passed by the committee would be in
Fisheries Act

line 25 of the clause the words "other than porpoises, whales, walruses, sea lions and hair seals." Accordingly, I move that the word "and" in the second line of clause 26 be deleted, and the words "sea lions and hair seals" be added after the word "walruses."


Alan Webster Neill: The amendment is quite in order. I must point out however that there is an order in council forbidding the killing of walruses in Hudson bay. Would that not conflict with this clause? Under it there is permission to kill with rockets and explosive materials. Under order in council dated July 3, 1931, there is a prohibition to kill walruses, except to a limited extent by Eskimos in the north. It seems to me we have contrary provisions.


Alfred Duranleau: The law as adopted will prevail.


William Gordon Ernst: They can be killed only under licence.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
On section 28-Fish guards only where minister deems it necessary.
Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire from the Minister of Marine whether the amendments to this legislation were discussed with the Minister of Fisheries of Quebec and whether the latter had the opportunity of expressing his views in this respect?


Alfred Duranleau: My
reply, sir, is that nothing in this act can affect the prerogatives of the province of Quebec. The amendments to the act which are mostly before the house aim at making the statute more conform with the decision of the Privy Council, in the case of the Queibe-c government versus the Dominion government. It is simply a new codification of the old Fisheries Act from which we delete ;he provisions which, were found ultra vires, pursuant to the judgment of the Privy Council.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no
doubt that this legislation was examined with the greatest of care, however, I would be much obliged to the minister, if he would be kind enough to inform the committee whether these questions were discussed with the Quebec Minister of Fisheries.


Alfred Duranleau: I am
unaware whether the officials of my depart-

ment have communicated with the hon. Minister of Fisheries of Quebec. It is quite possible that they have. However, I know that the Quebec Forests and Streams department generally accept the provisions and amendments of the legislation we submit to them.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: The minister
is not certain whether his officials have communicated with the Forests and Streams department of Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: I can
not assert it. However, I may inform my hon. friend that there is absolutely nothing in the act, as amended, which can affect the rights of Quebec. It is a re-edition of the former act from which we delete the provisions which were found ultra vires pursuant to the judgment of the Privy Council. The elimination of those provisions is to the advantage of Quebec, since we conform with the decision of the Privy Council.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Out of delicacy, you thought proper not to communicate with the hon. Minister of Fisheries of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Cheap! cheap.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 29 to 47 inclusive agreed to.
On section 48-Special licences for oj'ster beds.
Mr. MacLEAN:: Is it the policy of the department to lease oyster beds in Prince Edward Island?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, it is the policy of the government to lease those areas.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: When was that policy decided upon?


William Gordon Ernst: The hon. gentleman is
probably aware, Mr. Chairman, that it is only within the last year or so that the oyster fisheries of Prince Edward Island have come under federal control. In so far as leasing the beds is concerned, there has been since confederation division of jurisdiction; the beds were the property of the province and their regulation and control was a matter of federal authority. In order to encourage development of the oyster fisheries the province has passed over to the dominion the right to lease the oyster beds.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I quite understand that, but I should like to get from the minister when his department decided on the policy of leasing the oyster areas, say in Richmond bay, Grand river and Bideford river, and the

Live Stock Records
other sections which have come under the jurisdiction of the dominion government recently.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say at what time the leasing policy was adopted for particular areas. As a matter of fact for several years it has been the policy of the department to lease the oyster beds. I might add for the information of my hon. friend that section 48 is a re-enactment, word for word, of section 61 of the old act. So we do not intend to change the policy in that regard.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: If I understand correctly, when the Dominion government took over the areas they started to develop them in an endeavour to make them productive. Considerable money was expended in that connection, but no policy was decided upon as to leasing. I think that last season a joint meeting was held at Charlottetown between officials of the department and provincial officials, and that then the policy of leasing the areas was decided upon. Is that correct?


Alfred Duranleau: Of course, it would be very difficult for me to give the policy of the department with respect to every oyster fishing area in Canada. We want to encourage the industry as much as possible, and it is the policy of the government to do all in its power to that end. If my hon. friend has any suggestions to make with regard to any particular areas we shall be quite content to hear them, and, if meritorious, to give effect to them.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: There is some division of opinion regarding which policy should be followed, whether those areas should be brought back into production for public fishing or should be leased. I do not suppose the minister could give us any information of any leases that have been applied for, or to what extent this matter has been advanced in Prince Edward Island?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not any information at hand.


William Gordon Ernst: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that such questions are not in order on a particular clause of the bill; they are matters for discussion on the estimates of the department. No minister can be expected to have such information on hand at this time.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: With all deference to my good friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), Mr. Chairman, I would remind him that we have waited all during the session for the fisheries estimates to be discussed. The same may be said with regard to the agricultural estimates; they have been left until the last days of the session. As there may be no other opportunity to bring this matter before the house I think the minister while putting through this bill should have had his deputy present to give whatever information might be required. However, I will not press that point at the present time, if, when the fisheries estimates come up, we are given opportunity to discuss this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 49' to 57 inclusive agreed to.
On section 58-Use of rockets or explosives.
Alfred Duranleau: I believe there has
been an error in the reprinting of the bill. The word "seals" in the third line of the section should be deleted, according to the decision of the committee.


William Gordon Ernst: I move that the word "seals" appearing between the words "sea lions" and "hair seals" be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 59 to 76 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a matter touching the privileges of this house. I have just been advised that there appears to-day in one, if not more, of the leading United States newspapers the statement that negotiations looking to a trade agreement between soviet Russia and Canada were under way, and that it was anticipated they would be successfully concluded in time for approval before the meeting of the Imperial conference in Ottawa in July.
I desire to say that no negotiations of any kind, form or description whatever between soviet Russia and Canada have been initiated or are under way, or are intended to be initiated or put under way.



LIVE STOCK RECORDS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 73, respecting the incorporation of live stock record associations.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Ross in the chair.
Sections 1 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Winding-up Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 13-Affiliated association.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: Might I ask the minister
what change this makes in the present act?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: This is to enable
an association to act as an incorporated body.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No 81, to amend the Winding-Up Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee, Mr. Ross in the chair.
On section 1

"Insurance Company."
Mr. JACOBS:: Will the minister explain the purport of the bill.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: As the house is aware, there are three new insurance acts which have been recently passed by the Senate. To a large extent they modify the legislation which has heretofore existed in 'Canada in regard to insurance, and the Senate has likewise passed this bill to amend the Winding-Up Act, to bring it into conformity with the new bills which have been passed by the Senate in respect to insurance. Sections 160-173 of the present Winding-Up Act apply to our insurance laws as they have existed heretofore. Now, with our new legislation, it is necessary to amend the Winding-Up Act to comply with the changes in the insurance legislation. The Senate has therefore passed this act, which amends the Winding-Up Act and brings it into conformity with the acts which are now before the house. If this bill is passed,
I do not propose to ask for its third reading until the other bills are finally passed by the house.


John Campbell Elliott: There is nothing in sections 160 to 173 except the purpose of making the act conform with the other acts?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the only purpose, to make it conform with the new bills. Section agreed to.
On section 2-Part III repealed.


Hugh Guthrie: At this stage I would ask that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. I have been reminded that there is one further amendment that has been suggested by the Department 
of Insurance, which should be but has not been incorporated in this bill. Later on today I will produce the other amendment.


John Campbell Elliott: Can the minister indicate substantially what is the intention of the proposed amendment?


John Thomas Hackett: The other amendment is merely to bring this bill into harmony with the Bankruptcy Act. The trustees must now all be licenced, and to preclude people who in the past might have been exploiting the Bankruptcy Act from exploiting the Winding-Up Act, it has been suggested that all liquidators be licenced trustees.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross):: Mr. Guthrie moves that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Hugh Guthrie: This day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Post Office-outside service, $31,451,100.
Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to renew the request which I addressed last year to the bon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), in connection with the inauguration of a mail service north of Driftwood. I then forwarded some correspondence and a petition to the hon. Postmaster General who, I am sure, has this request under consideration. There are forty to sixty Austrian and German families located at seven or eight miles distant from the post office of Driftwood and the minister can readily understand the difficulties these citizens experience in getting their mail. I therefore renew my request in this respect. In the past, I know that the Post Office department has done every thing possible to give a reasonable service to the new centres of settlement in northern Ontario. Such a- service is very important to these new settlements. The Postmaster General will realize the exact situation if he considers that these people find it impossible to get their mail more than once or twice a week. If the hon. Postmaster could accede to my request, these settlers would regularly receive their mail.

Supply-Post Office


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I just had, last week, an opportunity of discussing this question with the officials of my department. We intend to look into this matter this year, subject of course to the funds at our disposal. We are at present studying the whole situation.


Mr. HURTUBISE (Translation):: I wish
to put a question to the Postmaster General and I rely on his kindness to. enlighten, me on the matter. I want to know whether representations have been made by the Dominion Railway Mail Clerks' Association, of North Bay, with reference to lowering the age limit from 65 to 60 years, in connection with their pensions. I received a letter requesting me to plead their cause with the minister. Previous to continuing my remarks, I would like to inquire whether such a request was addressed to the Postmaster General.


Arthur Sauvé: In fact, we
have received a letter to that effect and we are looking into the matter.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: I strongly support the request of this association. As a doctor, I must, first, inform you that these civil servants live in an atmosphere and conditions quite exceptional. They do not live a regular life, are continuously exposed to danger, breathe coal fumes during their whole life time, and have to put up with continuous vibrations during their working hours. I have no statistics on the subject at my disposal, however, I am convinced beforehand that, if such statistics could be collected, they would show that the average length of life for these employees is much shorter than among the ordinary workmen. I therefore beg of the Postmaster General to take this request under his serious consideration.


Arthur Sauvé: It is exactly
the task we have undertaken.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: It is under consideration?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: Thank you.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, last evening, I did not wish to frighten the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Just at the moment the house adjourned, I was congratulating him for having shown some consideration to a veteran of the Great war who was applying for the position of postmaster and I shall translate in English what I stated in this respect:
Je felioite le tres honorable premier ministre d'avoir donne instruction a son secretaire de re-pondre de la sorte a un veteran de la Grande Guerre.
The translation is as follows:
I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) on giving instructions to his private secretary' to answer a veteran of the great war in such a manner.
I will not press this point any further except to say that my impression is that the right hon. gentleman is rather timid. He reminds me of Sir Lomer Gouin, who covered up his shyness by loud speech.
To continue my argument, the hon. Postmaster General stated publicly, on more than one occasion, that he would protect even against his friends, the postmasters who had fulfilled their duties and the employees of his department who had taken no active part in politics. The charges of "political partisanship" were accumulating on his desk. The complaint of the defeated candidates were twice as numerous as those of Conservative members elected. Was it to compromise that the hon. Postmaster General had forms of letters and affidavits prepared, in the autumn of 1930, and during the winter of 1931, so as to give these employees the option of willingly resigning if they had taken an active part in politics? The Postmaster General probably took advantage of these forms to clear himself of their dismissals. Five hundred and twenty-three letters or forms were forwarded by the Postmaster General to certain postmasters, however, the result was not what he expected, since only 33 resigned. Then the hon. Postmaster General had recourse to petitions in connection with political partisanship. On May 12, there were 474 of them.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Not petitions, but inquiries.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly,
inquiries; inquiries in connection with political partisanship, at the request, mostly, of defeated candidates. On May 12, 474 had been held at a cost of $33,103.64. In a return laid on the table at the outset of the session, at the request of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere), in Quebec alone, 78 investigations had been ordered at the request of Conservative members, and 169 at the request of defeated candidates. However, the information was not complete. It was only completed to-day, and I wish to thank the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) for having tabled the answers to questions put to the minister with reference to inquiries in connection with political partisanship, petitioned for since August, 1930.
3144	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office
This information covers the inquiries in connection	with political	partisanship	sinceAugust, 1930:	Requests by	Requests by	Defeated Conservative	Conservative	Department	Candidates	Members	In	Outside	In	OutsideQuebec	Quebec	Quebec	QuebecAgriculture	.	1	Fisheries	>
. .	*Immigration	,	i	2	1Indian Affairs	[DOT] 2	1	Interior	iMarine	. 86	iii	24	17National Defence	i	2	1National Revenue	i	8	1	4Pensions	1	4Post Office	265	85	86	106Public Works	, 8	Railways and Canals	**	2**** Three requests afterwards withdrawn. ** One investigation for fifteen employees. *** One of the two investigations for ten	employees.	
In the case of the Department of Fisheries, three investigations were requested, but the requests were afterwards withdrawn.
Mr. LaVF,RGNE (Translation): Can my hon. friend inform the house as to how many requests for investigations were made?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not all the details that my hon. friend asks, however, I shall be in a position shortly to answer all his questions, by means of another schedule.


Mr. VENIOT (Translation):: 434.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Petitions for inquiries?


Peter John Veniot: 434 inquiries in connection with political partisanship.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): There were 434 investigations as regards political partisanship. How many dismissals resulted as a consequence?


Peter John Veniot: They were all
dismissed.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I do not think that the information of my hon. friend is correct. I am aware that in my county...


Peter John Veniot: I do not mean in Quebec alone, but throughout Canada.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I do not think that the figures quoted by my hon. friend are correct. The hon. member informs us that each time a request for an investigation was made...


Jean-François Pouliot: I made no such statement.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): No, it was the hon. member for Gloucester.	.


Peter John Veniot: No, no.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Then I did not understand. How many requests for investigations were made and how many dismissals took place after inquiry?


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall give a list shortly. (Text.) I shall give to the committee a list of direct dismissals and those due to a change of site or something else. With my hon. friend's permission I shall proceed with that, and as I read the whole summary I hope the committee will have no objection to having it put on Hansard in the same form as I have it.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The hon. member has no reason to complain. I think it is a fair war. If the hon. member cannot quote the number of applications for inquiries with reference to the Post Office department, I would ask him to confine his remarks to the cases having to do with the items that are under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is not at present presiding over the committee. I am giving these figures in order to compare what has been done in the Post Office Department with what has occurred in other departments. There have been far more investigations in the Post Office Department than in any other and next in point of numbers is the Marine department. I am sorry the departments in which there have been so many dismissals are headed by two ministers from Quebec.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	The hon.
member is unfair in his statement. These inquiries were necessary, because the way the postmasters in Quebec meddle in politics is most scandalous-

Supply-Post Office
An hon. MEMBER (Translation); Yes, that is a fact.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): ...it was absolutely fair to hold investigations. When an inquiry revealed that a postmaster should be dismissed, he was; when the inquiry showed that there was nothing to justify a dismissal, he was not. I have been informed that 86 postmasters were found not guilty, at these investigations, and were therefore not dismissed.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is possible.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The others were found guilty of political partisanship. Must we lay down the principle that public officials may become political agents? I requested some dismissals in my county, but nobody was dismissed without first holding an inquirj', because I think it is unfair to order a dismissal without first inquiring into the facts. On the other hand, if following an investigation, it is found that a public official acted as a political heeler or partisan, I think it is only fair that he should be dismissed, in order to teach employees that they are civil servants and must not have any party connections.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, if any hon. friend for Montmorency would foe kind enough to allow me to proceed with my remarks, he could after, if need be, contradict my statements, that is if he thinks fit or is able to do so. At .present, I simply wish to establish certain facts. I am discussing requests for investigations; I shall discuss, just now, dismissals. These investigations, with the exception of three, were requested either by defeated condidates or by Conservative members. In three instances, the requests for inquiries addressed to the department of my hon. friend, the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau), were withdrawn. I am very pleased of the fact that it happened in his department, because it atones somewhat for .the number of investigations ordered by the Minister of Marine.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): What Objection can my hon. friend possibly have to an application for an inquiry?


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I think the
hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to proceed with his speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yesterday I had two desks filled with my files and to-day, in order to expedite business, I have reduced the number of documents to what I hold in my hand.
I am ready to proceed and to show my goodwill, but if there is objection, the debate on the Post Office estimates will last for a week. I am being fair to all, but I wish to be treated fairly. I have points to make and part of the work of the session is to point out what has been done. I complain very much of the fact that especially in Quebec the sour-mouthed defeated candidates, are worse offenders in respect of dismissals than the Conservative members. This is the point I wish to make to the committee and the country. When there are so many unemployed, so many who are suffering and in dire distress, we see these defeated candidates and members wasting the time of the Postmaster General by asking him to cut off the heads of numerous people who, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Montmagny has said, are innocent of political partisanship and yet are treated in the same way as if they had paraded the streets and made speeches in favour of Liberal candidates. This is what I am strongly protesting against.
Concerning the commissioners, my personal knowledge is that some of them have been most unfair, indeed, so unfair that their actions could be reported to the bar of Quebec. I can see that my hon. friend from Montmagny is not a mind reader. Let him be patient a while. He knows I have every regard for him; I have never said anything unpleasant to him. In order not to waste the time of the house at this late date in the session, I am curtailing as much as possible what I have to say, but I am here to say what I think is necessary and no one will prevent me from doing so.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	No one wants to do
that. What I should like to know from my hon. friend is this:	Can there be any objection to any citizen, whether he be a member or a defeated candidate, asking for an investigation in regard to any public service? If there is, the point of my hon. friend is well taken. But if there is no objection to a man asking for an investigation, anybody's conduct can be investigated.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	So much the better for
him if he comes out clean-handed. If not I think he deserves punishment. I cannot see anything in the point that so many investigations have been asked.


Jean-François Pouliot: Probably not, Mr. Chairman, but what I am after is justice and fairness. When investigations are carried on fairly, and when fair play is exercised, I have no objection. When after investigation the

Supply-Post Office

commissioners state that there is nothing against a man, but make a report against him I say they deal most unfairly, and it is against that sort of practice I complain.
I have said nothing about requests for investigations made by Conservative members of this house. I care noit whether they come from the province of Quebec or any other province. I did not complain about them, but I do complain about the fact that the defeated Tory candidates in the province of Quebec are always asking for the heads of postmasters, so that they may replace them with people who are often not worthy of the positions, and have not the qualifications of their predecessors. I have written the Postmaster General telling him that so far as I am concerned I have no Objection. If he wishes he may dismiss all the postmasters in my constituency, because by so doing he would be helping me politically. I do not object to his cutting off heads; from a political standpoint. I do not object to that.


Arthur Sauvé: But I would object.


Jean-François Pouliot: I congratulate the minister on his response, and I hope he will realize that hon. members on this side are better friends of his than the people who advise dismissals. I should like to make a statement which will make matters somewhat clearer to hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Montmagny. The day all postmasters are dismissed in all constituencies-as happened in Gaspe, at the request of the defeated candidate, a man who tried to enter the Senate-the day that is done in every constituency hon. members may be sure that Liberals will be elected in- those constituencies. Why? Because the people will not stand for injustice and unfairness-that is the reason.
If I have been somewhat vehement in my remarks it has been to show the viciousness of the system, to put the Postmaster General on his guard against those so-called friends who in one moment kiss him and in the next stab him in the back.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Where is the injustice
about which my hon. friend talks?
Mi*. POULIOT: I am not speaking against requests for investigations generally, but when made by some people those requests show ill will. I am in favour of fair investigations, those conducted with fairness and where fair play is in evidence. That is what I am for. I am sure my hon. friend from Montmagny must agree with me on that.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	I agree with my hon.
friend.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then why talk so much
about it?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I agree, buit I should
like to know when he deems an investigation to be unfair.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not five tongues;
I have only one, but I try to make the best use I can of it. I cannot hide what I wish to say, and at times words do not come as fast as our thoughts.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: They are coming pretty well.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have to do the best we can. I am speaking to the committee as I would speak to a jury or a court of justice. It is for the sake of justice that I stand today in this committee to defend the cause of men who are not guilty, and to complain about the practices of unfairness and injustice carried on by the Post Office Department. I know the minister well enough to say that I am sure he has done his best. His duty now however is to establish general rules and principles for his department to follow, and special rules for those people outside the House of Commons. When a man is not elected-and the hon. member for North Huron knows this-when a man is not elected he should not be entitled to the same privileges as members of parliament, because his actions cannot be discussed in the House of Commons. My hon. friend from Montmagny, for instance, may make a complaint against a postmaster. I mention him only as an example, because I do not believe he would do so. If however he were to make an unfair complaint the matter could be discussed in the House of Commons during the discussion of the estimates for the Post Office Department, in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, or on some other occasion. He would be here, and we could discuss the matter with him. But those who are not in the House of Commons, escape. They write private letters to the minister so that they will not appear in the public files. What about those people? They cannot be located. They go away and hide themselves, and I am not going to play hide and seek with them.
I am, here to prevent any injustice being done by the Postmaster General. He knows my intentions are honourable. He knows what I am doing now I do in the name of justice, and he knows that I have done other things for a similar purpose when as leader of the opposition in the province of Quebec he gave me his support. It is in appreciation

Supply-Post Office
of his treatment of me in those days that to-day I wish to treat him fairly. When he was leader of the opposition in Quebec he helped me, and I thank him for it.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Shall the resolution carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. My hon. friend should not interrupt me because I do not wish to be disagreeable to him. After those preliminaries, which I should have liked very much to spare the committee, I should like to say a few words about a commissioner who carried on many investigations, but was sworn only after he had acted. He reminds me of a man who goes to communion before going to confession. I do not wish hon. members to think that I am complaining about all commissioners. I repeat the statement I made yesterday, namely that I commend the department upon the appointment of Mr. Lalonde as attorney. I do not know if Mr. Lalonde will fulfil our expectations, and although I am not in accord with all statements hon. members opposite may make about him we will see what he does, and judge him afterwards. His appointment may be a step in the right direction, and although we do not know what the future may hold it will reveal itself in due time.
I should like to say a few words concerning dismissals. In the province of Quebec there were 479 investigations, and in the other provinces only 23S. In other words the province of Quebec had twice as many investigations as all the other provinces combined. The defeated candidates in the whole of Canada asked for 465 investigations, whereas members asked for only 252, or about one-half. The defeated Conservative candidates of the province of Quebec asked for 362 investigations, whereas the defea-ted Conservative candidates in the other eight provinces asked for only 103. In other words the defeated Tory candidates in the province of Quebec asked for three and one-half times as many investigations as did those throughout the rest of Canada. As for dismissals, t.he services of 436 postmasters were dispensed with on the grounds of political partisanship; resignations after having received the forms from the department numbered 33; change of sites, 75; other reasons, 91,-or a total of 635. I said I would mention the indirect dismissals. Through post offices being abolished 436 postmasters were dismissed. This brings the total changes up to 1,071. At the time these post offices were closed certain mushroom offices were opened in the neighbourhood and the 41761-1985
appointees got their nomination through a political patron. There were 210 of these new post offices opened. This brings the total changes up to 1,281. The total number of investigations was 597.
There is another thing I complain of, and may I put the hon. minister on his guard with reference to it. I refer to stool pigeons -in French "mouchards;" people who make complaints against postmasters in order to get their jobs. I asked this question:
In how many cases, since August, 1930, has a postmaster charged with active political partisanship been replaced temporarily or permanently by a person making the charge or giving evidence against him?
The answer was:
In view of the fact that it will take some time to prepare the answer, it is recommended that this question stand as an order for return.
No order for return has been tabled. Perhaps this is because they are so numerous that there is no accountant in the Post Office Department who can number them. These people gave evidence against the postmasters, at times without corroboration, and were appointed to the vacancies they had been instrumental in causing. I have some of these cases, and they are rather interesting. Here is number 1:
Q. Was Mrs. Emma Rioux alias Mrs. Joseph Rioux, widow, heard as a witness in an inquiry held in connection with political partisanship in which Johnny April, postmaster of Gironde, county of Temiscouata, Quebec, was the person charged?-A. Yes.
Q. Was said Mrs. Rioux appointed postmistress replacing said Johnny April?-A. Yes.
The committee will notice that I am expediting this business as much as I possibly can. This is all I have to say about the post office at Gironde. As my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) points out there are so many of these cases that it is not my fault if the minister's estimates are delayed.
Number 2:
Q. Did Pierre Fortin lodge a complaint against Joseph Morneau, postmaster of Ivry, county of Temiscouata, Quebec?-A. Yes.
Q. Was said Pierre Fortin appointed postmaster to replace said Joseph Morneau?-A. Yes.
Q. Was he appointed after a regular inquiry was held?-A. The regular procedure was followed in this ease. The appointment was made by the department on the recommendation of Mr. C. E. Dube.
Mr. Dube, naturally, is the defeated candidate for the county of Temiscouata. The "regular procedure" mentioned means that no
Supply-Post Office

procedure was followed, that is, there was no investigation. Number 3:
Q. Did Isidore Ouellet lodge a complaint against Narcisse Ouellet, postmaster of Lamy South, county of Temiscouata, Quebec?-A. Yes.
Q. Was said Isidore Ouellet appointed postmaster to replace said Narcisse Ouellet?-A. Yes.
Number 4:
Q. Was Francois Michaud heard as a witness in an inquiry held in connection with political partisanship in which Joseph Michaud, postmaster of La Richardiere, county of Temiscouata, was the person charged?-A. Yes.
Q. Was the said Francois Michaud appointed postmaster to replace Joseph Michaud?

A. Yes.
Those are four cases for the consideration of the committee. I have some others that I will give in a minute. The return has not yet been tabled, but I can show by what has happened in my own constituency the course that has been followed throughout the country. I have been in other constituencies and there I found the same condition as in my own constituency, that the people who lodged complaints against the postmasters did so in order to get those jobs. That is what I wish to prove. They were interested witnesses, I submit it is putting a premium on stool pigeons to encourage them by accepting their uncorroborated evidence. That is why yesterday I suggested to the minister that he consider only sworn complaints made by people who are absolutely disinterested, that is, who do not want the postmaster's position. By taking this course he will secure much more reliable testimony. May I read to the committee a letter to the Postmaster General written by Mr. Philippe Fraser of Notre-Dame des Sept Douleurs on the 30th of March, 1931:


Jean-François Pouliot: Notre-Dame-des-Sept-Douleurs,
March 30, 1931.
To the Hon. Arthur Sauve,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir,-
I have read your letter to Joseph Michaud, postmaster of La-Richardiere. There is not a person, in the whole of Canada, who is more Conservative than I am. I receive the Debates of House of Commons, and I feel that I could not possibly allow the Prime Minister to be insulted, as he has been since the outset of the session, without putting up a fight. Take, for instance, the case of the Imperial conference and the sale of wheat; do you not think that one must be light-headed to carry on such a discussion? The wheat of the northwestern provinces could have been sold by the former Minister of Agriculture while on his trip to
[Mr. Pouliot.1
Europe, or in his pastoral visit to display his fine motor car. When he returned from abroad, did lie state that he had tried to do something in this connection; there was nothing to show, except the expenses.
A flock of sheep! Is it possible, sir?
That is what a Conservative leader of the county of Temiscouata wrote-
I shall speak to you about Joseph Michaud. I have already spoken to you about him, you referred my letter to Mr. Dube and that made him angry, however, that has no importance. I cannot, as an honourable man, do otherwise than help Mr. Michaud. And after having read your letter, I am ready to take the oath that Mr. Michaud was never guilty of any offence as mentioned in the letter. Those who are responsible for this are people in this locality; one voted for the Conservative party on July 28, 1930, because he had been thrown out by the Liberal party, while the other is on the fence.
Perhaps Mr. Michaud voted Liberal, however, I never asked him and he never told me. Mr. Michaud is a thorough gentleman, who has all the true Conservatives on his side.
I am the clerk of the council and I am pleased to sign his paper and I would not like to see this affair go any further.
Take courage, sir; I wish you God speed.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Phiillipe Fraser.
Coming back to the stool pigeons, here is case number 5:
Q. Did Eugene Lepage lodge a complaint against David Lebel, postmaster of Montagne Ronde, county of Temiscouata, Quebec?-A. Yes.
Q. Was said Eugene Lepage heard as witness in an inquiry held in connection with political partisanship in which David Lebel was the person charged?-A. Yes.
Q. Was the said Eugene Lepage appointed postmaster to replace said David Lebel?-A. Yes.
That man lodged the complaint against the postmaster, gave evidence, and afterwards was appointed to the job.
Q. Did Alexandre Lebel lodge a complaint against Andre Beaulieu, postmaster of Raudot, county of Temiscouata, Quebec?-A. Yes.
Q. Was said Alexandre Lebel a witness in the inquiry in connection with political partisanship brought against said Andre Beaulieu?-A. Yes.
Q. Was said Alexandre Lebel appointed postmaster to replace said Andre Beaulieu?

A. Yes.
Q. Did the Postmaster General receive a petition signed by a number of persons to the effect that only one man, Alexandre Lebel, wanted to change the site of the post office? -A. Yes.
And he got it. Number 7:
Q. Did Mrs. Emile Ouellet, widow, lodge a complaint against Omer Sirois, then postmaster of Rioux, county of Temiscouata, Quebec?-A. Yes.

Supply-Post Office
Q. Was. said Mrs. Emile Ouellet appointed postmistress to replace said Omer Sirois?-A. Yes.
Q. Was she appointed after a regular inquiry?-A. The regular procedure was followed in this ease. The appointment was made by the department on the recommendation of Mr. C. E. Dube.
May I read a letter from Mrs. Ouellet, for it will probably interest the committee?


Mr. SPOTTON:: Sure.


Jean-François Pouliot: She wrote the right hon.
Prime Minister on January 10,1931,as follows:
(Translation) If you only knew how proud I am of my party and how I would dislike being deceived in this way.
I hope therefore that you will look into the matter and that 1 shall have my office for the end of January.
Yours devotedly,
Widow Emile Ouellet.
(Text): Here is a very nice letter written to a certain Mr. Dube on March 1, 1931:
(Translation) Time passes and still no change as regards the post office. I would like to know if it is the intention to change it or not. You could not believe how much harm the Conservatives are doing themselves by not even being able to change this office which is altogether unsuitable to the district. There are no more postal notes and there are all sorts of complaints. He laughs in our faces and tells us we can't get the post office away from him. We got worked up about our party last summer and we became a laughing-stock. I must not annoy you further with these things; you know more about them than I do; but I would like to tell you that a big change is going to take place in the Conservative party, and rightly so, for after all Mr. Sauve is Postmaster General. Your devoted servant,
Widow Emile Ouellet.
This gives an idea of the complaints that are made to the Postmaster General. I know that at times he is greatly bothered by such complaints, but he understands very well that this is no reason why he should agree with everything that is said to him. Here is another very important case, about which I said a word yesterday.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman yesterday evening there was some talk of Garfield MacKinnon. There were interesting exchanges from both sides. Since I myself brought this question up on April 14, I would like to add a few words to complete the discussion. On April 28 the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) brought
the matter up again; he was told by the hon. Postmaster General that Garfield MacKinnon has been going around the country for the last twelve years. Mr. Chairman, if Garfield MacKinnon has been exploiting our letter earners for twelve years it is no fault of mine for up to last January I had never even heard of the man. The first time I knew of his existence was when he came to Plessisville;
I immediately warned our mail carriers not to join this association and told them I would find out about this man as soon as I got to Ottawa. When I had obtained the information I wanted I gave it to the house;
I proved that this man is really a highway robber who has been mulcting people for the past twelve years.
The hon. Postmaster General stated on the floor of the house that he had given a satisfactory explanation to the member for Megantic, after the necessary inquiries bad been made. I can say that the Postmaster General, the deputy minister, the superintendent and all his colleagues helped me in my efforts to obtain an investigation. But the minister added that he could do nothing because his legal adviser had informed me that the affidavit I had given him was not sufficient to warrant a conviction. At the time this explanation satisfied me; but since then I have consulted competent lawyers, and the hon. members for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard) and for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Fontaine) have told me the affidavit sufficed to bring about this man's arrest.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: The attorney general of Quebec province can have him arrested.


Eusèbe Roberge: I'll come to back to that. You find it ticklish.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Not so
ticklish as all that.


Eusèbe Roberge: I can say to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche), and to any other hon. member, that when they lose $5 they would rather keep mum about it than institute proceedings against a young man who lives in Ontario, and thus expose themselves to shelling out $200 or $300 of their own money.


Joseph-François Laflèche: The attorney general of the province can have him arrested.


Eusèbe Roberge: Anyway, if you yourself were swindled out of $5 you'd suffer in silence.
Supply-Post Office


Jean-François Pouliot: The Attorney General would never dare to have the man arrested because this man was at one time recommended by the hon. member for Rich-mond-Wolfe.


Joseph-François Laflèche: I emphatically deny that. I have had no connection whatever with MacKinnon. You are only trying to mix my name up with his; you are acting for someone higher up.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. member for Megantic has
the floor and unless he gives permission he may not be interrupted.


Joseph-François Laflèche: We know all about your tidy little system and your immigration side-line.


Eusèbe Roberge: The hon. member's share wasn't big enough.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Not big enough? I could hand you some, if I wanted to.


The CHAIRMAN (Translation):: Order, order.


Eusèbe Roberge: The hon. Postmaster General should have one of his Quebec inspectors ascertain if the affidavit I furnished the minister was not in accordance with the facts and did not suffice to warrant a conviction. Let him send one of his inspectors into the counties where MacKinnon operated, Richmond-Wolfe, Megantic, or elsewhere; there he can get all the affidavits necessary to prevent this man from exploiting the people. I think I have done my part; and the department should do as much to orotect our mail carriers.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I do not intend to take up much time, Mr. Chairman before coming to the subject I wish to discuss let me simply point out certain facts to the hon. member for Temiscouata whom I hold,-and he knows it,-in high esteem.
I listened to him very attentively and, if I understand aright, his thesis is that anybody is entitled to lay a charge of political partisanship against a postmaster. Every citizen has as much right as a member of parliament to lodge a complaint against a postmaster. The hon. member for Temiscouata finds fault with the fact that enquiries were granted. Would he rather we came back to the old system, when the member for Gloucester,-him, too,
I like very much,-dismissed postmasters without an enquiry? There still resides in my county a widow, the mother of eleven children, who was dismissed by the member for Gloucester. She asked for an investi-
IMr. Roberge.]
gation; it was refused. I requested the present minister to re-appoint, her because I thought she had been dismissed unjustly. On that score I rather feel that one cannot praise too highly the minister's sense of justice and of fair-play. Far from showing himself a rabid partisan he has often run the risk of displeasing his own followers by dealing justly with postmasters and standing up for them.
I may say that most of the postmasters let out in my constituency were dismissed at my request, but never without an investigation. I did not want a single one of them to be dismissed without an enquiry; but unfortunately I realized that they were in truth political agents, active partisans. If there has been any scandal about the matter it came not from the fact of their dismissal, but would have been the consequence of their being retained in office. The postmasters who had mixed in politics could have been dismissed on my personal recommendation. I did not act in that way because the facts were unknown to me.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: What commissioner made the enquiries in Montmagny county?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): In one case Mr. Gosselin; and in the other I believe it was-I had nothing to do with the investigation. I always refused to intervene with the investigating commissioner either for the complainant or for the postmaster. When a postmaster appealed to me for protection I answered: I will interfere no more than I would if an enquiry were requested against you or by you.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Did not the hon. member advise these postmasters to hire a lawyer to defend them?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I advised each one of them to employ a lawyer. In my own county I defended none. I know that in certain cases the enquiry proved the postmaster innocent; and I myself recommended that he be retained in office. I could have had him dismissed on my personal recommendation, as was done under the former Postmaster General; but I did not do that. As regards those who took the responsibility of recommending dismissals that concerns them. Far from accusing the Postmaster General we should be grateful to him for having defended those postmasters who were unjustly accused. There were numerous dismissals? Whose fault was it? The thing is that the federal employees in the province of Quebec, like those in the provincial service, had become political agents.

Supply-Post Office


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Why add "in the provincial service?"
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I add "in the iprovincial service" because during the last election campaign 60,000 of them overran our roads.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Can that have any bearing whatever on matters of federal administration?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Yes.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Not the slightest. Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The hon. member says he fails to see how that has anything to do with federal matters. The day when he understands that will be the last Day of Judgment.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I understand that as well as you do. Otherwise I would be known, like yourself, as a person of no importance.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	The hon.
member says he understands things as well as I do; and that I understand as well as the hon. member; that is not very flattering towards me.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I do not need any dissertations.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The hon. member has no need of dissertations?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: No.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Then let him take a book and read. That will do him no harm.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: You've read too much for what you have understood.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Leaving aside the illustrious member for St. Denis and his remarkable interruptions, which throw a great deal of light on the debate, I shall continue.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: You won't throw any light on the subject.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): If there have been a large number of dismissals it is because the complaints were equally numerous; and the complaints were so numerous because the facts were evident.


Jean-François Pouliot: There wasaiso perhaps the reason that lots of people wanted post offices.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It may be also that a number of people wanted to be postmasters. The hon. member for Temiscouata raised a great deal of objection to the fact that
certain people who had lodged complaints were allowed to testify. I would find it rather strange if such people were not called as witnesses. If they declare that to their personal knowledge the postmaster had taken an active part in politics, it would appear rather remarkable to me if these people were not put into the witness box. That they themselves should have been appointed afterwards? Most of the appointments are made by the Civil Service Commission, except in the case of small post offices. So the Civil Service Commission, and not the minister, is responsible.
When I rose it was not to speak of this matter; the remarks I have made are merely by-the-way. I understand the department authorizes licensed agents to sell stamps where they will, within a specified territory, either in their own homes or by soliciting at others homes. They make rather remarkable incomes; some receive commission ranging as high as $10,000 and $15,000 a year. On the other hand a letter from the Post Office Department, signed by a Mr. Atwater, reveals that a certain postmistress who through the sale of stamps, boosted the revenue of her office to $400 or $600, from the $200 it was previously, is being subjected to an enquiry at the present time because she sells too many stamps. She has signed a sworn statement to the effect that she sells no stamps outside her post office. The fault found with this postmistress, Madame Jean, is that she sells stamps to people who do not mail their letters at this post office. Am I to understand that, according to the department, when a person buys a stamp in a post office that person must lick the stamp there and then and mail the letter in that post office? Or is this Mr. Atwater exaggerating when he forbids a postmistress to sell as many stamps as she is asked for? When a person comes into the post office must the postmistress, before selling any stamps to that person, ascertain whether the customer resides in the parish or in the neighbourhood and if all letters are to be posted immediately? Or is Mr. Atwater being overzealous? I would like to know.


Arthur Sauvé: Although my attention has not been called...


Peter John Veniot: Louder, Mr. Minister.


Arthur Sauvé: Although my attention was not drawn to these facts by the hon. member for Montmagny, previous to the house meeting. I am sufficiently well acquainted with the case to answer.
The case to which the hon. member for Montmagny calls attention is a matter of daily
Supply-Post Office

occurrence. Why? Because the postmaster is paid on the basis of the quantity of stamps he sells. It is but fair that a village postmaster should count on local clients in order to retain his revenue. 'Should a postmaster carry on propaganda on another postmaster's territory, the latter's salary is decreased, his revenue falls off, and that is not fair. The regulation has been in effect for a very long time and it is observed. When a postmaster fails to comply, an official of the Post Office department mutes him and inquires how it happens that his revenue is increasing so abnormally.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That is not what happened in this instance. I wrote the department three times on the subject. The postmistress in question does not carry on any propaganda. The number of her clients has increased because citizens go and buy stamps at her place. These citizens include the village notary who directs a large office and who uses a lot of stamps as a notary, clerk of the municipality and bank agent. What appears extraordinary to me is the fact that the department is opposed to an increase in its own revenues, and secondly that the department's letter states the postmistress does not ascertain whether her clients reside in the locality.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): The government does not lose anything.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): In the first place, the government does not lose anything, and what is more, the thing appears ridiculous to me.


Peter John Veniot: 
Peter John Veniot: Would the
hon. member allow me to ask a question in order to clear up the matter? Does the postmistress you speak of sell postage stamps to persons living outside of her postal district?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	That is
not the case. She only sells stamps in her own post office.


Peter John Veniot: The hon.
member does not grasp my question: Does she sell postage stamps to persons living outside of her postal district and who come to her post office to purchase them?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	That is
quite possible.


Peter John Veniot: If she does that, she violates the Post Office Act.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Then, the law is badly worded. I would like to ask the hon. member for Gloucester a question: I am passing through Gloucester or Bathurst and I ask the postmaster to sell me a stamp. Should he refuse to sell me a stamp because I am not a resident?


Peter John Veniot: No. We are
speaking of a continual practice.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	There is
no continual practice in this case.


Peter John Veniot: That is the law.
Mr. LaAERGNE (Translation):	I understand that is the law but it is badly worded.


Mr.   SALWE@Translation: I may say to
the hon. member for Montmagny that we will not only study the act but the case he has just submitted to the committee. If necessary, we will order an investigation.


Mr. MARCIL (Translation):: I would like to mention a case that occurred in my riding. A man who was not satisfied with a change made in the post office did not purchase a single stamp at that post office during seven years. The department held several investigations. The man was interviewed, and the department finally acknowledged its inability to right the matter. This gentleman who was a man of high social standing had the right to purchase stamps anywhere outside of his district. He did so during seven years and the department admitted its inability to stop him.

rn
Supply-Post Office


Jean-François Pouliot: As I understand the matter, a party has the right to purchase stamps but he has no right to sell them.


Charles Marcil: The department was unable to prevent that man from picking out the post office where he chose to
purchase his postage stamps.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The member for Temiscouata is right.


Peter John Veniot: When a situation such as that outlined a moment ago by the hon. member for Montmagny arises, the department in accordance with the regulation notifies the postmaster that the commission on the sale of stamps to residents of another district will be deducted from his salary and paid to the postmaster of the district wherein the persons purchasing the stamps reside.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is ridiculous.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: How can the matter be controlled? One may purchase stamps at a very distant post office, not necessarily at the neighbouring post office.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That comes back to what the hon. member for Temiscouata said a moment ago: One had the right to purchase, but one has not the right to sell. That proves how ridiculous the regulation is.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address you in regard to the Sully case. However, before I do so, may I be permitted to reply briefly to the observations of the hon. member for Montmagny with respect to investigations. I agree with him that any Canadian citizen has the right to lodge a complaint against any civil servant not only of the Post Office department but of any other department as well. That is an inalienable right vested in every British subject. However, there is a marked difference between lodging a complaint against a postmaster and securing his dismissal merely on the strength of a signature. According to established custom, the securing of a postmaster's dismissal on the strength of a signature belongs to each member of parliament. The members have the right to lodge complaints against postmasters. Should a member mention in a letter that a postmaster has, to his own knowledge, meddled in politics, the minister usually dismisses the postmaster. It seems to me the same power should not be granted to a defeated candidate. The latter should not enjoy the same privileges as a member of parliament. Should he be elected at a later date, he will then enjoy those privileges.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is a shame.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have many files with reference to dismissals that have been made in Lake St. John county since the month of August, 1930, upon the member's personal recommendation. I have not got those files here. They are in my room. My hon. colleague from Charlevoix-Saguenay also has a number of files. The custom has obtained in the Post Office Department of granting dismissals upon the written request of a defeated candidate.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): So reads the law.


Jean-François Pouliot: It does not seem to me to be just, even though the law-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Not for defeated candidates.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is going a little too far in the case of defeated candidates.


Joseph-François Laflèche: We even experience difficulty in getting them dismissed. We experience more difficulty in that respect than the defeated candidates.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not believe my hon. friend from Richmond-Wolfe experiences any difficulty worth mentioning. I happen to know he is very kind-hearted and that he sympathizes with those who are in distress. As a physician, he meets people and knows something of their misery. He tries to cure them and I am sure he is not doing justice to himself.


Ernest Lapointe: At least he does not use his bistoury on the postmasters!


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General a question in connection with the Sully post office. I have been told that the postmaster in charge there had not been dismissed but suspended. I would like to know whether the hon. Postmaster General intends reinstating Mr. Jean-Baptiste Plourde as postmaster at Sully?


Arthur Sauvé: I understand a returned soldier by the name of Jean is a candidate. His name is before the Commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would also ask the hon. Postmaster General and if his answer is favourable that will be my last question in connection with this file, if the Commission is aware of the vacancy, if the Commission published the necessary notices
Supply-Post Office

so that the appointment of the postmaster be made with the least possible delay.


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: Before
my hon. friend from Temiscouata takes up another ease, may I be permitted to ask the hon. Postmaster General to give me some information with reference to the comparatively recent appointment of a new postmaster at St. Vallier. I understand there are two candidates for the position. Here is a case where the hon. Postmaster General was not compelled to dismiss the man, because the postmaster died. He had to be replaced. The two candidates seeking appointment were a Mr. Belanger and a Mr. Berube. The Civil Service Commission required the two candidates to try an examination so as to determine their fitness and qualifications Mr. Beruibe was placed first. The Civil Sendee Commission subsequently recommended Mr. Berube's appointment to the Poet Office Department. Rather than give effect to the Commission's recommendation, the Postmaster General rejected it, in accordance with Article 24 of the Civil Service Act, I believe, without giving any reason and took upon himself to appoint Mr. Belanger. Of course, Mr. Berube wanted to know why he had not been appointed.


Arthur Sauvé: This is not a permanent appointment. The minister can only make temporary appointments.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I cannot say whether this is a temporary or permanent appointment, but the fact remains that the hon. minister rejected the Commission's recommendation and appointed Mr. Belanger.
Mr. Berube quite naturally wanted to know why he had not been appointed and also why Mr. Belanger had been chosen in his stead. Mr. Berube wrote the hon. Postmaster General, in French, naturally, and the minister had one of his employees answer him in English, and tell him in his letter-


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member is not fair.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: It is true, I have seen the file.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member knows the French language well enough not to say that I had a reply sent in English. The official answered in English.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Mr. Berube certainly received a reply worded in
l Mr. Sauve.]
English. He inquired why the other candidate had been selected in his stead and the only reason given him in English is: "You have been found unsuitable."
You can imagine this poor man's dismay to be called "unsuitable." He asks himself what can that mean. He asks himself what threat that word can imply. Does that mean he beat his wife, that he committeed some crime, that he robbed the poor-boxes in the church? His reputation at once suffers for it. You can imagine all the people in the parish of St. Vallier asking themselves why the Post Office Department calls Mr. Berube "unsuitable."


Arthur Sauvé: What is the
official's name?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I cannot say, I believe it is Mr. Coolican.


Mr. GAGNON (Translation):: Why was his letter published?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I suppose he tried to find out among hds neighbours the meaning of this word. He wanted to know what he was being charged with.
I would like the minister to tell us quite frankly for what reason he appointed Mr. Belanger and why and in what manner Mr. Berube is "unsuitable."


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Bellechasse surprises me. I do not recall having been made acquainted with this correspondence that was exchanged between an official of my department and Mr. Berube. I will make the necessary inquiries-


Ernest Lapointe: The minister is very busy.


Arthur Sauvé: I am busy
enough performing my duty and the hon. member for Quebec East should cease treating me in this manner.


Ernest Lapointe: I am speaking the truth, the minister is very busy.


Arthur Sauvé: I know quite well what the hon. member means to convey by those words. I do not think I deserve such treatment. The Liberal party was very .strongly condemned in the past because of the numerous dismissals ordered by the Post Office Department. I am happy to note that the present administration is following in the very foot-steps of the Liberal party that preceded it in office.

Supply-Post Office


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And putting on speed.


Charles Marcil: Of course, the country has developed; there are more post offices and dismissals are more numerous.
The young members of this house who have not the experience which they will acquire if they pass thirty-five years here, will learn later on that it is dangerous pastime to go about changing postmasters and trying to please everybody. It is a grave mistake: in the first place it is a mistake on the part of the department authorizing the change, though it is compelled to do so in accordance with legal requirements, but it is chiefly a mistake on the part of the member or of the man who represents his party in the county-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear!
Hear!


Charles Marcil: as happened in the past. Unfortunately, in our part of the province of Quebec, the postal service was considered with very few exceptions as a patronage service.
In my constituency, there are about one hundred post offices and at least fifty have changed hands. What is the disadvantage? Well, the man who was put out awakens and he in common with all his relatives becomes a determined opponent of the administration that dismissed him. And in view of the fact that there was a half-dozen candidates seeking the job and only one was appointed, the others become malcontents.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear! Hear!


Charles Marcil: By an extraordinary coincidence-I do not want to hurt anybody-practically in all cases where the department made a temporary appointment, the post office inspector gave a rating that corresponded to that made by the department in the first instance. It is probably a coincidence, but the department's appointments were ratified by the post office inspector.
The Civil Service Commission in the creation of which I had a hand, in this parliament, since I voted in favour of this system in 1908, was required at the outset to deal only with the inside service. Later on, in 1917, we placed the outside sendee under the Act notwithstanding protests on the part of people with considerable experience who believed such a move was a mistake. I note with pleasure to-day that the present administration is beginning to realize the mistake committed at that time. Postmasters whose revenue is less than S3,000 have just been placed under the
control of the department. This is as it always should have been, because in the outside service, the rural postmaster is not a "civil servant" as defined in the act. He is some merchant, blacksmith, or grocer who employs a young girl to attend to the office, who is appointed by the party to which he belongs and who will probably be dismissed when the other party wins. That is the present system. I am pleased to note a change is being made and that henceforth the department itself will make appointments. This will do away with the camouflage that has existed for years under the present system. Appointment of postmasters in the outside service by the Civil Service Commission was a joke. The inspectors told me all in turn that they were absolutely powerless in such cases, they had no officials to investigate conditions that existed in such and such a part of the country, to make the candidates try qualifying examinations, and in last analysis they were compelled to go by the post office inspector's report. This inspector is an employee of the Pest Office department. He acts for the Civil Service Commission, but he is nevertheless an employee of the department and a man who is naturally pretty well acquainted with the sentiments prevailing in the district, who knows the intentions of the defeated candidate or the member who represents the riding. When he goes to a post office to conduct an investigation, whether it is a matter of coincidence or otherwise, this "rating" is always in favour of the man selected by the administration of the day. That is the old system. I am pleased to note that proceedings will henceforth be conducted openly and that the system applied years ago will be revived.
When I had the honour of being elected a member for the first time, there were no such things as commissions, no Civil Service Commission, no Railway Commission, no Board of Pension Commissioners, no commission of any kind. The member was the people's real representative. If there was something to 'be done in his riding, he would go and see the minister. The latter trusting him took action in line with his recommendation. The matter was settled and if the member had committed a blunder he was the first to suffer. The electors knew whom to blame, they knew where to place responsibility. To-day, parliament has given up all its powers. We are here merely as voting machines to vote hundreds of millions, even thou-
Supply-Post Office

sands of millions. When I was elected in Bona venture county in 1911 it was not for the purpose of waging war on Germany, yet we were compelled to wage that war. We are far removed from the system that prevailed years ago. Under the real parliamentary system such as I would like to see in existence to-day, the people's representatives should form the link between the ruling powers and the people. At the next election, Mr. Chairman the candidates will be answerable to the people for all that was done in this parliament. If the country was well administered so much the better; if it was badly administered, so much the worse. They will have to bear their share of responsibility towards the people.
Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister last year that when investigations took place they should be conducted with as much decorum as possible, so that the people may realize that the commissioner sent to a village is truly the representative of constituted authority. Each commissioner should be instructed to conduct his investigation either in the post office or in some public building, in order to invest the inquiry with a certain formality and raise the prestige of the department. I am sorry to say I noted in many cases in my county the proceedings were not conducted in that manner. That state of things has the effect of bringing discredit upon the department.


Arthur Sauvé: Instructions to that effect are given.


Charles Marcil: The instructions are not carried out. As a rule the commissioner proceeds to the postmaster's place of business and calls up the other interested parties over the telephone. The investigation starts, the witnesses do not appear. The residents are not surprised at what takes place. They expected as much, they know that all governments dispense their favours to friends.
Conducting proceedings in the open is all to the good. In all the investigations in my county, only two postmasters were held guiltless of the charges levelled against them, and probably by chance, they were two Conservatives. All the others were Liberals. I would certainly not want to be judged on the strength of evidence such as that given when these investigations were held. In a word, that is the state of affairs. The people must have something to do; they must busy themselves with public affairs and have their say. I have a word of advice to give the members: Do not make too many changes in the post offices, you will be all the happier later on.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I only have three more cases to submit to the hon. Postmaster General. I will be very brief. A postmaster at Denonville was dismissed and the man who took his place was thoroughly qualified. He was so qualified, that he was unable to either read or write! That is the reason why he was not appointed in the first instance. Wilfrid Corbin, of St. Paul de la Croix, wrote the minister the following letter which speaks for itself:
My brother-in-law who lives in Montreal, Wilfrid Lebrun, and whom you know quite well and who is also the brother of Delphis Lebrun, your own brother-in-law, had told me repeatedly that you were a just man, but I can judge by what you are doing there that you have no greater sense of justice than any other "Blue." I understand you figure that ivill give you a chance. That will give you a chance, but I think you will not stay there long.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: To whom
was that letter addressed?


Jean-François Pouliot: To the hon. Postmaster General. Mr. Corbin who wrote that letter to the minister misjudged him, but that just goes to show that the minister is misjudged when he lends an ear to complaints that come to him from various sources and that are not voiced by members of this house.
The first paragraph of the letter explains why Mr. Corbin wrote in that way:
Dear Sir:
I learnt to-day that you are taking the post office from Thomas Dube's place. That was quite a surprise to me. In the first place, the post office inspector came here and did not hear any complaints. Thomas Dube did not meddle in politics at all; neither did any member of his family.
Everybody was satisfied except three families who are on the fence and who want to have the post office removed and placed in the house of Theodule Michaud, the leader of these lukewarm people.


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your
pardon, what parish is that?


Jean-François Pouliot: Denonville.
There was a time when we needed the post office, but we no longer require it. In the first place, my papers will never go through this post office any more. Furthermore, here is a situa-ation that I never saw before, the appointment of a postmaster who can neither read nor write, and whose wife is likewise handicapped. His children are but slightly educated and they are not of age. I am 60 years of age, and I never saw such a state of affairs before. I want an answer, an answer from yourself, not from the deputy Postmaster General nor from any of the house writers.

You will address tlie letter to Wilfrid Coi'bin, St. Paul de la Croix. Otherwise should you address it to Denonville, it will remain there as a dead letter. An answer.
The letter produced a good effect. Miss Irene, a daughter of Theodule Michaud, was appointed postmistress. She knows how to read and write.


Joseph-François Laflèche: How old is she?


Jean-François Pouliot: Eighteen or nineteen years of age, but at all events, Mr. Chairman, you will observe-


Joseph-François Laflèche: How do
you know her age?


Jean-François Pouliot: I saw her age in the return.
Mr. Chairman, it is an unspeakable thing to appoint as postmaster a man who can neither read nor write. The department made a report, and not only was the minister deceived by those people with whom you seemed to sympathize a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, but he was even deceived by the officials of the department who stated that the people were quite satisfied with Mr. Michaud, when the latter could neither read nor write and did not even know his ABC. He made amends to some extent by appointing a young girl who could read and write. I will go no further.
Another case, is case No. 8 referred to as the stool pigeons' case. This is the Notre-Dame-du-Lac case. The questions and answers are in English.
1.	Did J. T. Voisine lodge a complaint against Antoine Landry, postmaster of Notre Dame du Lae, county of Temiscouata, Quebec?
2.	Did said J. T. Voisine bear witness in an inquiry held in connection with political partisanship in which said Antoine Landry was the person charged?
3.	Tf so, was it on the evidence of said J. T. Voisine that the commissioner based his report against said Antoine Landry?
4.	Was said J. T. Voisine appointed acting postmaster to replace said Antoine Landry?
The initials of the man are J. T., and the Christian name is Thomas. They did not say that it -was the man, on whose evidence the commissioner based his finding, who received the appointment. The fact is, however, that that man was appointed, the only difference being that they used the Christian name rather than the initials. Stool pigeon.
Mr. Chairman, an inquiry was held into the Notre-Dame-du-Lac case. Going through the file one notes in the first place a letter from Mr. E. N. Dumas dated Septem-
Supply-Post Office
ber 30, 1930, in which he asks to be appointed to this position, prior to the inquiry and the postmaster's resignation. On January 24, 1931, Mr. C. E. Dube, forwarded Voisine's complaint against Landry to the hon. Postmaster General-this is the same Voisine who was subsequently appointed postmaster. On February 11, 1931, there is an affidavit from Antoine Landry, postmaster at that time, who states that he did not meddle at all in politics. On February 27, 1931, Mr. Green, the superintendent of the postal district, notwithstanding all his good intentions and good will to please those who control patronage for the time being, wrote the minister as follows:
The district superintendent has reason to believe that these circulars were treated at the office of delivery in the regular manner.
Now, let us turn to the inquiry. Voisine gives evidence:
In June or July, 1930, we received two circulars signed by Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot, Liberal candidate. These two circulars were in favour of Mr. Pouliot and the Liberal party, and bore the caption: "Welcome to Mr. Bennett and the Dairy Industry." These two circulars were placed in my letter-box at the post office on separate occasions. Mr. Antoine Landry was the postmaster at that time. During the last election contest, I saw Messrs. Pouliot and Landry together. I do not know what they were talking about.
I was just going to deliver the circulars for which I paid one half-cent each in accordance with the law.
During the last election contest, in 1930. Mr. Landry was in the post office with Mr. Theo-phile Leclerc. I entered. Mr. Landry was holding the St. Laurent newspaper. That issue contained a report of the sums of money Mr. Pouliot had secured since his election as a member. Mr. Landry, after giving the details to Mr. Leclerc stated that even though Mr. Pouliot might have shortcomings he was the best man since he had secured so much money for the county.
This may' be exaggerated, but I do not think it is a crime to speak in that way.


Ernest Lapointe: It is true.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know whether a person has the right to deposit circulars upon payment of same. To my knowledge, many people have these circulars. When I saw Mr. Pouliot and Mr. Landry, they were between the post office and the church. I saw Mr. Pouliot greeting other people and speaking to them. Messrs. Leclerc and Landry were the only people in the post office. I have no knowledge that Mr. Landry read Mr. Charles-Eugene Dube's articles.
J. B. Voisine.
Mr. Theophile Leclerc: I do not recall having talked politics to Mr. Antoine Landry at the post office. I am his brother-in-law.
Supply-Post Office

As I explained to the committee, yesterday, he started off by denying that there was any talk of politics between Mr. Landry, his brother-in-law and himself, but finally, the commissioner asked him:	"Do you recall
whether there was any talk on that score?" He replied:	"I do not recall." He answered
the commissioner in the terms of the questions put to him.
Mr. E. N. Dumas who was a candidate and who put in the first application for the position, states:
I have no knowledge that Mr. Antoine Landry displayed any political partisanship.
I am quoting from the minutes of evidence written by the investigating commissioner.
Philyas Roy-mayor, Conservative leader of the parish:	I am not aware that Mr. Antoine
Landry showed any political partisanship.
Eugene Nadeau:	I found a circular from
Pouliot in my letter-box. That is all I received. I have no knowledge that he displayed any political partisanship.
Maxime Michaud:	I am not aware that
Mr. Landry displayed any political partisanship.
Robert Beaulieu:	Mr. Antoine Landry acted
as a deputy returning officer in July, 1930. The polling booth was his home. Apart from that. I have no knowledge that Mr. Landry displayed any political partisanship.
Dominique Cote-another candidate:	I have
no knowledge that Mr. Landry displayed any political partisanship.
Ernest Caron:	I have no knowledge that Mr. Landry displayed political partisanship.
Miss Maria Levesque-she was employed as a house-maid at Landry's:	I never was aware
that Mr. Landry showed any political partisanship.
There was only Mr. Voisine's evidence.
On July 15th, 1931, the Postmaster General submitted to the Governor General in Council a memorandum requesting that Postmaster Landry be dismissed. He was dismissed on August 18th, 1931, by the terms of Order in Council 1994. On September 7th. 1931, Mr. Omer Bouchard forwarded to the Postmaster General a petition signed by 95 Conservatives in the parish asking that he be appointed. Those people said to themselves-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Carried?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, not
quite so fast.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I beg
the hon. member's pardon, I thought he had concluded his remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am showing all the good will I can. I had about twenty cases to submit. I still have only one and a half.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I also have several, but in order to meet the convenience of the house I will not deal with them.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Carried?


Mr. TOTZKE:: No, Mr. Chairman. If I
may be allowed to give the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) a little breathing space, I should like to direct the attention of the minister to one case of dismissal of a postmaster. First I desire to read to the committee part of a speech made by the Postmaster General in Montreal last April. I agree very heartily with the views expressed in this speech, but I regret that he has not lived up to them, or perhaps he expressed them after he had taken action on the case I am now bringing to the attention of the committee. This is the newspaper clipping to which I refer:
A civil servant, faithful to duty, has the right to count upon the justice of any government, regardless of party, Hon. Arthur Sauve, Postmaster General, declared in an address at a meeting of the Montreal Post Office Employees' Association last night.
These are the few facts in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Jansen, a man who had given satisfactory service for twenty-three years. The complaint against him was forwarded to the department by Mr. E. S. Wilson, the defeated Conservative candidate in the constituency of Humboldt at the last election. After referring to what had happened to him personally when he had visited this town, Mr. Wilson proceeds to make what seems to me to be a very peculiar charge of political partisanship:
During the 1930 federal election campaign I again met Symons-
Symons is the name of the dismissed postmaster.
[DOT]-but outwardly his attitude had changed, although I am informed that it is considered at Jansen that his activities under cover in the last election can be disclosed, and it would appear that he had a radio in the back of the post office with a loud speaker and entertained the public whenever possible with speeches by exponents of the Liberal cause.
aiea
Supply-Post Office

This is the first time, Mr. Chairman, I have heard there were any Liberal radios in existence. He proceeds:
Some of the business men in Jansen who are conducting businesses in competition with Symons find it necessary to post their outgoing mail to a large extent on the train in order to ensure its delivery.
These are the main causes of complaint given by Mr. Wilson, the defeated Conservative candidate. These matters were referred to the superintendent of postal service at Saskatoon, and he reported on February 5, 1931, in part, as follows:
It would seem that the great majority of patrons of the office are fully satisfied with the present service. It is our opinion that the agitation against the postmaster is due in a great measure to business rivalry, and the jealousy so often found in a small community. Mr. Leightner's business-
Mr. Leightner was one of the complainants.
[DOT]-conflicts with that of Mr. Symons in the real estate, loan and insurance branches while Mr. Schroeder-
Another complainant.
-as well as conducting a general store, owns a garage and acts as agent for the International Harvester Company and Imperial Oil Company.
Mr. E. J. Symons, postmaster, is of English birth, 43 years of age, has been in the Jansen district since 1906, and postmaster there since May 29, 1909. His services have always been considered satisfactory and no previous complaints of any serious nature appear to have been made.
In view of this and the expressions of opinion given to the inspectors by other business men of the village, I do not feel that the charges made in the affidavits returned herewith warrant a recommendation for any change in postmastership.
That is signed by J. H. Hunter, district superintendent at Saskatoon. Apparently that report should dispose of any complaints made by patrons, but nevertheless after the report had been sent to Mr. Wilson at Humboldt he again insisted that an investigation be made. On June 17, 1931, the department referred this matter to Commissioner George Wilson, who is a barrister at Kinistino, and a brother of E. S. Wilson, the defeated Conservative candidate. After this was done Mr. Symons, the postmaster, sent the Postmaster General the folowing telegram, dated July 28, 1931:
A charge of partisanship against me as postmaster is up for investigation before George Wilson, commissioner, at Jansen, Saskatchewan, Thursday. July thirtieth, two p.m. E. S. Wilson who is a witness was twice Conservative candidate federal election, is a brother of the commissioner holding investigation. I request

some other commissioner be provided to hold investigation as to charges against me to overcome bias in the matter. Kindly give consideration to this subject.
When I heard of this I interviewed the Postmaster General, explaining the matter to him, and he agreed that it was not in the best interests of the public service, and not the best way to determine political partisanship, to have a brother of the defeated Conservative candidate act as commissioner. The hon. gentleman agreed that he would find another commissioner, and I was perfectly satisfied. I felt that if another commissioner were appointed, proper evidence would be brought out and if the postmaster had been guilty of political partisanship he would suffer the consequences. However, as a result of that telegram and the interview I had with the Postmaster General, on July 30 the Deputy Postmaster General wired Mr. George Wilson as follows:
Please suspend all action on investigation re E. J. Symons, postmaster at Jansen. Wire reply.
Of course the commissioner accepted the instructions contained in that telegram and wired that he had cancelled the investigation. Following this, a letter was sent by E. S. Wilson, to the Postmaster General under date of July 31, part of which reads as follows:
My purpose in writing you now is to ask that another commissioner be instructed to proceed with the investigation. It seems unfortunate that instead of my friends at Jansen receiving the cooperation of your department, by I presume press of business or some other substantial reason, everything seems to have been done to delay the procedure. . . .
I would ask that when you instruct another commissioner you have him take up with me personally the matter of a suitable date in order that I may arrange a time with Mr. Bates and with the complainants at Jansen.
The defeated Conservative candidate, then, accepted the decision of the Postmaster General to get another commissioner to conduct this investigation. Now I should like to read the reply of the Postmaster General to this letter. It is under date of August 7, and reads as follows:
I was very pleased indeed to get the full explanation in regard to the investigation in connection with the political charges against the postmaster at Jansen, as I could not quite understand the telegram which we received from the postmaster asking that some other commissioner be called upon to hold the investigation.
Here may I interject that the Postmaster General must have understood it, because I

Supply-Post Office
saw him personally in connection with the matter. The letter proceeds:
Your letter of July 31, however, clarifies the situation and unless you particularly desire that another commissioner should hold this investigation, I am perfectly willing to give instructions that the case be dealt with by your brother.
After the defeated Conservative -candidate had accepted the decision of the Postmaster General to employ another commissioner, apparently the hon. gentleman changed his mind and said that unless the defeated candidate particularly desired another commissioner he would see to it that the defeated candidate's brother conducted the investigation. Further, the Postmaster General says:
There is no objection whatsoever to your giving evidence, neither is there any objection to your brother being commissioner at the hearing where you are giving evidence.
Now I wish to direct the attention of the committee to this telegram, which was received from Mr. Wilson:
Re Jansen post office. Your letter August seventh request Commissioner George Wilson, Kinistino, be instructed to continue investigation. Writing.
So after the Postmaster General had, in a way, suggested that perhaps it might be more advisable to have his brother conduct the investigation, of course Mr. Wilson made that request. When I heard of this, after the promise that had been given me by the Postmaster General, I sent the following wire to the hon. gentleman under date -of August 27:
You promised me during session that Commissioner George Wilson would not conduct hearing of charges against postmaster at Jansen. Am now informed he intends holding investigation September third. Protest most strenuously against brother of man preferring charges acting as commissioner and trust you will make other arrangements. Kindly wire me.
I did not receive a wire in reply, but some time later I received the following letter from A. Lalonde, secretary to the executive, who said:
In conclusion, however, I am instructed by the Postmaster General to assure you that in view of your strenuous representations against the commissioner, when the report is received in the department it will receive his personal consideration.
That letter is dated September 1, 1931. Naturally I was pleased to have the promise of the Postmaster General that he would give personal attention to the evidence in this case when it was received, and under date of September 5 I wrote him as follows:
My protest against the brother of the -defeated candidate acting as commissioner to 41761-199
investigate charges of political partisanship in which his brother was personally interested, was not intended to be personal in any way, as I have not the pleasure of knowing the commissioner in this case, but as a general protest against this kind of thing being done. We know very well that, under certain circumstances, one is sometimes unconsciously biased no matter how fair one tries to be.
The investigation was held, and the commissioner sent in the folowing report:
After hearing the witnesses I find:
1. That the postmaster attempted, during the 1926 dominion election campaign, in conversation with the Conservative candidate for the Humboldt constituency, in which Jansen is situate, to discourage the candidate. Further in the same election the postmaster introduced the Liberal candidate for the Humboldt constituency to an elector whereupon the Liberal candidate made remarks to the elector in support of his party. These remarks were made in the presence of the postmaster.
The effect of that is that the postmaster made certain remarks to the Conservative candidate during the time of an election, which remarks were intended to discredit him in his campaign. Whether that can be classed as a charge of political partisanship I do not know. The candidate admitted that he was alone with the postmaster of Jansen at the time, but in his evidence the postmaster said he had no recollection whatsoever of having made remarks of that kind to the candidate. As to the statement that the postmaster introduced me to one of the citizens of the village, I recall that very well. He did introduce me to one of the citizens who was one of the staunchest Conservatives, but that introduction came quite casually. I was standing talking to the postmaster, not talking politics at all, and was introduced to this man, and I did make a few remarks in a jocular way concerning the election. I knew very well that he was a strong Conservative.
The second finding of the commissioner reads:
That the postmaster permitted the use of his automobile for the conveyance of voters to the polls on the day of the provincial election in 1929. Evidence was adduced by the defence to the effect that the car was so used without the knowledge of the postmaster. This evidence I discount.
The facts of the matter in connection with the use of that car are these. The postmaster, according to the evidence adduced, and which was corroborated by other witnesses, was in the hospital at Saskatoon at the time of the provincial election of 1929. He had been in the hospital two weeks prior to the election and remained there two weeks after the election, and I would suggest that a man in hospital is not very fussy about what use

Supply-Post Office

other people want to make of his car. It was also shown in the evidence that the man who had used the postmaster's car had been working for him at various times and had got the use of the car on different occasions.
The third finding is this:
That the	postmaster	on the	day	of	the
dominion election in 1930 asked one William Henry Schroeder-
Mark you, this William Henry Schroeder was one of the complainants in the affidavit sent in against the conduct of the post office, which the superintendent of postal services in Saskatoon had dismissed as groundless.
That the	postmaster	on the	day	of	the
dominion election in 1930 asked one William Henry Schroeder if he were going to do any driving that day. Mr. Schroeder said he would if there were some remuneration about it. The postmaster said there were a few good Liberal votes that might not be able to get out to vote and Mr. Schroeder asked whom, -whereupon the postmaster handed Mr. Schroeder a piece of paper with the names of from three to five persons written thereon. Mr. Schroeder brought in the voters.
That was absolutely denied by the postmaster, and there was no corroboration. This Schroeder was one of the men who were in competition in a business way with the former postmaster. When it was known. that there was a likelihood of the postmaster at Jansen being dismissed, the citizens of the district and the patrons of that office got busy and circulated a petition which was forwarded to the Postmaster General, asking that the services of Mr. Symons be retained. One of the petitions was from the rural municipality of Prairie Rose, No. 309. It was signed by the reeve, the deputy reeve and all the council. This petition reads:
Jansen, Saskatchewan,
September 15, 1931.
We, the undersigned members of the council of the rural municipality of Prairie Rose No. 309, Jansen, Saskatchewan, having learned of the attempts being made to have Mr. E. J. Symons, postmaster of Jansen, dismissed from office hereby respectfully petition the Postmaster General, Ottawa, to retain Mr. Symons in office solely on his merits and his past services to the community.
We have known Mr. Symons for more than twenty years, and during the whole of that period have always received the most courteous, efficient and obliging service at the Jansen post office, and for these reasons humbly crave your clemency in this matter.
A petition was signed by 358 residents of the district, and patrons of the post office, praying that Mr. Symons be retained in charge of the office. There was also a telegram from the dominion secretary of the

Canadian Postmasters' Association, dated Este-van, Saskatchewan, November 27, 1931. It reads:
Hon. Arthur Sauve,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Ont.
Canadian Postmasters' Association protest strongly against dismissal of Postmaster Ernest Symons of Jansen, Saskatchewan. In view of no evidence of partisanship having been given against him at inquiry and also in view of the fact that the commissioner who conducted the inquiry was the brother of the complainant, public feeling locally is very strong against his dismissal, and our association respectfully asks you that his case be reconsidered in accordance with your promise of August 13, 1930, in which you advised us as follows "I am not infallible but if I should commit an error I shall do my best to repair it."
Briefly, that is the history of the dismissal of the postmaster at Jansen on a charge of political partisanship. Now, I know personally that during the last election in 1930, at any rate, Mr. Symons took no part in the campaign. We have the petition of 358 residents of the district, asking that he be retained; we have the telegrams from the postmasters' association, asking that he be retained; we have the opinion of these postmasters that there was no ground for the conclusion that this man was guilty of partisanship. I have quoted from the telegram from the secretary of the postmasters' association some words of the Postmaster General to the effect that he was not infallible and that if he made mistakes which were brought to his attention he would reconsider them and try to have them rectified. I have also read the statement that the Postmaster General made in Montreal, to the effect that no civil servant need fear anything from any government so long as he did his work. I submit that the record in this case does not bear out the sentiment expressed by the Postmaster 'General at these different times. After the evidence had been submitted to him on several occasions, I went and interviewed him, praying that he reconsider all the evidence in connection with the 'Case. I got a number of promises, but apparently nothing was done, and I submit that if this is the sort of investigation that is going to be carried out when charges of political partisanship are made against postmasters, there might just as well be patronage plain and simple instead of having it camouflaged in this way.
I have not much more to add except that I hope the minister will take a different attitude in the future. I do not expect that there will be any review of this case now, inasmuch as the new postmaster has been appointed, but

Supply-Post Office
I do hope that the minister will review the ease for his own guidance in future. If he will consult the record for the Humboldt constituency since I have had the honour of representing it in this house, he will find that no postmaster has even been dismissed on any charges whatever on my recommendation-never on any charge of political partisanship-and I hope he will keep the record of that constituency clear in the future.


Arthur Sauvé: In answer to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), all I can say is that my remarks in Montreal explained my feeling at that time and at the present time. I am sorry if a misunderstanding has arisen in the case mentioned by my hon. friend, and I shall be very glad to go further into the matter.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Could the Minister
advise me as to the name of the present-postmaster at Rockglen in the constituency of Willow Bunch? This office was vacated some time ago because of a charge of political partisanship brought against the postmaster, Mr. Sproule. I entered a protest against this dismissal. I might say that this man was appointed some years ago on my recommendation. I went to the village when this matter was -being taken up. Five or six applicants for the position had presented themselves to the people gathered together in the town hall, and they voted to have Mr. Sproule appointed postmaster. This man is a returned soldier and is a member of a Conservative family; none of the family have ever been known to vote Liberal. They come from the old family of Sproules here in the east, and probably some hon. members know what they are like-they are dyed in the wool Conservatives. A year or two ago a feud was started between this man and another man in the district, the other taking a solemn declaration that he was going to get this postmaster some time or other. When the government changed he seized the opportunity to lodge a complaint of political partisanship. I do not know that I should interfere in this matter from a political standpoint, because I think the action taken by the department has gained me many votes in the district. The father and mother of this man are very indignant over the dismissal. The chief complaint against him was that he had been a Liberal scrutineer in a provincial by-election in 1929. Both the scrutineer and the deputy returning officer took their oath that that was not so. Another charge was that he was acting as a Liberal 41761-199J
secretary, but the Liberal secretary has taken his oath that he was not. The facts are that this man is a real estate agent and the returning officer asked him to come up to show him how to open the office to start the poll. He said he would; he was there for ten or fifteen minutes in the morning, and because of that he lost his job. He was doing no scrutineering at all. The board of trade of the village has entered a protest and half a dozen affidavits have been signed by different people in the district protesting against this man being dismissed. The affidavits state that nothing was known of any political activity. A petition was sent in, I think, signed by all but two of the people who patronize this post office protesting against the dismissal. Strange to say, the man who was foremost in having this man dismissed, a returned soldier who had been living with Mr. Sproule some two years ago and who was looking forward to getting the position, did not get the position which he was promised. The department went outside the village some thirty or forty miles and brought in another man to act as postmaster. This man is one of the applicants for the position, but I do not know whether he has been appointed as the permanent postmaster.


Mr. SPROULE:: Does the hon. gentleman connect my name with that case?


James J. Donnelly: I cannot help it if the hon. member happens to have the same name.


Arthur Sauvé: I have not the name of the
present postmaster, but I shall obtain it and let my hon. friend know.


James J. Donnelly: The man who has
applied for the job and who was appointed temporary postmaster is Mr. Lawrence. He is a returned soldier, a blacksmith, who had been living some forty miles out from the village. Apparently there was no one in the district good enough for the position and they went outside. Perhaps the department could not find a Tory in the district. I know this man has put in an application and I was wanting to find out if it had been accepted. As I say, I protest against the dismissal of Sproule because he was a good postmaster even if he was a Conservative. His work was very satisfactory to the patrons of the office. He was not appointed because he happened to be a Conservative, he was appointed because it was thought he would give good service, and I think the department has made a mistake in his dismissal.
Supply-Post Office


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Mr. Chairman, for
the last hour I have been debating with myself whether or not to take part in the discussion on these estimates. I am adverse to taking part in a pyrotechnical and polemical discussion on estimates of this kind, but inasmuch as there are two matters in which I am much interested and about which I am very deeply concerned, and inasmuch as many people in my district are agitated over these matters, I think it worth while- to discuss them before the committee. I am very sorry that I was unable to follow fully the hon. members for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) who spoke in French, but I believe the hon. member for Bonaven-ture mentioned the new report and referred to the administration of the Civil Service Commission. I understand the hon. member for Temiscouata referred to men having sore mouths, and while I should like to speak with the sweet tempered moderation of which the poets make so much mention, in view of the extreme nature of these cases I cannot see my way clear to speak in any other tone than that of vigorous protest. I do not know why, but there has been no branch of the administration with which I have had so much trouble as with the Post Office Department, Ever since I came to the house in 1926, the Post Office Department has been a sort of jinx to me, and not only that, but in some respects a destroyer of the ideals which I had brought to the house. I entered parliament as a young man after the election of 1926 and one of the first things that was brought to my attention was the post office case at Mundare. A young high school graduate, George Woitkiw, asked me to intercede on his behalf with the Civil Service Commission. I therefore sent in my recommendation to the secretary of that body; I also visited the- office of the Civil Sendee Commission and made a personal investigation of the case. What did I discover? I discovered, first, that Mr. Woitkiw received by far the largest petition in his favour, namely, 354 as against 115 for Mr. W. A. Stewart; second, he was favoured on pure merit by Doctor Roche, chairman of the commission; third, he received the following favourable recommendation from the district superintendent of postal service:
George Woitkiw has actually been in charge of the work of the Mundare office for the past five years. He is particularly well equipped by reason of education and languages to take care of that office. His disposition and attitude towards the public are all that can be desired. The petition in his favour is to be considered practically the voice of the district, both the English-speaking and other sections, i Mi-. Donnelly.]
Finally, he received the following commendation by the chief examiner, Mr. Bland:
On the three counts of being assistant postmaster, having had six years' experience in the office, and knowing the foreign languages which are necessary for the proper qualifications of the duties, I think Mr. George Woitkiw is the logical choice.
All hon. members will agree with me that, strictly on merit, Mr. George Woitkiw, whom I have just mentioned, should have been given the position of postmaster in the village of Mundare.


John Livingstone Brown: Did the returned soldiei
question enter into the matter?


Michael Luchkovich: No; not a single
returned soldier applied for the position. George Woitkiw did not get the job. Why? Beoause there- was a nigger in the woodpile, and possibly many -hon. members are interested in knowing who this nigger was. There was a villain who entered into the drama which arose out of my efforts to secure justice for Mr. Woitkiw, as well as to prevent the prostitution of the Civil Service Commission into a mere political patronage dispensary. That nigger in the woodpile was the exPostmaster General. As I have already said, I entered the House of Commons a young man, brimful of all the noble aspirations about which we hear so much, extremely zealous for the public welfare with an overwhelming ambition to reform and set things right, fairly saturated and oozing with evangelistic fervour; in a word, I came here as a young man with the highest of ideals. All those ideals were exploded by this single action of the Post Office Department away back in 1926.
The other day I placed on record Mr. Coolican's letter to the Civil Service Commission, asking, yes, I will say demanding, that the other applicant, that is, Mr. Stewart, friend of the defeated candidate, be given the Mundare postmastership. I do not know who this Mr. Coolican is. He evidently must have been acting under instructions from his department. To make a long story short, in this case I think merit was, figuratively speaking, given a slap in the face and patronage was restored again to its former unholy place. I am sorry to have to mention this matter. The other day a report was brought down in the house in regard to the reformation of the civil service administration, and the question I am asking myself now is: Will this new report and the subsequent legislation implementing its findings be successful in sustaining the merit system, or will they continue to allow the percolation of patronage

Supply-Post Office
into the administration of the Civil Service Commission. On that occasion I expressed the opinion that unless a sufficient check were exercised on that body, and particularly on the Post Office Department and its officials, it would not be long before patronage would again begin to creep into the administration of the commission. I repeat: Unless this check is found and made sufficiently effective, nothing less than a trio of saints of the nature and character of St. Peter, St. John and St. Paul, would ever be able to keep the demon of patronage out of the Civil Service Commission, especially if the new commissioners were after the pattern of that saint of two thousand years ago who cut the ear off a patronage hunter of that time. I would not be so cruel as to suggest that the ex-Postmaster General should have an ear cut off, but if patronage is not eradicated, something of this nature might not after all be a bad idea. In such an event I know a lot of men who would be bereft not only of ears but of arms and legs as well.
My original intention, however, was to discuss, not the Mundare post office, but another matter that comes under the purview of the present administration. On March 23, 1931, I was advised by the district superintendent of postal service that unless fifty per cent of the eligible residents along the newly proposed Ryley route subscribed for rural mail delivery boxes, in other words, unless thirty-two of the sixty-three eligible residents along that route paid for boxes, said rural route would not be placed in operation. The establishment of that route was authorized and the contracts thereon duly awarded in 1930, but I have been told that in consequence of the failure of the residents of the locality to purchase rural mail delivery boxes, the service would not be put into effect. Several weeks ago I interviewed the Postmaster General and his deputy, Mr. Gaboury, and I was informed that the reason the aforementioned rural route was not put into operation was that the number of boxes was too small and the number of subscribers did not come up to the required amount. About twelve days after I had interviewed the Postmaster General, I received the following letter from the office of the district superintendent of postal service:
Edmonton, Alberta,
March 21, 1932.
Re: Ryley No. 2 R.R. proposed Dear Mr. Luchkovich,

In answer to your letter of the 16th instant, regarding the number of boxes on the above, I beg to say that I am taking the matter up personally with the postmaster at Ryley, in an endeavour to increase the number to the required amount.
Should I be successful I will let you know.
Some weeks later I received the following answer from Ryley:
The postmaster at Ryley was asked by the inspector, Mr. Hale of Edmonton, to see that the required number of applicants was raised as_ requested. This has been completed and were sent to Edmonton about three weeks ago. Will you kindly give this your attention.
M. B. West,
Ryley, Alberta.
Now I ask the Postmaster General in all sincerity if he thinks it is fair and just, under the circumstances, to ask these people to raise the number of boxes to the required amount, and then after the Ryley applicants had brought the number up to that amount absolutely refuse to put the rural route into operation. This is downright duplicity, evasion and equivocation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir, one more question, the last, the right hon. Prime Minister will admire my diligence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can get up and go out now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would
have liked to say how well things went on. I have but one question to ask the hon. Postmaster General and if he answers favourably, I shall not be obliged to go over the whole pile. I wrote to him, on May 17, in connection with the post office of St. Arsene, and I simply want to know whether I can expect an answer to my letter..


Mr.   SAITVE@Translation: I did not quite catch what the hon. member said.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wrote to
the hon. Postmaster General on May 17, last, in connection with the post office of St. Arsene. I trust that the Minister has found time to read my letter; I would be much obliged if he could give me an immediate answer.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Temiscouata may rest assured that he will receive an answer to his letter, tomorrow morning.


Jean-François Pouliot: What will be the answer?


Arthur Sauvé: As soon as I
have prepared the answer, I shall forward it to the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Postmaster's answer is very vague, he must understand what I mean, and his answer should be ready.
So that the whole committee may understand my remarks, I shall continue in Eng-
Supply-Post Office

lish. The site of the post office was changed at the request of the son-in-law of the man who is secretary-treasurer. He has said he was inspired by public interest, but he had only the interests of his family at heart. The fact is, however, that the post office was changed at a time when the Postmaster General had no complaint against the postmaster in question. In fact that particular postmaster was supported by several Conservatives in the parish who sent petitions to the minister stating that the man in question had not indulged in party politics, that he had been very quiet and did not bother about politics at all. This particular case is unique in that, although a Liberal, the postmaster was supported by Conservatives.
Not only that, but the minister himself wrote me stating that the management of the post office was satisfactory. Those two points ought to have been sufficient to leave the man in peace. Without any notice being given to the postmaster, however, the office was changed; it was transferred to some other place. At that time I wrote the Postmaster General, and no doubt he regretted what had been done as he regretted what happened at Notre Dame du Lac. He wrote to me that he had no objection to the man making his application to the Civil Service Commission, provided he .offered a new site. That application was made, because the man believed in the minister's word. He was reluctant to apply. After I showed him the minister's letter he asked me, "What kind of man is the minister?" I said, "He is a good man; he is an honest man; you can rely upon him. If he tells you you may file your application you may be sure he will not object to your appointment. You are running the risk, but you are dealing with a fair man." He said, "If the minister is a fair man I will make my application, and if I am not appointed by the Civil Service Commission I shall not complain. If I am appointed by the Civil Service Commission the minister will confirm the appointment, and I shall be perfectly satisfied. I run only a fifty per cent risk." That man was appointed by the Civil Service Commission, but despite the fact the site he has offered is satisfactory, the minister has not yet approved the appointment. Surely the minister does not wish that man to have a wrong opinion of him.


Ernest Lapointe: He will not prevent the appointment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that; I see that in his face; I know he will be true to his word. I know he will not disappoint that man who has played the game. He sent his application
fMr. Pouliot.]
in the belief that the minister would stick to his word. I see him saying "yes." Does he mean "yes?" I am through with my speech if he answers "yes."


Mr. STEVENS:: Is the hon. member carrying on an auction sale?


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope the minister will fulfil my expectation. Does he mean "yes?"


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much am I offered?


Jean-François Pouliot: I expect "yes" from the good minister.


George Spotton: Ahl


Jean-François Pouliot: I expect "yes" from his tongue and lips.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall do my best.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall be disappointed if the minister does not live up to my expectations.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I was requested to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to an act of injustice which, incidentally, did not take place in my constituency, but in the adjacent county, that of Dorchester. Mr. Couture, former postmaster of Frampton, has written to me enclosing the famous statement of the hon. Postmaster General at Montreal, in which it is stated that he extends his protection to postmasters and undertakes to shield them against all ills, annoyances and misfortunes which might happen to them, in a word, he becomes the father and protector of the unfortunate postmasters. Mr. Couture begs of me to inquire from the minister why he has not persevered in his good intentions. Mr. Couture was not dismissed as postmaster because he had taken an active part in politics or because he was guilty of political partisanship-no blame could be attached to him in this connection. Notwithstanding all the efforts of those seeking positions given by the Conservative party in the parish, they could find absolutely nothing against Mr. Couture to justify a dismissal founded on political partisanship. They then had recourse to other means, the site of the post office was changed. Mr. Couture contends that he was never notified of the decision to change the site of the post office, and that he was never given the option of choosing another location for the post office. However, the district superintendent contends that on two different occasions he wrote to Mr. Couture to notify him as follows:
I am instructed by the Postmaster General, through the Post Office Department to request you to kindly find a more convenient locality for the post office.

Supply-Post Office
Mr. Couture, in a sworn statement-and his assistant also makes a sworn statement in that sense-that -never did the letters of Mr. Green, superintendent of the Quebec postal district reach the post office of Framipton. Mr. Couture was never notified that the intention was to change the site of the post office and he was never notified to look for another locality. Finally he was dismissed, and the reason given was that he did not comply with the instructions from Mr. Green, which he swore never having received, a statement which is corroborated by his assistant. If it is a fact that Mr. Green really requested Mr. Couture to look for another locality for the post office, he was more fortunate -than the ipeople of my constituency, to whom the same mishap occurred. At St. Lazare, the postmistress was dismissed when the site of the post office was changed; there was no question of having written to her, or having given her the option of getting another locality. They had nothing to reproach her politically; however, in order to replace her by a Conservative election campaigner they simply changed the site of the post office. Following the provincial election, the new postmaster, at St. Lazare, a man named Belanger, was appointed for services rendered to his party, having held a committee room in his residence-a Conservative committee, needless to say. I wrote to the hon. Postmaster General to request him to dismiss Belanger, since he had dismissed liberal postmasters who were far from being as guilty as Belanger. The Postmaster General, however, answered me very singularly, saying, "He kept a committee room in his home, but that has no importance whatsoever, as he is not yet permanently appointed as postmaster." He was shortly after. He was qualifying to become permanent postmaster.
Mr. Chairman, I avail myself of this opportunity to point out to the Postmaster General a number of other cases; I shall close my remarks in two -minutes.
First, with reference to investigations held, some one suggested to the Postmaster General that he should simplify the procedure. I would suggest to him a more radical reform, namely: to entirely dispense with Such investigations; it would be more honest. These investigations are but a camouflage, it is simply a smoke screen ito mask the intentions of the Postmaster General. Before the inquiry ever begins, the postmaster is, usually, already dismissed or-it is a foregone conclusion-the site is -changed, the -camouflage is but a smoke screen. Why not be honest about it, why not entirely eliminate these investigations? Let the Postmaster General
take the responsibility of the dismissal or of maintaining in office the postmaster.
As evidence that these investigations are a joke, most of the six or seven inquiries held in my constituency were presided over by a former defeated candidate in the county of Bellechasse. Following an inquiry held at La-Durantaye, one of my uncles was dismissed. I think, if the Postmaster General had wanted to display some courtesy towards me, he would have maintained him in office, especially as there was nothing against him. That investigation was presided over by a defeated candidate in the county, and the candidate whom I defeated in 1930 was also entrusted with preparing the evidence and the false witnesses. You will, sir, readily understand what importance can be attached to such inquiries! Instead of holding investigations of that kind, why not act honestly and simply dismiss the unfortunate victim unjustly charged. Moreover, he expects to be dismissed, it is a foregone conclusion: To. the victor belong the spoils!
I now come to the case of Mr. Laurent Tanguay, an employee in the Department of Justice, to whom I often referred. I requested his dismissal. I charged him here, in the house, under my responsibility as a member, with political partisanship. As a member of parliament, I requested an investigation, it was not granted. I charged Tanguay with having openly and impudently taken an active part in politics, during fifteen days. At the last provincial election, he was the principal speaker of the Conservative candidate, in the county of Bellechasse. I thought, as a simpleton: Since postmasters were dismissed for the acts of their children or wife, they would also dismiss Tanguay. I thought that if I lodged a complaint, as member of Parliament, the department would act, an investigation would be held and Tanguay dismissed. I have never heard any further about my complaint and so far, nothing has been done. I was, recently informed, by the reply made by the Postmaster General to the hon. member for Megantic, that Tanguay had thrown off all restrain. The latter, it seems, is an employee in the Justice department but in truth, his duties consist in filling vacancies, he looks after the petty work of "patronage" for the Conservative party, at Quebec. Not only was he given an office in the post office in Quebec-a government building-but he is given an assistant from the Post Office department to help him in his work; his correspondence is forwarded under the privilege of the postal frank of the Quebec District Superintendent.
Supply-Post Office

Mr. Chairman, I never before heard of such a notorious abuse. When the Liberals were in power, those who handled patronage for the Liberal party did not have the impudence of installing themselves in government buildings and making use of the officials for their own work. They did not have the impudence of using the frank for their correspondence. Those are the facts I wanted to point out and against I protest.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to ask the hon. Postmaster General whether a rural mail service has been established at Riviere-Ouelle, and who has been appointed mail carrier?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Iiamouraska will admit it is somewhat difficult to answer on the spur of the moment. I could give him an answer tomorrow by letter, but I cannot answer him now.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. Postmaster General, when he forwards me that reply, to explain also an anomaly that exists with respect to that appointment. In the first place, on December 10, tenders were called for in connection with this contract. The tenders were opened:	Pierre Boucher, of Riviere-Ouelle,
$510; Louis-Philippe Boucher, $550 and, among others, Alfred Lebel, $594. The day the tenders were received, Alfred Lebel wrote the hon. Postmaster General as follows: Honourable minister:
It was due to an error that I put in a tender of $594 in connection with the Riviere-Ouelle mail contract, rural route No. 1. Please correct my tender and insert the amount of $505 which I am willing to accept.
I	find it somewhat strange that Lebel should have written the day the tenders were to be published, that is December 10, that he agreed to reduce his tender price to $505, exactly $5 lower than that of Pierre Boucher to whom the contract was awarded, nevertheless. Several requests were forwarded to the hon. minister. He always replied:	No, it is impossible, the contract was awarded to Pierre Boucher, the lowest tenderer, and nothing can be changed. Finally, I find a letter written by the hon. member for Dorchester who, I suppose, has developed a certain fondness for the county of Kamouraska since he contributed with his excellent friend the Solicitor General to the splendid victory I won in 1925. The hon. member for Dorchester, since it is signed O. Gagnon, said:

Dear Mr. Anderson,
re Riviere Ouelle Mail.
In view of the fact that M. Lebel is carrying the mail between the central post office anid the two small ipost offices which will be closed. I think it is only fair that Lebel gets the contract.
Yours truly,
O. Gagnon.
And then, instructions were given and I can find absolutely nothing in this file that justifies this change of front on the part of the minister. Here we have the man who put in the lowest tender; his contract is signed, and there is only a letter signed O. Gagnon which the hon. minister can possibly identify more readily than I could, and that results in the department facing about in this manner. And they fall back on that because the gentleman who holds the contract says he made a mistake which he is very slow in pointing out and stating that he is prepared to correct that mistake by submitting a tender at a price lower by $5 than the tender price of the man who had secured the contract.


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to say
to the hon. member for Kamouraska that I will ask the superintendent, Mr. Anderson, to give me all possible information on the matter and I will pass this information on to him.


Peter John Veniot: I am anxious not to delay the passing of the estimates of the Postmaster General; it is now almost six o'clock, and if there are no other hon. members to speak I will be as brief as possible in order to put through these estimates by six o'clock. I have waited all afternoon; I did not want to take the place of any other hon. gentleman, so I hope the committee will bear with me in the few remarks I have to make. As I sat listening this afternoon I was reminded of scenes that occurred in this house in 1929; to-day I saw the chickens come home to roost. I did not feel so sorry for the Postmaster General as I did for some of his colleagues, who had to listen to complaints with regard to violations of the regulations, and complaints with regard to the way dismissals have been made. These same complaints were made against me in 1928, when I was Postmaster General.
With those opening remarks I wish to direct the attention of the Postmaster General to a case in which I think action should be taken immediately, not in the interests of the officials concerned but in the interests of the principle laid down in the Civil Service Act with regard to the method of making appointments. I have in my hand the record with regard to a vacancy at Oliver Siding in the

Supply-Post Office
county of Restigouche. I am not going into the question of the dismissal or the appointment, but the report of the district superintendent at St. John should have been forwarded long ago to the Post Office Department. In that report I find these words:
... it may very reasonably prove in the interests of the department eventually if the appointment of a permanent postmaster be delayed for as long a period as possible. The rating has been signed with this qualification.
I want to direct the attention of the PostMaster General to this condition of affairs. No superintendent should be allowed to make a report like this. The reason for this recommendation is that the man who was then temporarily in charge of the office, after a dismissal had been made for political reasons- and this office comes under the Civil Service Commission-was under a cloud for some sort of misdemeanor, and bitter complaints had been sent to the department. This man was brought before the courts on a criminal charge, but the grand jury threw it out, I do not say whether or not this man was guilty of wrongdoing; I know nothing of the case, but I say a report of this kind should not be sent in, recommending that this man be not appointed permanently for the present and that the qualifications be not sent to the Civil Service Commission until it is seen whether or not the man will prove worthy of the confidence that was placed in him in the beginning. That is a practice that should be stopped, and the district superintendent who countenanced that report should be reprimanded. Nothing like this should be allowed to prevail in any department of the government. If a man is worthy of being appointed to a position it should be given him; he should not be appointed temporarily in order to see if his reputation will improve. I may add that in this case a couple of returned soldiers wrote the district superintendent at St. John for forms with which to apply for that position, but they were never favoured with a reply.
There is another case to which I should like to refer, having to do with the appointment of a postmaster at St. Quentin, in the county of Restigouche. I do not want the minister to inquire into the qualifications of that man but I do want him to inquire into his nationality. My information is that he is an American subject, and if he is not a British subject he has no right to a position under the Civil Service Commission.
Then there is a case in Green Point, in my own county, to which I should like to refer.
A Madame Thomas Fournier was appointed temporarily to this vacancy. I want to remind the Postmaster General that under the act a married woman cannot be appointed postmistress if her husband is capable of supporting the family. In addition to that, some ten or twelve years ago, when members of this family looked after the post office at Green Point, they were dismissed because of shortages in their accounts, and I should like that matter to be taken into serious consideration. I believe there is a scheme on foot to have some of the people who were connected with those dismissed for shortages appointed in charge of that office.
I have one other case to draw to the attention of the minister, and I hope to conclude in a few minutes. This is a case in the county of Colchester, Nova Scotia. If the minister does not know it already I want to inform him of the way in which some of his superintendents are notifying postmasters to get off the job. I have here a letter dated Halifax, March 29, 1932, addressed to Mr. A. J. Yuill, Old Barns, Nova Scotia, reading as follows:
Dear Sir:
I have received instructions from the department at Ottawa to relieve you of the post office and to transfer it temporarily to Mr. Harold Crowe Chisholm. The reasons for the change are that the proposed site is more suitable and centrally located. You will be advised of the date on which the transfer is to take place.
That is signed by the district superintendent; the man is dismissed and then held in office until the transfer takes place. If I had been that postmaster I would have walked out the moment I received that notice. The reason given is that the other place is more centrally located. Well, the old post office is situated, we will say, where the Postmaster General is sitting, and the new one is situated where I am standing in relation to him. It is only 60 feet across the street; they are opposite each other. Why that reason was given, therefore, that it was more centrally located, I do not know.
The Postmaster General said last night that during the time I had the honour to be Postmaster General I had made 317 dismissals without investigation, without report, or without reason. He must have been wrongly informed by somebody. I know that he would not do me an injustice. However, I have here the record which I have submitted to the house at different times in regard to dismissals, and that record I will place on Hansard once more. From October, 1926, to
Supply-Post Office

April, 1928, there were 473 dismissals made by myself, and during that time 383 of these dismissals were made on report submitted either by inspectors or by investigating commissioners. That is on record. Among those there were 56 dismissed for shortages, abandonment of office, arrest of postmasters. There were 47 due to unsatisfactory management, and on investigation and report. There were 49 due to changes in site, on the report of inspectors, and there were 4 reinstatements. In interest of service, on report, there were 91, and no reason given, 90. The next list shows 84. All of these 84 were dismissed on certain reports after investigation, except 2. In the next list there are 45, and of these, in every case except 2, there were reports from inspectors or investigating commissioners. This list is made up as follows:	Shortages,
abandonment of office, and arrests, 22; unsatisfactory management, on reports of inspectors, 9; changing site contrary to orders, 1; interest of service, on report, 2; changes in site, on report, 6; and political partisanship, 5.
That makes a total of 602 up to the beginning of the year 1930. I have not the record with me from that date up to June, 1930, but up to the present time, under my hon. friend opposite, there have been 597 dismissals in eighteen months, or an average of 33 per month, whereas during my time there were 602 dismissals in a period of four years, or about forty-dive or forty-six months-I am not counting the 400 referred to by the hon. member for Temiseouata-and that gives an average of 14 a month. So that we have 14 a month on my part as compared with 33 on the part of the present minister.
I should like to have gone into some other matters such as postage stamps, for example. I see that there have been laid on the table supplementary estimates in which an additional amount of $266,000 is asked for. I understand that this is for extra cost of postage stamps and other matters connected with the department. As I say, I should like to have been able to deal with these matters, but I wish to facilitate, as far as I can, the passing of these estimates, and with these few remarks that I have made I will now do what I can to help the minister get the estimates through.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Ida Tarantour Waxman.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Frances Helen Dawes Porteous.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Minnie Jones Chandler.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Elizabeth Irene Woolnough.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Ellery Sanford Johnston.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Faria Goldman Rotlier.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Romeo Xavier Vandette.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Adlena Emma Sills Burrow, otherwise known as Adlena Emma Sills Burrows-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Ida Judith Clark Freudberg.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Routledge Gunther.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Chesley Hastings Potter.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Theo Alice MacFarlane Lamb.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Chia Hannah Shiff.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Margaret Spencer Heald.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 93, to incorporate The W. S. Newton Company.-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre).

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply Mr. LaVergne in the Chair.
Civil government-National Revenue-
Salaries, $956,772; contingencies, $50,000.
Mr. EULER:: Mr. Chairman, will my hon. friend-


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: If my hon. friend will permit me, I should like to say a word.


William Daum Euler: Certainly.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As I look at this book
of estimates, I see two pages in front of me and I see that in nearly every case the effort that has been made to decrease the estimates has been followed by success. The increases

Supply-National Revenue
are ini the Department of National Revenue, and they are considerable in amount. These increases, however, are more apparent than real, having been occasioned by the treatment which the board of customs has received. In past years the board of customs, a board set up under section 3 of the Customs Act, attracted to itself a personnel, which of course involved expenditures. This year it was thought desirable that the personnel of the board should be put where i.t properly belonged and that the expenditures so involved should also appear under civil government, which, in fact, they are. Therefore there are these apparent increases, but they are due to the taking over of 184 employees attached to the board of customs with an expenditure of about $414,000, so that in effect this is not an increase, although it is so styled.
The result of the appropriations that are laid before the committee to-night in connection with National Revenue is that there is a decrease of over $3,140,000. I was very anxious to say that and I am pleased the hon. member for North Waterloo gave me the opportunity, because the. initial page was spoiled by these large increases for which, as a department, we are not responsible at this time. They are a bookkeeping entry, if I may so put it, taken into the account for the first time, and hereafter these items will appear under National Revenue, civil government.


William Daum Euler: I presume the amount of increase, then, will mean a decrease in the other very large item, No. 277?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend is right.


William Daum Euler: It is a transfer from one to the other. In connection with the board of customs, does my hon. friend really think the 100 or more employees who are supposed to be under the control of that board are so in effect? I used to think it was pretty much of a misnomer; perhaps my hon. friend does not see it in that way.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would agree with my hon. friend. The answer to his question is no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Revenue-	.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, and temporary buildings and rentals, $6,600,000.
Salaries and travelling expenses of officers of the inspection, investigation and audit services, $692,000.
Miscellaneous, including printing and stationery; subscriptions to commercial papers;
flags; dating stamps, locks; instruments; express charges on samples; legal forms; legal expenses; premiums on guarantee bonds; uniforms for customs-excise officers; laboratory equipment and supplies, etc., $625,000.
To provide for the expenses of the preventive service,	including maintenance of revenue
cruisers, salaries and expenses of officers appointed for the prevention of smuggling and for the investigation of reported frauds against the revenue, the purchase or charter of vessels and the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against the revenue laws, $1,340,000.
Amount to be paid to the Department of Justice, to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service: to create positions, make appointments and pay salaries and expenses of officers appointed for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said Act, $55,000.
To provide for the administration of the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act, and salary of $7,200, for the Commissioner of Income Tax, $1,915,000.
To pay to Captain S. Dunphy, North Sydney, N.S., the whole or such part of the sum of $5,000, deposited by him and by decision of the minister forfeited to the crown in re seizure No. 50550/13054, as may be necessary to enable him to defray his costs as respondent on an appeal to the Privy Council from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in his favour in an action for damages brought by him claiming legislation under which seizure was made to be ultra vires, $5,000.-Total, $11,232,000.
William Daum Euler: Perhaps my hon. friend desires to make a statement explaining the decreases in this item.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If my hon. friend will permit me, I do not know that I am very anxious to talk, but since I have been invited and drawn to my feet, let me make this brief statement. When these estimates were prepared I was impressed, with the absolute necessity of special economy. I knew we had to cut according to the cloth; I felt that the cloth was scanty and I still feel that is so. When these estimates were first prepared I thought it might be possible to cut them even to the very quick, with the result that the estimates of this department are put in at a figure that does not allow us efficiently to carry on. I realize, as I am sure all hon. members do, that if a business needs money, the expenditure of it may mean either the saving of the business or a large profit to it. I was forced to the conclusion, after these estimates were prepared, as they were a couple of months ago, that we needed more money,
Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I believe I might almost congratulate the minister on the fact that he has been able so substantially to reduce his estimates. The only point which occurs to me is the one which he has mentioned himself.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That I have gone too far?


William Daum Euler: Yes, perhaps. After all the Department of National Revenue is successful only to the degree to which it collects revenues. That collection takes the greatest degree of supervision and vigilance and cannot be accomplished without certain activities. For instance there must be adequate allowance for salaries and travelling expenses of officers of the inspection, investigation and andit services. The investigation and audit services are particularly important because it is through the exercise of those services that the department is able to ascertain where the revenues are not being paid as they should be. I am wondering whether the minister has gone too far, and that through the elimination of certain expenditures he may lose more than he gains. That is, he may lose 
more through loss of revenue than he gains by the cut. I merely make that observation in passing. If he is not, it might be fair to assume that the late government spent too much-an accusation 1 should not like to admit. There is no doubt the cut is very large. In the first item there is a decrease of almost 12,000,000. I presume that is partially attributable to the fact that there has been a ten per cent reduction in civil servants' salaries. I should like to ask the minister, however, whether he is quite certain that he is retaining a sufficient auditing and investigating staff to get the necessary results by way of revenue, and I am wondering if he is not losing revenue because of the decrease in his expenditures.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The interrogation of the hon. member is most appropriate, and the subject to which he has directed my attention is the one which has troubled me most. Finally, however, after going into executive sessions with the officers of the department we have decided that if the supplementary vote is granted we can carry through with a strong arm. That being so, in these times I am not going to fight for any margin to work upon, because we need all the margins we can get to carry on the business of the country. As my hon. friend has said, the whole thing amounts to only a straight business proposition. Will the sum for which we ask advance the interests of the country, or will it not? After the best consideration we in the department have been able to give, we have come to the conclusion that the sum before the committee is sufficient.
I Shall now show how the $1,964,860 is made up. The estimate for the year 1932-33 is $6,600,000, as compared with $8,564,860 for the year 1931-32, or a decrease of $1,964,860. This sum is made up as follows:
Vacancies not provided for, 330; attached to that, $568,245; ten per cent on salaries, $657,661; decrease in contingencies, $738,954; amount required in 1932-33, $6,925,000; amount approved in estimate, $6,600,000.
Hon. members will note that the amount short is $325,000, which is made up in the supplementary estimates.


William Daum Euler: So that we may form a better judgment could the minister tell me how many peopl.e were employed in the audit and investigation branches, and how many are now employed in those branches. In other words, what is the reduction in personnel?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The number on the inspection branch, the investigation and values branch, the investigation and drawbacks branch and the audit branch totals 277. Their

Supply-National Revenue
salaries amount to $738,4*,-less ten per cent, of course. I do not like to advertise this fact too freely, but I must say that the vacancies have not been filled. Where there was a chance of sailing along with the smaller staff, and yet making the same time, these vacancies have not been filled. Therefore the number is less to-day by reason of our manipulation of the vacancies.


William Daum Euler: Have any been laid off?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No.


William Daum Euler: I see in connection with the preventive service there is an item of $1,340,000. Last year it was $2,108,991, or a reduction of $768,991. I suppose that reduction is due to the fact that the service has been taken over by the mounted police. No doubt the answer to that query, at least to some extent, would be "Yes." There is still left however a very large sum for the preventive service.
I am not suggesting it is too much, but I should like to know where the dividing line comes between the estimate for the preventive service which now goes to the mounted police branch of the service, and that which still continues within the control of the department itself. I gathered from statements made about two weeks ago that the preventive service is now taken over by the mounted police. Is this vote for the branch of the mounted police doing preventive work, or is it for the Department of National Revenue? Where is the dividing line?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My answer is this: These estimates were prepared before the mounted police finally took over the preventive service. The result is that the mounted police have all those who were formerly in the preventive service with the exception of fifty-eight men and seventy who have retired from the service. This item, if adopted, will be turned over to the mounted police except what is necessary to provide for the fifty-eight men whom we must retain. They are retained, I may say, because they are investigators, examiners and auditors. The mounted police, we hope, will detect crime, and we will follow it up.


William Daum Euler: Now we know that in the
mounted police force the salaries are lower than they were in the preventive service. Was the estimate made on the basis of the old salaries or of the salaries paid to the mounted police?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It was made in anticipation of the cut.


William Daum Euler: So in future this estimate
for the preventive service will almost entirely disappear from the estimates of the Department of National Revenue?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is right.


William Daum Euler: Last year I recall half a
million dollars was added to the usual estimate for the administration of the Income War Tax Act.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It was $350,000.


William Daum Euler: I was under the impression
that it was about half a million dollars. I asked at the time the then Minister of Finance -the Prime Minister-why the amount was increased, and he stated I thought \ er>
fairly-that he felt by the expenditure of the additional sum so much more income tax would be collected that the outlay would be well repaid. I see this year the amount s reduced. Would not the same argument apply this year as applied last?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We hope to do what
we did last year. We spent the money out of the income tax vote. As I am informed none of this $350,000 was infringed upon, but owing to the extra money we found available in the vote and spent we added a good many thousand dollars to the revenue. We propose to keep on in the same way, if we can.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I desire to ask the
minister a question, but frankly I cannot find any particular vote of his that covers it. There is in a sense hanging over certain of our industries something in the way of a threat of prohibitory tariff legislation now before the United States Congress, dealing with coal, oil, lumber and copper. I am particularly interested in lumber; I am not very familiar with the other commodities. We have a favourable trade balance in lumber with the United States, notwithstanding that we import a veiy substantial quantity of American lumber. But balancing our imports of the lumber industry as an industry against our exports, my opinion is that the balance is in favour of that country because of rhe fact that there is being used in the lumber industry in all parts of Canada, particularly in British Columbia and to a considerable degree in Ontario, a very large volume of equipment in the way of logging, saw mill and planing mill machinery imported from the United States. But without going into details, the lumber industry itself estimates that 'the importation of this American equipment more than offsets our favourable trade
Supply-National Revenue

balance in lumber with the United States. In the eastern provinces we are suffering to a very considerable degree by the dumping of lumber products of certain grades, mainly into Ontario and Quebec. Under existing legislation has the Department of National Revenue power to protect the lumber industry against this dumping if the proposed tariff is put into effect at Washington? In other words, if the United States authorities determine to make it impossible for us to trade with them at all in lumber, can we, without new legislation being passed, protect our lumber industry? If the minister could give me that information the whole lumber trade would appreciate it very much.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As I think members of the committee pretty well know, if there is any attack made which, in the language of section 43, "prejudicially or injuriously affects the interests of Canadian producers" a special value for duty can be fixed on instructions from the governor in council to the Minister of National Revenue. If unfair or slaughter trade is introduced into Canada by the United States, there is a ready weapon at hand in that section of our law. It was placed upon the statute books at the instance of a Liberal government in regard to natural products, and therein in my opinion they did well. It has been carried somewhat further by legislation which this parliament enacted covering any products which were dumped or slaughtered here to the prejudice of those engaged in the business of those products in this country. My answer therefore would be yes.


George Brecken Nicholson: Thank you very much.


Mr. DUFF:: With regard to duties affecting lumber coming from the United States, is it not true that last June this government put on a special duty of one per cent, and the American government immediately retaliated, in fact practically put a gun to the head of my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue and told him that if he did not take off his duty they would put a special duty of II per thousand feet on boards, planks and deals of fir, pine, spruce, hemlock or larch in the rough or not further manufactured than dressed on one side when imported from Canada, with the result that my hon. friend as Minister of National Revenue had to go to the governor in council and ask for an order taking back what this government has done?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) is right in his basic facts.


William Duff: Thanks, very much.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He is wrong in centering that matter around me.


William Duff: You are the head of the Department of National Revenue.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I had nothing whatever to do with putting on the one per cent excise tax. It seems that at the present time there is in the United States tariff something that some of us were not altogether too familiar with. It involved only one per cent, and we cloaked that one per cent by describing it as an excise tax. There is in the United States tariff a provision, speaking from memory, that if any tax is placed against United States lumber a tax of SI per thousand, or some such figure, comes into effect as a countervailing tariff, so when our one per cent excise tax was passed they came back with this provision. What was the reasonable thing to do? We replied that we did not want the $1 a thousand against us, and it was not applied against Canadian lumber because we took off the one per cent tax here. I am sure my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough will not blame me for advocating the removal of that tax.


William Duff: My hon. friend knows that I
believe in free trade. I do not believe in any tariffs, any restrictions or any regulations which will affect the trade of Canada. But if I understood correctly what my hon. friend said in reply to the hon. member for East Algoma, the minister was not quite frank. Consequently I take him to task, because if my information is correct this special tax against American lumber was passed by this government on June 2, and our United States friends immediately protested.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I know my hon. friend does not want to misinterpret what was done. This was not a special tax against United States lumber; it was a one per cent excise tax on everything.


William Duff: It was not a tax applied by the Liberal government, so I consider it an extra, special tax. In any case the fact remains that this tax was put on by the present government, and immediately that was done the United States government said to us, through our representative at Washington, "If you do not take off this tax we will put a duty of $1 per thousand against all lumber and manufactured wood products coming from your country." If my information is correct the United States government went even further and said to our representative, "We are not satisfied that you should say you will take off the tax," though hon. gentlemen opposite

Supply-National Revenue
were glad to do so; the United States government said, "We want you to pass an order in council." A few years ago, when we were in power and hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting on this side of the house, we were told that our tariff policy was made in Washington. Here, however, is a distinct case where this government, not at the request but at the insistence of the United States, passed an order in council removing the one per cent excise tax on lumber and leaving it on all the other goods imported into this country.


Mr. YOUNG:: Was the order in council
framed in Washington?


William Duff: I would not be surprised, although I have no definite information. I do know that the United States were not satisfied until the order in council passed by this government was placed in the hands of their government, to show good faith. At the insistence of the United States this government was compelled to remove this special duty on lumber, and I should like to know why that was done in the case of lumber, at the request of the United States, when it was not done in connection with all other products.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Duff: No, I want an answer.


Ernest Lapointe: You will not get it.


William Daum Euler: I have a few questions to
ask, which I think the minister can answer very easily. Some two years ago we made provision for the introduction of the eight hour day in connection with the employees of the department. That was not completed at the time I left the department, and I should like to know if it now has full application.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There is an order in
council dealing with the Department of National Revenue, which is copper lined and iron bound with regard to the eight hour day. I wondered why some other departments were not affected at the same time. That order in council is being lived up to, though it has cost the department an immense amount of money. I have been told that by reason of the eight hour day something like $600,000 of extra expense has been put upon the department. That was the figure mentioned to me; it is not accurate at present, but I know I am safe in saying, from what has come before me, that a very large sum of money has had to be expended in order to carry out that provision. I do not wish to be understood as complaining, but my hon. friend from North Waterloo knows how
necessary it is to have men at the ports at all times, and as a result the expense has been very considerable. I think the answer to my hon. friend's question, however, is that it is being lived up to in letter and in spirit.


William Daum Euler: Just a word with regard to the sales tax. Some two years ago large sums of money were owing the department by brewers and distillers. I am not now referring to those cases which were taken to the courts. Other firms owed large sums of money, and it was necessary to nurse them along a bit. I should like to ask the minister if those amounts have been collected or the indebtedness materially reduced.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The amounts have been materially reduced, and I think I have helped reduce them.


William Daum Euler: Were any applications for
licences made last year?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There was one application, but if my memory serves me aright no licence was issued.


William Daum Euler: Is the department still
observing the practice of consulting with the provinces with regard to the issuing of licences?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes.


William Daum Euler: In connection with amounts owed by brewers and distillers, there is one other question. The department took legal action against several brewers and distillers with regard to the export of liquor or beer; in many cases a settlement was made voluntarily and they agreed to pay, usually in instalments. Then I understand that one case, the Carling case, was carried to the privy council, where a decision -was rendered against the department. Have any of the other concerns, who perhaps had cases more or less similar to the Carling case, applied for the refund of the amounts paid, and if so, what is the attitude of the department in this connection?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As my hon. friend knows, the Carling case was won by the department in each court until the privy council was reached. The privy council, however, held that the department was wrong. Before the case reached the privy council, as my hon. friend has said, settlements were made with indivdual brewers. Naturally, after the judgment of the privy council, some of those concerns who had paid their taxes thought that if they had continued in litigation a little longer they might have enjoyed the fine result
Supply-National Revenue

that came to the Carling company. But the settlement with these brewers was made before the judgment of the privy council. The settlements were made upon the advice of their attorneys, acting for them in these suits, and, may I say, they were made independently of what the privy council judgment might be in the Carling case. They are being held to these settlements, and not one has received any consideration by trying to hark back to the position they would have been in if they had travelled along with the Carling people all through.


William Daum Euler: One other question in connection with liquor matters. In view of the prohibition of export to the United States via Canadian ports and the consequent export of liquor to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, from which points we do not know where the liquor went, although we may have a suspicion, and in view of the fact that the exporters of liquor and beer had paid no excise tax, may I ask whether there is reason to believe that any of that liquor was smuggled back into Canada? Is there any suspicion that this has taken place, and if so, to what extent?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not think my hon. friend should ask me what my suspicions are, but since I have been in the office I have certainly learned more about smuggling than I knew before, and if I may venture a guess, I should say that some of it has returned. How much, I do not know.


William Daum Euler: Has it been necessary to increase the preventive service in consequence?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, but that amendment to the Export Act meant a serious falling-off in the revenue.


William Duff: The excise tax having been increased from one to three per cent, what is the position of the Department of National Revenue with respect to the order in council passed on October 20, 1931, revoking the excise tax so far as the importation of lumber from the United States was concerned? Is lumber from the United States now free of the excise tax of three per cent or not?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think that would be a proper question for the Minister of Finance. I see that I have not made myself clear to at least one member of the committee in regard to lumber. The position of lumber was this. There was in the United States tariff a couiftervailing provision that if any

duty, even the slightest, were put on-and they took note of one per cent-then, if I remember rightly, they put on a rate of SI a thousand.


Mr. MALCOLM:: One dollar and fifty cents.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Whatever the figure is, the argument is the same. That figure went on. It was not fair, since the balance of trade was largely in our favour, that for the sake of one per cent excise tax we should deny to those who shipped lumber from Canada the privilege of doing so, because they would be met with a prohibitive tariff. If anyone objects to our action in that regard, then he will have to have his argument with somebody else.


William Duff: But there are other items of trade besides lumber in which we have a favourable balance with the United States.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, but there is no
countervailing item in the United States tariff.


William Duff: Yes, there is.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Not many.


William Duff: There are several in connection with which there is a balance of trade in favour of Canada. Why should lumber be picked out in this regard? If it is a fair proposition to take the excise tax off lumber, surely it is just as fair and in the interests of the common people of the country that the excise tax should be taken off other commodities. I asked the minister whether the order in council passed on October 20 last, taking off the one per cent tax on lumber, would apply to the increase from one to three per cent brought down by the Minister of Finance in his budget, and he sidestepped my question by referring me to his colleague. I have in my hand a copy of the order in council which was passed, and the name of the Minister of Finance is not mentioned in it. It was the Minister of National Revenue who applied to the governor in council for the passing of the order in council.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It certainly was.


William Duff: Then why not take the responsibility? Why should the minister want to burden the Minister of Finance any further? Goodness knows he has enough trouble now without the hon. gentleman trying to place this additional burden on him. The order in council states that His Excellency the Governor General in Council "on the recommendation of the Minister of National Revenue", and so on. Not the Prime Minister, who was

Supply-National Revenue
Minister of Finance at that time, nor the present Minister of Finance, but the Minister of National Revenue. It was on his recommendation that it was done. Why, then, when I ask a fair and reasonable question, should the minister practically tell me that I ought not to ask it on his estimates but wait until the estimates of the Minister of Finance come down? I contend that if it is fair to take the excise tax off lumber imported into Canada, other industries which suffer by having imposed upon them this tax of three per cent should be treated in the same way. The discrimination is not fair. All industries in Canada, whether they be farming, fishing, lumbering, or mining, should be treated alike. No special favour should be shown any one industry, and if the Minister of National Revenue is going to recommend to the government the taking off of the excise tax in connection with lumber, it is only right that every other industry should be placed in the same position.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There is nothing in the
Minister of National Revenue having made the recommendation to council. As is well known, all recommendations in connection with the administration of revenue are supposed to be made to council by the Minister of National Revenue. That's that. With regard to sidestepping the hon. gentleman's question, I was not aware that I was doing anything of the kind. The hon. gentleman is no more apt to sidestep than I am; I do not think either of us is given to that. The point, however, is that there was in the United States tariff a special countervailing item, and it was felt that in the balance the lumber industry of the country would be benefited if that one per cent, as it was then-there was no question of three per cent at that time- were not insisted upon. The moment the proposition was put before one, it was yielded to as the only proper thing to be done. My hon. friend from Bruce says that it is $1.50 a thousand. Would it not then be a fine thing to have imposed on us $1.50 a thousand for the sake of one per cent? Even the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough would not suggest that.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If he can suggest any other item that travels parallel with lumber and in regard to which the United States tariff has a countervailing duty, and if such an item has not received consideration, I think I can say on behalf of the government 41701-200
that it will. But I do not think any other item exists. An hon. gentleman speaks of coal, but we have not trodden on the toes of the coal industry. There have been threats to do it but it has not been done.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Twenty-five cents.


James Malcolm: The minister has hardly given the information asked for by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I think it is clear that the one per cent excise tax imposed on imports by the Minister of Finance was treated by the American government as a duty.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is right.


James Malcolm: The Prime Minister distinctly told us that this was not a duty. However, it is a tax on American imports and the American government has treated it as a duty. Because of the one per cent so-called excise tax imposed by Canada on American lumber importations, the American government availed themselves of the countervailing duty provision in their customs act and applied a duty of SI .50 per thousand feet on Canadian lumber shipped into the United States. The minister was very wise in passing the order in council on October 20 of last year under the provisions of which lumber coming in from the United States was exempted from the payment of the one per cent excise tax. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough wants to know what is going to be done with the three per cent excise tax put on this year. There is no order in council governing the 3 per cent tax and there is no doubt the $1.50 countervailing duty will now apply against Canadian lumber entering the United States. Is the minister going to change the order in council to exempt American lumber from the three per cent excise tax? Every hon. member knows how the lumber industry in this country has suffered during the last few years. Every hon. member knows that the American market is one of the few profitable markets left to our lumbermen. Every hon. member knows that the lumbering industry is in a very bad way and if we lose the American market or have to pay $1.50 per thousand feet in duty it will mean more unemployment, and, goodness knows, unemployment is bad enough at the present time. I think either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue should give a clear statement to the committee as to whether or not this three per cent excise tax shall apply to lumber, then the lumbermen will know how to act.

Supply-National Revenue

:: 17S


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The three per cent is in the same position as the one per cent; it will not apply.


James Malcolm: I respectfully submit
that the order in council of October 20 does not cover the situation to-day; it cancels the one per cent tax on lumber. Is the minister going to amend the order in council to make it exempt from the three per cent tax?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The higher tax does not apply.


James Malcolm: I beg the minister's pardon. The order in council distinctly states that the one per cent excise tax as incorporated in last year's budget shall not apply to American lumber; that order in council does not cover this year's budget.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have no hesitation in asking my hon. friend to let me know when he hears that the three per cent tax is being put on.


Edward James Young: I think I might tell the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) that any government possessing the power to change a potato into a radish surely can change a one into a three. Can the minister tell the committee how much was collected last year in dumping duties?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend asked that question, I think, last year, and I believe the answer given at that time was that no separate record was kept. Duties are being paid every business day and we do not label them as dumping duties, we take them all in as part of our receipts.


Edward James Young: I am not desirous of putting the minister or the department to any more trouble than is necessary, but I do not see how they can keep their records straight without having this information. Reports come in with the collections from outlying ports; the officers in the department must check those reports against the cash coming in, and they must check them against the rates as laid down in the schedules. If the dumping duty is collected it must be reported as such and the department should have a record. For a long time I have wanted to know just what these dumping duties are costing us.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: They want to forget about them.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I should be very glad to give the hon. gentleman the information he desires, but I am told that the office has not the information. We have hundreds of people in our checking branch but it has not been found necessary to make any segregation of

these amounts. I should like to have the information myself, but until my hon. friend asked for it, no one seemed to be anxious to have the information supplied.


Edward James Young: For that much, many thanks. Upon what commodities or articles was a value for duty placed during the last fiscal year?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will give my hon. friend a list of the articles covered by the orders in council passed. The orders in council were passed on the following dates and cover the following items:
April 2, 1931, bituminous coal.
April 22,	1931, asparagus, lettuce, green
onions and shallots, onion sets, potatoes, rhubarb and spinach.
May 4, 1931, vegetables.
May 16, 1931, cucumbers.
May 20, 1931, strawberries.
June 8, 1931, cabbage and cauliflower.
June 25, 1931, apricots, cherries, raspberries, beans, beets, carrots, celery, peas (green), and tomatoes.
July 10, 1931, apples.
July 21, 1931, peaches, plums and prunes.
July 27, 1931, canteloupes, muskmelons, honey-dews, casabas and pears.
August 18, 1931, grapes.
August 18, 1931, hats, hoods, shapes, bodies and cape lines.
September 10, 1931, grapes.
September 17, 1931, wicker furniture.
October 8, 1931, ferromanganese.
October 29, 1931, lime.
November 17, 1931, women's and chidren's clothing.
November 27, 1931, metal name plates.
November 30, 1931, slack cooperage stock, staves, hoops and headings.
November 30, 1931, hardwood doors.
December 3. 1931, jute twines.
December *12, 1931, cotton fabrics and artificial silk fabrics.
December 22, 1931, pot cleaners.
December 22, 1931, electric lighting fixtures and portable electric lamps and shades.
December 31, 1931, knitting machine needles.
January 31, 1932, refined granulated sugar.
February 1, 1932, rhubarb.
February 2, 1932, wire rope.
February 13, 1932, cotton wiping rags.
February 13, 1932, fringes, tassels and gimp, exclusive of those made substantially of tinsel or bullion, cords and windowshade rings.
February 17, 1932, umbrellas.
February 18, 1932, brass and copper products.
March 3, 1932, thumb tacks and furniture nails.
March 4, 1932, sheet rubber goods.
On April 25, 1932, the brass and copper products bulletin, was modified by taking out of it those importations entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff.
May 7, 1932, asparagus, lettuce, green onions and shallots, radishes, spinach.
May 13, 1932, cucumbers, mushrooms, onions, not otherwise specified, rhubarb.
That, I think, is the list.

Supply-National Revenue


Edward James Young: I want to deal with only one or two of those. I have under my hand bulletin No. 3185, dated January 30, 1932, refined granulaited sugar, fixing the value of refined granulated sugar at $2.30 per 100 pounds. Would the minister mind telling us who asked for this order in council, and how this value of $2.30 was reached?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It was asked for by the sugar beet farmers and by the sugar beet refining industry located at Wallaeeburg and Chatham.


Edward James Young: There is an understanding, is there not, that wherever such a request is made, those making it must satisfy the minister that they are in a position to supply the demand. When this order in council was passed, were the sugar beet farmers and refiners in a position to satisfy the market for sugar?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It was understood that this would be for the benefit of the market. There were 6,000 sugar beet farmers who depended upon this order in council.


Edward James Young: This was in January. I do not think the beets were grown then. Had those farmers grown enough beets to be in a position to satisfy the market?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The contracts are made in January. It would be the beets harvested in the fall of the year.


Edward James Young: Had they on hand enough
beets, grown the previous year, to satisfy the market until the next crop came along?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not know that they had a supply of beets on hand, but we were looking forward. This legislation in my view, supported as I was by counsel, was proper; ad from whom information could be got were in favour of this being done and it was done.


Edward James Young: Then my hon. friend had this order in council passed in January in order immediately to shut out sugar which would be replaced next fall by sugar from beets to be grown this summer; is that the idea?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The idea is that otherwise no beets would have been sown this spring, no crop of sugar beets would have been raised and 6,000 farmers for whom my hon. friend has often shown sympathy-


Edward James Young: I never asked for protection for them.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: *-and in wnom he has a keen interest would not have grown beets so that two industries would have suffered.
41761-200 i


Edward James Young: My hon. friend cannot say that I have ever asked for protection for those farmers. How did he arrive at that figure of $2.30?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have not before me at the moment the exact arithmetic, 'but I can tell the hon. member how it was arrived at. It was a question of the freight rate and the consumption of sugar in Toronto. The freight rates were taken into consideration. The sugar beet is raised in western Ontario and it must be remembered that the sugar is not marketed in large quantities west of Montreal except Toronto. The figuring was done by the officers of the department who said that the figure was fair and proper.


Edward James Young: They worked this out, but on what basis did they figure?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend will have to ask them.


Edward James Young: Can my hon. friend explain this? I see that the value is given as $2.30 in United States funds. Why is the Canadian dollar not good enough for the measuring of these values?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I love the Canadian dollar, but I like any other money I can get. I apply the same principle to the people of this country.


Edward James Young: That is very good logic, but I can remember last year members of the government expressing indignation that the people of the United States did not value our dollar as highly as we did. Now I see my hon. friends do not value the Canadian dollar as highly as they do the United States dollar. I do not mind that, but when that condition prevails, they should not complain that the people of the United States do not value the Canadian dollar as highly as we do.
Now let us come to gasoline-


Mr. GOTT:: It was forty-five cents a gallon under a Liberal government.


William Duff: The Minister of National Revenue, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Weyburn, stated that he placed this exorbitant duty on sugar in order to help 6,000 farmers.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It was not a duty.


William Duff: What was it, then?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: A value for duty.


William Duff: It means an extra tax in favour of those whom my hon. friend calls the beet sugar farmers.


Edward James Young: And adds the dumping duty.
31S0
Supply-National Revenue


William Duff: Yes. The minister said that he did this to help out 6,000 farmers. This is a beautiful, noble sentiment, but there are in this country other farmers than those 6,000 beet sugar growers. For instance, there are the farmers in the constituency of the hon.. member for Victoria-Carleton, New Brunswick, a gentleman who supports this government. There are other farming constituencies in this country, in which potatoes are grown; what has been the effect on the potato market, due to the policy of the Minister of National Revenue? Did his policy with regard to sugar affect the potato growers and potato shippers?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Did it increase the price of sugar?


William Duff: Yes, it increased the price of
sugar, and it did worse than that. A moment ago my hon. friend expressed his sympathy towards 6,000 beet sugar farmers. I say that not only 6,000 beet sugar growers, but 16,000 potato growing farmers were affected by the policy of the Minister of National Revenue with regard to the dumping duty he placed on sugar.
Then, another class of people in addition to the farmers was affected. I have heard the expression that fish and potatoes go together. Because of the mistaken policy of this government, by carrying out the policy enunciated a moment ago by the minister, not only did it affect the farmers of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick but it affected the great fishing industry of the maritime provinces. Cuba offers one of our principal fish markets, and my information is-I think I know what I am talking about-that the minute my hon. friend and his government introduced this special legislation and had it so arranged that he could put any value he liked on sugar, the sugar growers in Cuba, or the government of Cuba, deliberately and properly, increased or doubled the duty on fish and potatoes going into that country. That is what the minister has done, and it is useless for him to tell this committee, and through it the country, that he is protecting 6,000 sugar beet farmers when, in fact, he has ruined a perfectly good market for potatoes and fish.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ruined?


William Duff: Yes, ruined-both of them.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I rise to support the
remarks of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. Every word he has uttered is correct, and he has properly described the effect of the dumping duty on business in the

eastern provinces. Could the minister give the names of the countries from which sugar was coming when the dumping duty was applied?


Alan Webster Neill: If I might be allowed I
should like to go back to the matter of lumber.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Wait for an answer.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni has the floor.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: But I asked a question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni has the floor.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: He will wait for a minute.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: He may wait if he
wishes, but he has the floor.


Alan Webster Neill: I will yield to my hon. friend.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It applied to all countries with which we have an intermediate or general tariff.
Mr, MacLEAN: From what countries rvere imports coming at the time the dumping duty was applied?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Sugar comes from Cuba; we have an agreement with the West Indies. In the short time I have been in the department we have had sugar from Mauritius.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to revert to the matter of lumber, and the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for East Algoma. Probably I did not hear the minister correctly, but the answer seemed to satisfy the hon. member. Whether his satisfaction was due to understanding it or due to some congenital or hereditary respect for the minister as a member of his party, I do not know. The complaint of the hon. member for East Algoma was that the people to the south of us, in a bill now before congress, were imposing a heavy and almost prohibitive duty on our lumber going into the United States. He also mentioned coal. I think it is now ascertained, however, that there is a provision in connection with coal which entirely relieves us in Canada of any danger from that source. The hon. member said that the bill would prove very dangerous to our lumber trade, and in that I heartily agree. I did not know it was a question of moment in the east, but it certainly is worthy of very serious consideration in British Columbia. The duty would very materially affect the lumber trade, which, as my hon. friend sitting beside me says, is now in a very bad condition

Supply-National Revenue
The hon. member for East Algoma stated the case, and as I understood it he asked the minister to take some action. He did not however definitely state what action he thought should be taken. If I heard the minister's reply correctly I think he quoted section 42 of the Customs Act.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Section 43.


Alan Webster Neill: And he said if any lumber or anything else entered Canada in a manner prejudicial to the manufacturer or producer of that article in Canada, he would be quite pleased to put on the dumping duty. In all courtesy I submit that is hardly an answer; it is not a solution of the difficulty. The grievance is that the United States are threatening to exclude our lumber, and I cannot quite understand how by preventing their lumber from coming in we are meeting the situation. Probably the lumber in connection with which the minister expresses his willingness to put on the dumping duty might not be coming in in a manner prejudicial to the producer. If it had 'been, the duty would have been put on already.
As a rule lumber does not come in and go out at the same points. We find our lumber entering the United States from British Columbia; large quantities in the shape of hard wood or other lumber not readily available in Canada come into the eastern provinces from the United States. The remedy as I see it is not the putting on of an illogical or possibly improper dumping duty. Instead of going in for retaliation some other action should be taken. Tariff wars in the past have not been successful anywhere, and I am wondering if we could not adopt some measure of reciprocity, if I may use the word. I think the word used on the continent of Europe, when they do not wish a strict definition, is "conversations." The word does not bind anyone to anything until some progress has been made. I would suggest that our ambassador at Washington should be instructed to enter into "conversations" with the powers that be with a view to arranging some measure of reciprocity in regard to lumber. He should suggest that it is desirable that we be allowed to ship our lumber from British Columbia into the United States. It is badly needed in the north western states where the farmers are in difficulties. Their only lumber supply comes from British Columbia. On the other hand American hardwood lumber is needed and could be shipped into our eastern provinces. By such action probably more could be accomplished than by waving the bloody shirt and talking about excessive dumping
duties. In case I have misunderstood the minister, would he amplify the policy he proposes to meet the situation? This is a very urgent matter, so far as the lumber business of British Columbia is concerned.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not think the
situation has been made clear, but I shall attempt to say what was in my mind when I answered the hon. member for East Algoma. I understood from his remarks that there was a danger of the United States putting on a heavy duty against our Canadian lumber. I think that is the understanding of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. If that is done, the countervailing arrangement, if we may so describe it, is gone. Then if they put the duty on our lumber entering the United States, and at the same time dump their lumber here to spoil our markets-


Alan Webster Neill: Not necessarily.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is how it was put by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson).


Alan Webster Neill: Pardon me. He said they
would not let our lumber go in. He said nothing of their lumber coming in to prejudice our market.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, he sp-oke of our
market being prejudiced by their action.


Mr. POWER:: I was not present when the member for Antigonish-Guysborough first brought this matter to the attention of the minister, but from what I have been told I think he explained it so that members of the committee are familiar with the facts. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is that this order in council which was passed repealing section 88 Of the Special War Revenue Act, chapter 54, was ultra vires. The order in council states that:
The governor in council on the recommendation of the minister acting under the powers conferred upon him by section 11 of the customs tariff as amended is pleased to order and it is hereby ordered that certain lumber shall be exempt from payment of the tax of one per cent.
That is to say, by order in council he repealed a statute passed by this parliament. Reference is made to section 11 of the customs tariff. I think members of the committee will remember that when this excise tax was being discussed last year my hon. friend from Wey-bum (Mr. Young) brought up the question that it was a customs tax. This was indignantly denied on the other side; they said it was an excise tax. Nevertheless in order
Supply-National Revenue

to get authority to repeal that section they refer to customs tariff section 11. I challenge my hon. friend the minister, who is a 'lawyer, to assert that this section gives him any authority. The section provides:
The governor in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on goods-
Not excise tax.
-imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for reductions on Canadian products granted by any such country or countries.
There was no .reduction from the United States.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Oh yes, there was.


Charles Gavan Power: No, the United States simply said: If you put a tax of one per cent on our lumber going into Canada, there is automatically under our tariff act a countervailing duty of SI.50 a thousand on Canadian lumber.


James Malcolm: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: They said: If you dare tax our lumber we will put into effect the $1.50 duty. There it is. I will read it to the minister:
Boards, planks and deals of fir, pine, spruce, hemlock or larch, in the rough or not further manufactured than planed or dressed on one side, when imported from a country contiguous to the continental United States, which country admits free of duty similar lumber from the United States, shall be exempted from the duty of $1 per thousand feet.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is it a $1 or $1.50?


Charles Gavan Power: Maybe I have the old one.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is $1.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not remember. But the moment we imposed that excise tax, automatically the United States government was obliged to impose their tariff. Now, forsooth, we say:	We will repeal this act
by repealing the excise tax on the ground that we get a reduction from the other country. We did not get a reduction; the other country imposed something on us and we had to repeal our duty. That is the first authority the minister had to rely on.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What about the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act?


Charles Gavan Power: He was not quite sure and he endeavours to combine two authorities entirely separate. In effect he says:	One
act does not go far enough, but if we can cite seventeen sections of seventeen different acts we may be able to put them together

and get them right. I will come to the second authority which my hon. friend relied on. I think it will be admitted that the first is no good, but it cannot be any better when combined with the second one. The second authority relied on is section 91 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. And do you know, Mr. Chairman, what it speaks of? Remission of duties. The minister must know what "remission" is. It certainly is not repeal of a statute. The section reads:
1.	The governor in council, whenever he deems it right and conducive to the public good, may remit any duty or toll payable to His Majesty, imposed or authorized to be imposed by any act of the parliament of Canada, or by any act or ordinance of the legislature of the late province of Canada, or of any of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia or Prince Edward Island, in force in Canada, and relating to any matter within the scope of the powers of the parliament thereof, or any forfeiture or pecuniary penalty imposed or authorized to be imposed by any such act or ordinance for any contravention of the laws relating to the collection of the revenue, or to the management of any public work producing toll or revenue, although any part of such forfeiture or penalty is given by law to the informer,-
And so on.
2.	Such remission may be total or partial, conditional or unconditional, and may be granted either before or after, or pending any suit-
And so on.
3.	If the remission is conditional, the condition, if accepted by the person to whom the remission is accorded,-
That is, by the United States.
-shall be lawful and valid, and the performance thereof, or the remission only, if unconditional shall have the same effect as if the remission had been made after the duty, toll, penalty or forfeiture had been sued for and recovered
And so on.
4.	No remission shall be made in any case-
In any case.
-unless such case has been considered, and the remission, whether total or partial, conditional or unconditional, has been recommended by the treasury board, and sanctioned and ordered by the governor in council.
I submit this section deals entirely with the remission of duty which has been collected, and does not deal with the repeal of a section of an act passed by this parliament. It cannot by any interpretation be made to read that the governor in council has the right to say that the tax imposed on a certain class of commodities shall be repealed. Remission implies the refunding of a toll which has already been paid. The very word "remit"

Supply-National Revenue
means to give back. The action taken by the government is simply tantamount to saying: This law shall not apply to lumber coming in from the United States.


James Malcolm: That is all.


Charles Gavan Power: There is the situation. I
contend that these orders in council were beyond the powers of the governor in council, that this excise tax is still in force, and that if the Minister of Finance persists in making a three per cent tax instead of a one per cent tax, even if the government is right in its contention, that the one per cent tax is repealed, certainly there will still be two per cent payable on every bit of lumber that comes in from the United States. '


James Malcolm: That is the point.


Charles Gavan Power: The only honest, straightforward, decent way to do this business is for the minister when he brings down his special war tax legislation to write into it that lumber shall be one of the articles exempted from the payment of that tax. That is the only way to do it, because if he does it in any other way I submit he will be doing the wrong thing, he will be introducing legislation which is slipshod, and which, I firmly believe, will not stand a test before any court in Canada. As my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) paints out to me, the order in council reads:
His Excellency the Governor General in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Revenue and under the powers conferred by section 11 of the customs tariff,-
Which I submit does not apply.
-as amended by chapter 30 of the statutes of 1931, and by section 91 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act,

Which I submit only applies to remissions.
*-and any other powers thereto enabling.
So they said .to themselves, "We will take one section of one act and perhaps we will get somewhere, and if that is not strong enough we will take another act and perhaps we will get somewhere with it. We have not time to look uip all the statutes; we are very busy men, working twenty-four or forty-eight hours a day. We will just include any other powers we have, and if we do not have them we will say so anyway and a lot of people will believe it." I wish to protest against that sort of legislation; I sincerely hope a minister of procedure will be appointed by the government so that these things may be done regularly.


Ernest Lapointe: I have another protest to register. My hon. friend from Weyburn asked the minister what was the basis on which the minimum value for duty of refined granulated sugar was fixed at $2.30 per hundred pounds, and the minister said he did not know. Then my hon. friend from Weyburn asked what was the machinery, how it was arrived at, and whether there was any investigation, and the minister replied that the officers of the department fixed that point. My hon. friend from Weyburn persisted and asked on what basis it was fixed, but the minister replied, "You will have to ask them." Have we come to that, Mr. Chairman? Is that parliamentary government? The tariff is .changed, not by parliament, and when we ask the reasons for the change we are told we will have to ask the officers of a certain department. That is no longer parliamentary government; that is bureaucratic government with a vengeance. Last year the government insisted on enacting a law .creating a tariff board; that was the main legislation of last session. This body was constituted for the purpose of investigating all matters concerning changes in the tariff; they were to study and consider all applications which might .be made. More than one year has elapsed since this law was passed but still we have no .tariff board. We are to have an Imperial conference this summer at which tariff matters will be discussed with all the other nations of .the empire, but no board' has been appointed to investigate these matters. Surely if there was need for a tariff board that need exists at the present time.
I do protest against the answer of my hon. friend that we should apply to the officers of the department in order to learn why the value of $2.30 was fixed. Surely hon, members of this house have the right to know what tariff changes are made, when they are made by order in council and on what basis they have been made, without being obliged to inquire of the officers of the department.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: First I might reply to my hon. friend from Quebec South, who has left the chamber. His statement seemed rather peculiar; he assumed that because the United States called this one per cent tax a customs duty, and contended that it thus came within their law, it was essentially a customs tax. Then my hon. friend proceeded to say that the customs tariff cannot be read to apply, so he denies his own argument. I do not think it is necessary to proceed further except to say that hon. members of this house who belong
Supply-National Revenue

to the privy council will know that order after order is drawn up making remissions or refunds under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister accept the interpretation of the United States?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not think it matters. What is the difference between an excise tax and an excise duty?


John Campbell Elliott: Why call a customs duty an excise duty?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Because we like that name, and its application is different from the application of a customs duty. This excise tax was intended to cover everything; it applied to lumber, but when it became important to take it off lumber it was removed. This tax was treated in a different way from our customs duties, which of course are regulated by the customs tariff. But I am not going to split hairs with anyone who says it should be called a customs duty, because certainly it is collected at our ports when the goods come in.
Now I should like to say a word in reply to my hon. friend from Quebec East. It almost makes me smile to think what would have happened if the tariff board created last session had been functioning in the interval. The tariff board was not appointed because with the kaleidoscopic world changes that have been taking place this has not been a proper time for the operation of such a board. Look at the authority given that board; what were its duties? The board was to investigate the cost of raw material, the costs of manufacture, labour conditions and so on, and gather such information as the Minister of Finance might request. What would have happened if this board had been operating on September 21 last? Everything they might have done under that authority would have been practically worthless, but this legislation which we have placed on the statute books has been made use of. This was not for the tariff board; it was for the governor in council, working with the Minister of .National Revenue, under express enactment. My hon. friends opposite had no objection to that when they were in power; as I say, it was initiated by them and they made use of it time and time again. I am sure every ex-minister knows that, so surely no objection can be taken now. My hon. friend from Quebec East became quite fervent in saying that the governor in council had acted without the advice of the tariff board, but my hon. friend knows that even if there had been a tariff 
board it would not have been part of the functions of that board to look after this matter.
My hon. friend made another statement which is hardly correct, and I think perhaps I can see why it was made. I did not say that the basis of this calculation on refined granulated sugar was made only by the department. First we had our investigators go into the matter and then, in consultation with members of council, we asked the officers of the department to figure out what the basis should be. I cannot do the arithmetic, and I think my hon. friend will be fair enough not to ask me to do it at this time. As I told him, I know that the freight rates from the south and the freight rates from Montreal to Toronto entered into the computation. A demonstration was made, which assisted in coming to a conclusion. As I say, I cannot go through the arithmetic, though I know the facts, but it was decided by the governor in council, after investigation, that this was a proper thing to do, so it was done. I hardly think my hon. friend is fair when he imagines-


Ernest Lapointe: Who made the investigation?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The investigation was
made chiefly by Mr. Breadner and Mr. Richards, officers of the department. Mr. McGregor, representing the sugar refiners, was also consulted.


Edward James Young: Cane or beet refiners?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Both.


John Livingstone Brown: What has been the general result of the policy which the minister has followed? Has it redounded to the welfare of the revenue or has it had the effect of keeping out of Canada large quantities of fruits and vegetables, which so exercised the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite during the la3t. parliament?


Eccles James Gott: I should like to have the opportunity of answering the hon. gentleman's question.


John Livingstone Brown: I may say-


Eccles James Gott: I thought the hon. gentleman
had concluded.


John Livingstone Brown: I may say to the hon.
member for South Essex that if he wishes to answer the question I shall be interested to hear what he has to say, although I will not accept his statement as authoritative. When he has finished, the minister can answer.

Supply-National Revenue
31S5


Eccles James Gott: I want to say to the hon.
gentleman that there is one section of Canada that appreciates the fact that there is in power to-day a government with backbone and determination enough to put into effect policies that are in the interests of the producers of Canada. The hon. member has asked what effect this policy has had. Let me tell him this. I pleaded with the former Minister of National Revenue to put into force dumping duties against the huge importations from the United States, but they would do nothing. For five years I pleaded with the government which the hon. gentleman supported, to take some steps to stop these considerable importations, but they did absolutely nothing. At that time, when our cabbages were ready in western Ontario, the Canadian market was flooded with Virginia cabbages; when our potatoes were ready, we found the Canadian market flooded with Michigan potatoes; when our tomatoes were ready, Mississippi tomatoes came in and flooded the market; when our cucumbers were ready, Louisiana cucumbers were coming in in vast quantities. The hon. gentleman wishes to know what this government did, and what the effect of its policy has been. On April 22, 1931, the government passed an order in council putting a market value of 15 cents per pound on asparagus, and I may tell the hon. member for Lisgar that this had the effect of protecting the producers of Canadian asparagus. A little later on, on June 11, they put on a rate of 4 cents against American cabbage, and that permitted the growers of cabbage in Canada to sell their product on the Canadian market. That is what it did, Mr. Member for Lisgar. On June 11, an order in council was passed imposing 8 cents a pound on carrots, and I could go all down the line, mentioning the various orders in council that have been passed, every one of them in the interests of the producers in the district I have the honour to represent. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I have the honour to represent in this house the most diversifield farming section in Canada, and the growers of South Essex appreciate the action of the government in 1931, and the action which they propose to take in 1932, to protect Canadian growers and give them the Canadian market, which otherwise would be flooded with American produce.


John Livingstone Brown: And now will the hon. gentleman answer the other part of my question and say how the revenue has been affected.


Eccles James Gott: I will say this to the hon. member, that any country that is built up on imports is bound to fail.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am glad that I have some friends who can come to my help-


Eccles James Gott: I was only expressing the sentiments of the growers of South Essex.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I may say to the hon. member for Lisgar that complaints have not come to us in any number at all. The growers are satisfied with what has been done, and they are anxious to have what was done last year repeated this year. My hon. friends opposite must have believed in the policy themselves, because they did the same thing. As regards the revenue, it has fallen off; but let the hon. gentleman remember that the revenues of this country compare very favourably with those of other countries. Naturally there has been less business and therefore less revenue, but I do not think this country is suffering very much when the business of buying and selling, which is natural to the country, is done within the country. If, therefore, a little loss in customs revenue has meant work to Canadians in Canada, and business in this country, I, for one, am satisfied to see that diminution in revenue. Just one more observation in this connection. I do not see why these questions with respect to policy should be addressed to me. I am willing to answer if I am called upon to do so, but I am trying to administer the department, and if there is any question with regard to administration, such as the question in relation to lumber, then I think it is quite proper that I should be asked to say something by way of explanation or in support of what we have done; and if there is any condemnation, very well. But that it should be left to this late date in the session for me to deal with policies of government-that, I submit, is not expected from the Minister of National Revenue. However, I shall be glad, if it will satisfy hon. members, to continue in my humble way to try to answer any questions that may be asked.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not think the minister can evade responsibility for answering as to the effects of his own policy.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the hon. member will permit me, I did answer.


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister, but I understood him to say that he should not be expected to answer-


Eccles James Gott: He eounldn't expect you to understand.


John Livingstone Brown: I asked the question for this reason. We all remember that the usual argument that was advanced against the importation of fruit and vegetables from other countries was that by the time the Canadian
Supply-National Revenue

fruits and vegetables were ready for the market the edge had been taken off people's appetites and that they had been satisfied. I have been walking up and down the streets of Ottawa in the last few days, and I see the grocery stores filled with fruits and vegetables from the south, just as they used to be in years past, and I was interested to know whether the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite have really had any effect on that trade. We remember how the Minister of Railways used to go up and down the country declaiming against the many million dollars' worth of fruits and vegetables that were coming in from abroad. I believe the figure he used to quote was $40,000,000. Of course we all know that this included all kinds of fruit and vegetables that were never grown in Canada at all. Now in view of what I see in Ottawa to-day I am interested to know whether the policies of the government have really had the effect of curbing the importation of early strawberries and melons, for example.


Mr. MANION:: We have the revenue from them anyway.


John Livingstone Brown: That is what I want to find out.


An hon. MEMBER:: You know it now.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to express my hearty agreement with the minister in one respect. If I understand him correctly, he has stated that it would be absolutely impossible for any tariff board in the world to keep in touch with the kaleidoscopic changes which have been made by the present government. With that statement I entirely agree.


Mr. SPENCE:: And of the last government, too.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend has missed the point entirely.


James Houston Spence: Not a bit of it.


John Campbell Elliott: In answering the hon.
member for Quebec South I think the minister missed the point of the argument. As I understand the hon. member's argument it was that the statutes under the provisions of which these orders in council were said to have been passed permitted the remission of certain duties, whereas the orders in council themselves attempted to fix the tariff duties. Apparently the minister has missed the distinction which the hon. member for Quebec South was endeavouring to make. I submit that there is no authority under the provisions of acts cited in the orders in council for the poweis contained in the orders.


Edward James Young: I have another bulletin before me, number 3766, dated November 7, 1931, fixing the value for duty on gasoline at so much per wine gallon, the American gallon. I believe that that is a smaller gallon than the Canadian imperial gallon. A few moments ago the minister told us that he preferred the American dollar to the Canadian dollar because it was bigger, so I should like to know why he prefers the American gallon to the Canadian gallon when it is smaller. Surely if a big dollar is better than a small one, a big gallon should be preferred. I should like to know how the valuation of 7.72 cents per wine gallon was fixed on gasoline coming from the Pennsylvania district. The minister could not give us the information in connection with sugar; perhaps he can in connection with gasoline.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The unit used is the home consumption unit. The hon. member said he did not know why the American wine gallon was used-


Edward James Young: The dollar is the Canadian dollar.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The home of the American dollar is in the United States.


Edward James Young: Why not leave it there and use our own dollar?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, we would like to have some of theirs. The action taken in connection with gasoline was not taken under section 43, it was taken by the department in the ordinary course of business. A committee of the house has been considering this question but I have not been able to attend any of its meetings nor have I had an opportunity of reading the report. As I understand it, the value of gasoline was fixed on the basis of the price of crude and the action was taken by the officers of the department without any information being taken from or carried to the minister. The officers are expected to administer section 6 of the law without reference to the minister. I am sorry I cannot answer the questions asked by my hon. friend.


Edward James Young: The bulletin I have states that this action is taken under the provisions of subsection 2 of section 36 of the Customs Act.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That requires no order
in council to be passed or action to be taken by the minister.

Supply-National Revenue


Edward James Young: When the departmental
officials are satisfied that dumping is being practised and they set a certain valuation, they must have some source of information. They cannot accept the word of anyone who drops in and says gasoline is being dumped. They must have something upon which to base their decision. Upon what do they base it?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They make as full an
investigation as can be made. They have the entree to the books of any manufacturer or firm in the business. If they are denied that entree the company will soon find out that it did not pay to take that stand.


Edward James Young: Who asked for this valuation?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am sorry I do not
know; it did not come to the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: The consumer.


Edward James Young: Someone must have asked
for it. This thing does not work automatically to that extent.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Why could not my hon. friend have addressed his question to the committee when this matter was under investigation?


Edward James Young: I was not a member of the committee.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have had nothing
whatever to do with it.


Edward James Young: I was asking the minister.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am sorry but I cannot give the information.


Edward James Young: I do not know that anyone
appeared before the committee to tell how these valuations were arrived at or at whose request they were made.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The officer of the department who has had most to do with the matter of valuing gasoline is Mr. Richards and I understand that he attended before the committee. If there are any members of that committee present to-night perhaps they could give the information which was given to the committee.


Edward James Young: Did the Canadian refiner
request this action?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have no knowledge
of any requests.


Edward James Young: Did any independent distributor other than the refiners make any obj ection?


John Thomas Hackett: Ask the hon. member
for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) to give an explanation.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The distributors want
to bring in gasoline from Roumania. I know more about that than I do about this question now under discussion.


Edward James Young: Will the minister tell the
committee what he knows about that phase of the matter?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


Edward James Young: No, I want an answer.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I submit that that is
not a very fair question, but if I must answer it I will do so. A gentleman from Montreal, since the committee last rose, told me he was anxious to deal in Roumanian gasoline. About a week ago another gentleman told me the same thing, and I know there are one or two others who have spoken to me on the same matter. There is quite a move now to import Roumanian gasoline into this country.


Edward James Young: Hon. members receive these bulletins from time to time stating that valuations for duty are being fixed and we are always in hope that we may be able to find out how these things are done. It is rather-disappointing to find the minister does not know anything about the matter.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend must bo fair; I know how it is done, it is done by the officers of the department as a matter of routine under the provisions of the law as it stands on the statute books.


Edward James Young: The minister does not seem to be able to tell us at whose request this action was taken, who furnished the information or upon what basis the decision was arrived at.


Eccles James Gott: Those who know most about
it.


Edward James Young: Those who know most about it could not get what they want. This is very disappointing from our point of view. A little while ago I asked the minister whether he could tell us what dumping duties could be collected, and he thought this was hardly a fair question. But I have under my hand a statement of the quantity of gasoline imported last year and the total amount of duty. This statement does not show the dumping duty. We know, under the act as it stands, under the provisions of this bulletin, a dumping duty is collectible. We also know
Supply-National Revenue

the act is so framed that the importer has the privilege of paying that duty to the government or to somebody else in some other country. What I wanted to know was whether those dumping duties were being collected for the benefit of Canada. I desire to know whether the importer was paying this dumping duty to the Canadian government or to somebody in some other country, with Canada deriving no benefit therefrom. It is to our interest to know whether these dumping duties are being collected and to what extent.
As regards using the United States dollar to measure values and the Canadian gallon to measure quantities, it appears to me one explanation is this: in fixing the value the minister uses the United States dollar because by that means he can raise the duty as high as possible and then he uses the larger gallon to raise the duty still further. In every case he uses the measurement, whether of value or quantity, that gives him the highest rate of duty.
There is just one other matter about which I want to ask a question, and that is in regard to women's and children's clothing. A few weeks ago the minister said something about the importer of misses' dresses wanting to bring into this country 10.000 dozen at a cost of thirty-three and a third cents a piece. Will the minister say how those goods were shut out, how the values were fixed and at whose request?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The goods did not come in.


Edward James Young: I presume they did not come in because the value was placed too high.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The person who was
interested in the proposition was told that if there was dumping, the dumping duty would be imposed, and the matter was not proceeded with.


Edward James Young: Do I understand that the
statement was that they would make the duty high enough to keep the dresses out?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No, that is not correct. The statement was plainly made that under the dumping law, if there was dumping, the dumping duty would go on, and so the business was not carried out.


Edward James Young: The effect, anyway, was to
shut the dresses out. I should like to give the minister the other side of the picture. Ten thousand dozen or 120,000 ladies' dresses could have been brought into this country at a cost of thirty-three and a third cents

apiece. The minister says:	No, you shall
not bring them in. A friend of mine who wished to secure a maid to help his wife in the house, believed he could get one in the dried out districts of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: This is not a laughing
matter. He went there to get one. He said: I went into house after house where there were grown up young ladies willing and anxious to go out to work, and they could not do so because they had no clothes to wear. They were actually in their bare feet.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: It is all very well for hon.
gentlemen to laugh, but if they were in that position, they would not laugh. That was the situation. While people in this country are going in rags, in their bare feet, the minister boasts in the house that he has deprived them of the opportunity to secure dresses at thirty-three and a third cents apiece.


James Malcolm: I am not going to delay the passing of this estimate, but I should like to make one observation, particularly because the Minister of Trade and Commerce has come into the chamber. The hon. member for East Algoma referred to a probable duty on lumber being put into effect by the United States and referred also to the disastrous result this action might have on the Canadian lumber industry. Later on the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough discussed with the minister the fact that the countervailing duty of $1.50 per 1,000 feet applied on Canadian lumber by virtue of the fact that we had applied a one per cent excise duty on United States lumber entering Canada. The hon. member for East Algoma, when he was speaking of the possible duty being applied by the United States, appealed to the Minister of National Revenue and, I think, to his colleagues in the government, that if this were done, it would be advisable to retaliate against the United States by imposing a duty on their lumber entering Canada. I do not suppose I shall have another opportunity this session, so I now want to warn the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government that there could be no more foolish or destructive policy for the government of Canada to adopt than to retaliate by placing a duty on lumber entering Canada from the United States.
All lumber unfortunately has been treated in our customs tariff under one item. Lumber consists of the production of a variety of trees and has many uses. We in Canada are quite

Supply-National Revenue
dependent, whether we like it or not, on the United States for oak lumber, hickory lumber and walnut lumber. The hon. member for Lincoln knows- quite well that hickory lumber is essential in the manufacture of certain commodities in which he is interested; I know that walnut lumber is essential in the manufacture of certain commodities in which I am interested, and I warn the minister not to treat this item of lumber as though it were just one commodity. The lumber item should be divided into several classes; then we could treat it properly with regard to the question of customs duties. I appeal to the minister and the government, should the United States impose a duty against Canadian lumber, not to jeopardize and injure the existing industry in Canada by retaliating and putting a duty against raw material which it simply must secure from the United States if we are to keep our men employed in certain branches of the woodworking industry. What the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said is quite true; the proper thing to do is to conduct negotiations with the United States with a view to keeping lumber duty free between the two countries. Canada gets the best of the lumber trade between the two countries; we ship to the United States more than we buy from them, and what lumber we buy is of a type we do not grow. I advise the minister not to indulge in any foolish policy of tariff reprisals on lumber even if the government has the power to do so.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I should like to know
the regulations in respect of the entry of books of an educational character published in Great Britain but not published in this country. The reason I ask the question is this: to-day I received a letter from a friend of mine in my riding, who, while a farmer and not a very wealthy one, is by way of being a student of economics. From time to time he orders publications from the old country and this one, when it reached Red Deer, which is a customs port, was held there for duty purposes. Believing that such books were admitted free, he protested to the collector there who informed him that the only books of an educational character exempt from duty were books not printed or reprinted in Canada which were actually included in the curricula of Canadian universities, schools or colleges, and that this book, of which my friend unfortunately neglected to give me the name, but which I am sure from my knowledge of him, was educational, was not in any curriculum. It was published by George Allen and Unwin of London, England. It was apparently on economics. He stated that he was not particularly concerned with the small amount of duty that he was obliged to pay on this book, but he was concerned as to the policy, because he thought-and in this I very strongly agree with him-that brains, ideas, should come in as far as possible duty free. If they are desirable books used in the study of economies or any other branch of education, I think they should be allowed to come in without payment of duty. As I do not know the book in question I cannot argue about it, therefore I am asking the minister the practice in regard to books of an educational character printed and published in the old country, but not in this country. I refer to books not found upon the curricula of Canadian universities, schools or colleges; because the minister realizes that there a.re many works of an educational character, but modem in tendency, which have not found their places upon the shelves of our schools. I hope the time may come, however, when they will.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The items of the tariff
dealing with books are 169 to 176. I believe my hon. friend is referring to 175. If he has not a copy of the tariff schedule, and will so inform me I shall be very happy to send it to him.


Alfred Speakman: I was referring particularly to the interpretation of the tariff items dealing with books.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order; the discussion
must be relevant to the item.


Alfred Speakman: We are discussing collectors at the custom ports, and I am asking as to the discretion exercised by collectors.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I should be very happy at a very early date to give my hon. friend any information he desires in regard to the tariff items.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What are
the instructions to collectors in regard to the duty on books, or the instructions regarding books entering free? What books enter free?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I believe I had better
read the items:
175. Books not printed or reprinted in Canada, which are included and used as text books in the curriculum of any university, college or school in Canada; books specially imported for the bona fide use of incorporated mechanics' institutes, public libraries, libraries of universities, colleges and schools, or for the library of any corporated medical, law, literary, scientific, or art association or society, and being the property of the organized authorities of such library, and not in any case the property of individuals - the whole under regulations
Supply-National Revenue

prescribed by the minister-provided that importers of books who have sold the same for the purpose mentioned in this item, shall, upon
roof of sale and delivery for such purpose,
e entitled to a refund of any duty paid thereon.
Then item 176 is as follows:
176. Books, bound or unbound, which have been printed and manufactured more than twelve years.
Then, other books on the free list are:
Books, embossed, and grooved cards for the blind; and books for the instruction of the deaf and dumb and blind; maps and charts for the use of schools for the blind.
And, further,
Books printed by any government or by any association for the promotion of science or letters, and official annual reports of religious or benevolent associations and issued in the course of proceedings of the said association to their members and not for the purpose of sale or trade.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order; we cannot discuss items 175 and 176 of the schedule. This discussion is out of order.


Alfred Speakman: I am directing my
remarks to the discretion of the collectors. Is discretion given to the collectors whereby an individual may be permitted to bring in a book free of duty, no matter what the character of the book may be?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the tariff schedule
does not allow the entry of the book without payment of the duty, certainly the collector has no authority to say that duty shall not be paid.


Peter John Veniot: It is a fact that certain
goods are exempt from the excise tax, and of the number I understand lumber is one. That is so, is it not?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is my recollection, but I will look it up. .
Mr, VENIOT:	From memory could the
minister tell whether or not there are any other goods exempt from the three per cent excise tax?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would answer my hon. friend by stating that this matter will be before the house in the form of a resolution sponsored by the Minister of Finance, and schedule 3 of the Special War Revenue Act will be under 'consideration. This is a very long schedule and-


Peter John Veniot: The section referring to the excise tax is not very long.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Oh, is the hon. member referring to the excise tax?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It will be under reviefw when the resolutions of the Minister of Finance are considered.


Peter John Veniot: I am just dealing with
the customs end of it. As the excise tax is collected by the Department of Customs I thought the minister could give me the information. However I shall not -press the matter. I was bringing it to the attention of the committee for the benefit of the hon. member for South Essex. I see that raw leaf tobacco when imported by licensed tobacco and cigar manufacturers is free of the three per cent excise tax. How does that affect the -Canadian grown tobacco?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Tobacco is already subject to a very heavy excise tax.


Eccles James Gott: Is the hon. member suggesting that the tobacco industry should be further taxed, despite the fact that it is now taxed $48,000,000 yearly?


Peter John Veniot: I am not talking about taxing the tobacco industry at all. I was merely asking for information so that the hon. member for South Essex might have a better understanding. A few nights ago he was talking about the protection which should be given the Canadian tobacco growers. He should understand that the three per cent excise tax does not apply to raw tobacco coming from foreign countries into this country, for certain purposes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I suggest that the hon. member allow the matter to stand. He has asked for information as to what would come under the three per cent excise tax. He may ask that question when itlhe resolution is before the committee.


Peter John Veniot: Just a minute; this matter is not under consideration by the Department of Finance. A definite decision was made last year. The only consideration given to it this year is that the tax -has been increased from one per cent to three per cent.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We seem to be at cross purposes. I understood the hon. member to ask -me what articles -beside lumber were free from this -tax. I have asked him to look into the resolution which has been introduced and will foe discussed. I should not like to tell him something to-night and learn to-morrow or next day that I was wrong.

Supply-National Defence


Peter John Veniot: I think we are at cross purposes, because the resolutions to be discussed in the committee of ways and means will not include exemptions. They will only deal with the increase of the excise from one to three. But those resolutions do not give the exempted articles; those were passed last year.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They will be in the bill, I have no doubt.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Aviation-training-all expenses in connection with the general maintenance of the air force, including training personnel for civil air operations and provision of the necessary facilities therefor.
Civil air operations-flying operations for civil government departments in connection with aerial photographic surveys, forestry patrols, forestry and grain pests, transportation, etc., control of civil aviation; establishing aerodromes and airship bases; aeronautical engineering, etc.
Air mail routes-to provide for expenses in connection with establishing and maintaining air mail routes; preparation and lighting of intermediate landing fields, etc., $1,750,000.
Mr. SPENCER; How many men have been dismissed from the air force?
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: One hundred and seventy-eight.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has it been possible to take any of them into other branches of the service?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It has been possible in some cases. The government has done everything it can do, although it must be borne in mind that these men have really no greater claims than many others who have been let out of the service in other departments.


James Malcolm: Will the reduction in the force mean that civil aviators will be engaged to do what staff men formerly did?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The work will to some extent fall into commercial aviation hands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government of the Northwest Territories

radio services-for the maintenance and operation of the Northwest Territories radio system -further amount required, $33,000.
James Malcolm: Why is this necessary?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We operate the radio service in the Northwest Territories for the Department of the Interior. With regard to the extra item the Northern Exploration Company three or four years ago installed the following stations: Burnside, in the Arctic; Hunter bay, at the eastern end of Great Bear lake; Fort Reliance, at the eastern end of Great Slave lake; Stony rapids, at the eastern end of lake Athabasca; Baker lake, near Hudson bay. They have not operated those stations in the last couple of years, and they offered to sell them to the government at a very reduced rate. The apparatus is very good, it has been examined by our people, and it was thought advisable to buy it. That accounts for the 825,000. The balance is for opening up a station on Great Bear lake where this mining development has taken place. It was not in contemplation when the original estimate was prepared.


James Malcolm: Is it sending or receiving apparatus?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Both.


John Campbell Elliott: Apparently this is a misstatement. The estimate says for maintenance and operation.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is improperly
described.


Jean-François Pouliot: If unemployment is still
severe next winter, would the minister have anjr objection to giving to the unemployed some of the moth-eaten clothes in the armouries?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The member
must learn to conform to the rule. Speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: But the minister, I am
sure, will answer my question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Even if the minister
consents to do so, the rules of the house must be observed.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We have no motheaten clothes.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We shall be very
glad to do all we can to assist the unemployed. We have already given away a considerable amount of underwear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cadet services-to meet balance of commitments, $260,000.
Miss MACPHAIL:: Why is this item introduced in the supplementaries when we were encouraged by the main estimates tc think there was a reduction?
Supply-National Defence


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am guilty. My
intention was to try to get along with the former amount. I was unaware at the time that this vote is for the school year beginning the first of September last and ending in June. So we are committed for the whole amount now.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is not really an
addition?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh, no. The hon.
member will recall it was $400,000 last year; it is $40,000 less with this supplementary.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What does the minister propose doing next year,-leaving it as it is now?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In all probability
we will keep on about the same. It may be necessary to cut down to a certain extent, but in a general way we want to keep the movement going.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I protest against this expenditure. As the committee knows, some of us have been opposed to the cadet movement. We do not think it is a good thing to encourage the military spirit on the part of boys, as we believe this movement does. But at this particular time, when civil servants are being cut ten per cent, when large numbers of men are being laid off, when the unemployed are having a desperate time even to exist, and when a man died in Montreal the other day of poisoning from food taken from the dump, which is just one more example of the desperate straits to which men are reduced, it seems to me absurd that we should have in the supplementary estimates $260,000 more for cadet training in schools. Some of us have protested previously that we do not believe the Dominion government has any right to go into the educational field in this way; that it is a distinct invasion of provincial rights. I am aware that the provinces have consented to this arrangement. I am glad to think that in my own city, after much effort, we have managed to keep cadet training out of our public schools. We intend to keep on doing so, but in other places the officers do everything in their power to induce school boards to take it up. Quite often the boards are reluctant to do so, and many parents are strongly opposed to having their children receive cadet training, but it is done on the urgent solicitation of officers of the Department of National Defence.
We have brought up these points before, but I wish to do so again. In these particular circumstances and with the conditions that prevail to-day there seems no justification

whatever for placing this amount in the supplementary estimates and keeping the vote where it was in previous years. In any case, if the arrangements are such that the minister is in honour bound to carry them forward this year, it seems to me that at least he should give the assurance to the house that there will be cuts as soon as this school year is over.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I suggest to the
minister that in these times of hardship this money might be used to buy shoes and clothing for the children of the unemployed who because of their lack of clothing are unable to attend school. I know that in many cities and towns in different parts of the country there are children who cannot go to school because they are not properly clothed, so I suggest that instead of encouraging this drumbeating we permit children to attend school with proper clothing. I am glad to support the timely suggestions of the hon. member for Southeast Grey and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the minister is unable to accept them, could he not give this money to institutions that are supported by private charity? There is such an institution in Montreal called La Maison Ignace Bourget, which was founded by a member of the press gallery and some of his friends to care for old men in that city. At present they are sheltering, feeding and clothing about three hundred people. It is an admirable work, and I believe we should give all we possibly can to the poor in order to help them through these hard times.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have said so often what I think about this cadet training that there is no need to go into it at any great length to-night. But I want to state once more that it is educationally unsound, because instead of developing a child it uses the child for an objective quite outside the child itself. I notice we have a new, outstanding authority for that view; I refer to Doctor A. S. Lamb, head of the McGill school of physical education, who has stated it many times, with much force, both in the press and on the public platform. For that reason I am against cadet training. My own belief is that if the instructors were not paid so much per head we would not hear very much about cadet training. I have come to the conclusion that boys do not like it; they prefer something that is joyous and free and that means something to themselves. It may be that on parade, when everything is shined up, they like the show, just as most people do, but I think boys rather hate cadet training day by day. They are not interested in it, and if it were not for the department urging them on the one side and the teachers urging them on

Supply-National Defence
the other-the department because it is trying to keep a military machine in some sort of readiness, and the teachers because they make money out of it-I do not think we would hear anything about cadets. It should not be carried on, no matter how well we could afford it, because it is bad from every point of view; but this year we cannot afford it. It is simply ridiculous to spend money in order to have small boys strutting up and down a yard with guns when other children, as hon. members have truly said, have not clothes to wear or food to eat to enable them to go to school.
To-day I had in my office a man of mature years, though still young, who six months ago completed a two year term in one of our penitentiaries. He came out with a determination to do the right thing, and he has made a great effort. During the six months he has been out he has kept himself strictly honest; he has not done anything he feared he might do. He has kept away from the old crowd ;*he has sought work and up to the present he has been able to keep himself, but now he is in desperate straits. He asked for a job, a job of any kind; he was only too willing to work, and he is just one man out of hundreds. We have scores of men lying all over our parks, some of them hardly more than boys. They are desperate and they will fill our criminal institutions if something is not done about it. We should use every cent we can get together to save those who can be saved instead of spending money on this sort of nonsense, though I am not sure that this is any worse than the yearly drill we are to have. I see we are going on with the nonpermanent active milita this year. It is a terrible waste of money, and there is no justification for it under present conditions.
There is just one other point to which I should like to refer. Even from the military side, cadet training is useless. It does not make soldiers; it is simply a waste of money. If that amount of money were spent on real physical education, teaching the boys to play the game, as seems to have been so successful in English public schools, it would mean a great deal. I think we found during the great war that it took as long to train cadets as it took to train those who had never been cadets. From every point of view I protest against this vote. I was glad to hear the minister say, however, that this is not an actual increase, that the money has been practically spent already. It should be cut out altogether. I am wondering if we must go on forever training boys in military tactics just because Strathcona created a fund. It
would have been better if he had taken it with him, if we must keep on forever doing this sort of thing. I do not like to think that because a trust was established years ago we must go on spending money in this way year after year. We will go on forever if we do not find some way of stopping it. We do need physical education. There is a great movement in that direction in our schools and universities, but that is quite a different thing from military drill.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I should like to ask the minister to let this item stand in order that my hon. friend from St. Johns-Iberville may speak to it.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not think the hon. gentleman wants to speak to this item. I am allowing another one to stand, however. The item he is interested in is the permanent militia, which was passed the other day; but as the hon. gentleman will have noticed, there is an item under which he will be free to speak.


Mr. GARDINER:: The minister stated
that certain commitments had been made up to the end of June. How much of the present vote will it take to meet those commitments?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Practically the whole of the vote.


Robert Gardiner: Including the $100,000
in the ordinary estimates?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Quite so.


Robert Gardiner: That will meet the
commitments up to the end of June?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The school year.


Robert Gardiner: No provision is being
made for the beginning of the new school term.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This is the way the vote has gone through for a number of years. It is for the present school year, and it has always passed this way.


Robert Gardiner: In view of the conditions we are now passing through and the protests that have been made with regard to expenditures, will the minister take into consideration the possibility of notifying the school at the end of the present term that the department cannot commit itself to the support of cadet training until such time as the house gives its consent?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am not prepared
to give such an undertaking.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. HEAPS:: On what ground will the
school be justified in proceeding with arrangements for training in the next term unless they have some assurance that the government will come to their assistance?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This is the way the vote has been administered for a number of years. This is for the current term.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Personally, I think there
should be a settled policy. I was pleased to see the item reduced from $400,000 to $100,000, but evidently the minister is coming forward with a new proposal which means that the total item will be reduced by ten per cent as compared with last year. That is only a small cut in an item of this kind, which we could very well get along without. If the government, for reasons of economy or on any other ground, thought it desirable that the item should be reduced from $400,000 to $100,000, why have they changed theiir minds as they are now doing?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have acknowledged my responsibility in this matter. I must personally accept the responsibility for it.


James J. Donnelly: Unless the minister
notifies the schools that there is likely to be no grant next year, they will commit themselves to the same expenditure again and the vote will continue. If he does not notify them, they will make their arrangements for next year as they have done before, and the result will be that we shall never have the vote reduced. It means that we are committed to the same vote year after year, and there is no way of reducing it.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I hope the vote will not be reduced, because, so far as Quebec is concerned, we have more cadets in that province than anywhere else in Canada, and this is a splendid educational movement. It forms the mind of the child, gives him an idea of discipline, and teaches him how to carry himself and how to answer his superiors. I am glad to say that so far as we are concerned the cadet movement is progressing year by year and doing great good to the children of the province, physically, mentally and morally.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am strongly against that kind of discipline-
Mr. LaVERGNE: And my hon. friend is the best example of what he says.


Jean-François Pouliot: Give me a chance to
speak; you are not in the chair. I have the floor and it is my turn now. My hon. friend,
[Mr. Sutherland.)
I believe, is a colonel in the army, but I want to tell him we are not his soldiers. I am a friend of his, but I do not depend on him. Here we are all free, and the Prime Minister, when he sits in his place, is only the first among equals, as I have already said. We are all the same. That is why I take this opportunity to speak as a free lance. As regards that word "discipline," may I say that if I had been in Ottawa I should probably have attended the dinner given in honour of the Minister of Railways. I should likely have done so because I like him personally; I would have attended a dinner given, not to the Minister of Railways, but to a very fine man. And if I had been there and had heard the Prime Minister complimenting the hon. gentleman on his spirit of discipline, I would have protested, because that is no compliment to a member of the House of Commons. As I say, we are all free and must continue to exercise our freedom. I am in favour of gymnastics, because it is good for children; it helps them to grow up into healthy men and women. I believe in gymnastics on the old principle of mens sana in eorpore sano; but I am strongly against instilling militaristic ideas into the miinds of children. No doubt we must have respect for order, but there is a great difference between a proper understanding of order in the state and the militaristic idea of discipline. Although I am a free lance I am strongly in favour of social order; I believe in it just as firmly as my hon. friend from Montmagny does; but I am not at all strong for the idea of having children carry guns when they are only ten years of age. It is good for them to do their daily dozen, and children should go in for healthful sports, and it is a good deal cheaper, if you are to spend money on physical training for children, to buy them footballs and baseballs and things of that kind than to buy a lot of prizes and fancy uniforms and guns and trumpets and so on. Let the government buy them footballs and bats and baseballs. Let them go in for sports which will help to make them healthy. That will be just as good for them as this cadet training.
If I take up the time of the committee now it is only because I have been prevented before from doing so. And when a "man, whoever he may be, says that a member of the House of Commons is retarding progress because he expresses his views, let me say to my hon. friend that I am here as a free man. I have never been a cadet in my life, and that is why I express myself freely in a free House of Commons in a free country. We must have absolute freedom. Had I been

Supply-National Defence
brought up a cadet, perhaps I should not now say what I am saying, for fear of being unpleasant to someone. But as a free man, I speak freely. That is all I have to say at present.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: We have been told
many times in previous years by ministers of national defence that there was no compulsion in this matter, that there was no such thing as compulsory military training in the schools. This year we have seen a good deal in the press about three youths who were expelled from the Windsor Technical School because they would not take cadet training. If that is not compulsion, I should be happy to have the minister explain what it is.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The three young
men in question were over eighteen years of age, and therefore they did not come under the cadet movement, which is limited to eighteen. They were working with the cadets, and evidently the Windsor school board had some regulations; but the government had absolutely nothing to do with them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How is this item made up?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is made up of
the pay to cadet instructors, also


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much do the cadet
instructors receive out of this sum?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The round figures
are as follows:
Cadet instructors, $42,000; military clerks, $5,000; stenographers, $14,000; physical training instructors, $42,000; cadet signallers, $1,700; instructional allowance, $184,000; transport of district cadet officers, $11,000; transport of physical training instructors, $8,000; cadet instructors' courses, $22,000; freight and cartage, $2,000; rifles, ammunition and equipment, $2,000; postage, stationery and telephones, $2,800; Miscellaneous, $300; grant to the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, $1,000.


Robert Gardiner: Does this vote provide
for all the salaries paid to the instructors, or are they supplemented by the school boards?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It costs the school
boards considerably more. This is given in the way of a grant to instructors who fulfil certain qualifications and take certain courses. In most of the collegiates the instructor carries on some other work and this grant is made for his cadet duties.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do the cadets receive any
uniforms at the expense of the government?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Up until last year
there was a uniform grant, but that has been cut out.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am very much in
favour of this movement, but it had to give way to pressure from other things. I am quite convinced that it cannot get along on $100,000, but just what it will require will have to be considered by the treasury board and the council.


Edward Joseph Garland: In view of the general circumstances now existing throughout the country does the minister not think he is hurting himself, his cause and his government by continuing to vote this amount of money? There is not a man or woman in the country acquainted with the actual conditions but who would praise the minister if he eliminated this vote during the present economic depression. It is quite true that it is not a great amount but it looks pretty big to the unemployed and to those who are trying to serve the unemployed and steady them during this time of stress. The voting of $360,000 for the drilling of little boys in schools is not the thing to do during times like these. I am opposed to this vote in both good and bad times, but in view of the present economic conditions I think it should be eliminated.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Of course the hon.
gentleman must realize that there are two sides to this question. Many people throughout Canada have a different idea from his. These grants are not being forced on the school boards; if they do not want them they do not have to take them. Since the main estimates were brought down I have had many representations from people all over the country protesting against the reduction. This is not a military organization; the physical training is what justifies it. The dis-

Supply-National Defence
cipline entailed, is a most excellent thing for young people at a time like this. Discipline and physical training are the very essence of the cadet corps, not militarism.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps it
was because of the protests that the minister included 1260,000 in the supplementaries.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: It was just a mistake on the minister's part?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was it an
underestimate?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, an underestimate on my part.


Edward Joseph Garland: In view of the fact that some $84,000 is for salaries of personnel and the rest for travelling expenses, and so on, I am not surprised that at a time like this the drill instructors, lecturers and military gentlemen do not want to be deprived of their little perquisites. I should have been surprised had the minister not received protests, but I am surprised at his unwillingness to tell these people that in times like this when children are starving they should be willing to forego their perquisites. I attended a public school in the old country where we were given excellent physical training by a sergeant-major of the British regular army, but he did not train us with guns, he used Swedish drills. He trained us in a gymnasium properly equipped with the necessary apparatus to build up such health and strength as our physical structure would permit. We did not have this silly gun drilling, this standing at arms, this saluting the sergeant-major and all the rest of that rot against which resentment is developing at the present time. The minister is not helping his cause or his government by bringing forward this vote this year.


James J. Donnelly: I rise again to protest against this vote. I realize, as does the minister, that physical training and discipline are of great value to children, but there are other tilings of more value at a time like this. First things should come first. We realize this when we visit districts, as I have during the past winter, and find little villages with their three and four roomed schools closed and the children fiorced to run on the streets. It is very hard to go back to those people and justify a vote like this being granted to schools for (physical training when .other children cannot get the first principles of education.

When the primary schools in certain districts are being closed, it is difficult for one to justify a vote of $260,000 for cadet training. If you could have the schools open and have this cadet course going on as well, that would be all right, but these are strenuous times and we are in a period of depression, so that I think we might well curtail some of these activities.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister says he is
more or less obligated to put this extra amount into the estimates. If that is so. probably he cannot get away from it just now, but he refuses to give consideration to the question of notifying the schools that they cannot expect $360,000 or any part of that amount another year. The government in their wisdom have seen fit to cut down the estimates in many ways. They have cut out some $200,000 in provincial grants which were being used in an endeavour to eliminate certain social diseases. They have eliminated a small grant of $20,000 to the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, an organization that has done invaluable work throughout Canada in helping to keep our people healthy. If it is necessary to cut out $220,000 in these two bodies the work of which was doing an enormous amount of good-and I have no doubt the public will suffer because grants have been cut out-surely we can see our way to notifying the schools that in future years this amount for cadet training will be reduced, if for no other reason than that the amount of money thus saved will be turned into the two grants that have been reduced as I have stated, so as to enable us to cope with conditions that face the public from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is one item
I am not calling. The ex-Minister of National Defence has asked that there should be some discussion with regard to aviation, and I have no objection that a discussion take place on that other item. I had not intended to call it to-night. If the hon. gentleman wants to discuss it, with the consent of the committee I have no objection to his discussing aviation on it.


Mr. RALSTON:: I was going to take only a few minutes. Would the minister give to the committee a brief explanation of how he intends to apportion this lump sum of $1,750,000, which is now being voted instead of the $5,442,000, between the three services, that is, the training service, civil air operations and air mail routes?

Supply-National Defence


Armand Renaud La Vergne: What is the item?


James Layton Ralston: Item 89.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But there is nothing before the committee.


James Layton Ralston: The minister was good
enough to say that he would revert to it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: What item shall I call?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Item 344, but I do
not want it passed to-night.
National Defence - general [DOT]- miscellaneous- to authorize refund to the widow of the late Sergeant-Major Henry Hinde of his contributions to the militia pension fund, $919.32.


James Layton Ralston: The minister has bracketed the whole three items in one lump appropriation of $1,750,000, whereas last year it was divided into $2,266,000 for training; $2,776,000 for civil air operations and $400,000 for air mail routes. How does he propose to divide up the lump sum which is being voted this year, and what work is proposed to be done under the three items?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Civil air operations
are washed out altogether, so far as this appropriation is concerned. An amount of $1,-
555,000	will go to aviation proper and $195,000 to civil aviation.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend,
when speaking of civil aviation, mean air mail routes, the third item in estimate No. 89?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This year we have
$77,000 under the air mail heading, which is largely used for maintenance.


James Layton Ralston: Do I take it that the amount of $1,555,000 is on account of the training item, that is the first item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: And nothing for civil air
operations?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


James Layton Ralston: And $77,000 for the air
mail routes?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: That still leaves about
$200,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No; control of civil aviation, $64,500; St. Hubert aerodrome, $22,500; grants to clubs and schools of aviation, $31,000.	*


James Layton Ralston: Do I take it there is about $200,000 in toto under that item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The civil aviation grant, $195,000, that is including air mail routes, $77,000.


James Layton Ralston: For the purposes of this division, $195,000 comes under air mail routes?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Not civil government aviation, but civil aviation such, as the control of air mail routes, air ports and grants to aeroplane clubs.


James Layton Ralston: But this does not contain any vote in specific terms for civil aviation; the amount of practically $200,000 comes under this item of air mail routes and analogous services, that is all the services which are furnished by the controller of aviation.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Quite so.


James Layton Ralston: And there is nothing for civil air operations.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Nothing whatever.


James Layton Ralston: Then that item can be disregarded in discussing the appropriation.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Quite so.


James Layton Ralston: Are no civil air operations being carried on, for instance, for the payment of Indian treaty money; for the fisheries patrol service; for the Deparment of Agriculture; for transportation on account of the Department of Mines? Is the department carrying on none of those services at all?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is possible some slight service will be done, for instance for the Indian department, on the understanding the out-of-pocket expenses will come from the appropriation of the Department of the Interior. Of course we have the men and the equipment, but we have not the money to carry out the service. In some such cases, where they supply the money for the out-ofpocket expenses, something like that may be done.


James Layton Ralston: The minister has no plans for that at all?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No; except that if the Department of Interior say: We want something there and we will give you the oil and gas, the department will carry out the service.


James Layton Ralston: But the mfen under that were paid out of the ordinary civil aviation vote and not out of training.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They will have to be taken out of the training vote. They are all paid out of the one vote.
Supply-National Defence


James Layton Ralston: But that was not the case in the past.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, but they are all in the one vote now.


James Layton Ralston: Under this item of
$1,555,000 which I understand is for training, how many men and how many officers will be trained?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are 103 officers and 606 men in the air force at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: How many will be trained at Borden and how many at Trenton?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am not just sure about that, but I have the figures somewhere, if the hon. member will wait a minute or two. Of course there are a great many more at Borden than at Trenton.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
give me the proportions I shall be satisfied.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At headquarters
there are 16 officers and 46 men; at Borden 17 officers and 207 men; at Winnipeg air station 11 offioers and 100 men and at Trenton 15 officers and 38 men.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend not
going to use the men at the Winnipeg air station for civil aviation work?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If there is any work to be done in the north country, undoubtedly they are the ones who would do it.


James Layton Ralston: I am referring to mining work particularly. All hon. members are interested in the development o'f the north country and undoubtedly aviation could be used to great advantage in that connection. Does not the minister believe it is desirable to use the air force for that purpose?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Most of the preliminary work has been done up there. The routes have been well surveyed and photo graphs have been taken which will take some time to develop. The service will not suffer, if it does not go on this year.


James Layton Ralston: What will the minister do with the 100 men at Winnipeg, if they are not put at work of that kind? What will these men be doing? Are they not enlisted?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes. They have
to be kept somewhere, that is a certainty. I take it the hon. gentleman does not wish 
us to let out any more men. It may be that those men will be moved around gradually; some may go to Trenton; there will be some at Vancouver. They will be on hand to do what there is to be done.


James Layton Ralston: I do not want the minister to lay off any more men. I protested before about the large number who were let go and the manner in which they were discharged. I feel however that in the present instance there is an arbitrary cut of $1,750,000 I know the minister is having difficulty; I do not think for one minute that he cut his own vote. I submit to the minister, however, and I think all hon. members will agree, that the idea of slashing the vote in this manner, without any regard to the work to be done, was wrong. Although the force may not have been kept at full strength, at the same time the trained men could have been used for useful work not only in the Department of National Defence but in the other departments.
While year after year I brought before this committee, and supported, a cadet vote, I say that if there had to be a cut it would have been better to cut that vote than to drop, as in the present instance, 78 officers and 100 men, half of whom were returned soldiers and married. I do not know whether he has satisfied himself, but the minister has not given me a satisfactory explanation for the dropping of those men, the resulting tremendous dislocation in the air service, and the set back which this service, of which Canada was so proud, received by reason of the fact that these men were let go.
The minister now finds himself in the position where he cannot carry on civil aviation work at all. He is training a few men at Borden, a few at Trenton, and 100 men in Winnipeg are apparently doing nothing. As I understand him they are simply waiting to give service to the department, if any opportunity presents itself.
Then, $77,000 will not go very far in connection with air mail routes. I think at this time a word should be said about the routes that were developed whereby through the use of the air force and the men connected with it, it was made possible to provide communication with the outlying districts. The air force were the pioneers in that work. Again in the more settled areas they surveyed the routes, established landing fields and perfected a system of which Canada was proud. I think the Canadian people believe a great mistake is now being made when they see that because

Supply-Fisheries
we are going through a period of depression this fine service is being completely demoralized. On what routes does the minister intend to spend the $77,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That amount is very largely for maintenance. The stations throughout the west have to be maintained, and a certain amount of money is necessary for that purpose. Those stations were not laid up until the first of April, the beginning of this fiscal year, and it takes a good deal of money to get them settled down for a rest. The machinery has to be put into grease.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any air mail route which will be used this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No lighted mail.


James Layton Ralston: No lighted air mail route? Is there any air mail route on which government services are to be used?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Government services are to be used from Rimouski to Montreal.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any survey being made on the St. John to Montreal route ?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. That was well surveyed and fully completed last year. Let the item stand, then.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Item stands.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the minister through for to-night-because I wish to be nice to him. He has been nice to me, and I do not wish to prevent him finishing his estimates.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We will let it stand.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister is not going on?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have finished, with the exception of this vote.


Jean-François Pouliot: What time is it?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I cannot see the clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: I believe it is 11.30, and I ask for the adjournment of the house. We were supposed to adjourn at eleven o'clock and I now ask for the adjournment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has overlooked the motion passed suspending the rules for yesterday and to-day.


Alan Webster Neill: That was on the understanding that we were not to sit on Saturday. The decision has been made however to sit on Saturday.


James Malcolm: It will not be Saturday for at least half an hour.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is
quite right.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $1,022,000.
James Layton Ralston: This item, Mr. Chairman, is as good as any to permit me to refer the Minister of Fisheries to the discussion that he and I have had during the last two weeks, particularly with regard to the lobster season in the western end of Nova Scotia. Possibly the committee will remember that last winter from December first to January fifteenth a special lobster fishing season was granted to the fishermen at the western end of Nova Scotia instead of unemployment relief. Hon. members can hardly realize what it means to be pulling lobster traps in open boats in December and January weather. Some of them fished from Seal island, eighteen miles out in the Atlantic ocean, and hon. members can imagine what that involved during that inclement season of the year. But in return for that concession they were penalized; their regular season which runs from March first to May thirty-first was cut by fifteen days.
I objected to it at the time on the groimd that it was not fair to make those men pay for their own unemployment relief. It simply meant they were being given an opportunity to get enough food for themselves and families, but this relief was charged back to them by cutting off two weeks from their spring season. They got something like eleven thousand hundredweight of lobsters, probably one-fourth or one-fifth of the regular catch, and owing to the stormy weather they lost quite a bit of their gear. Then in March they had to fit out again. It was probably one of the worst March months in many years, and several of the men hardly took a lobster during that month. Representations began to be made to me early in April for the restoration of the season to the end of May. These I forwarded to the minister, and he gave them consideration, but he advised me that nothing could be done until the first of May, by which time the returns would come in showing what kind of season the fishermen had had. The return disclosed that counting the winter season and the two months up to May first, they had caught something like
24,000	or 25,000 hundredweight, when the normal oatch would be from 40,000 to 50,000 hundredweight or perhaps more. It was represented to the minister that these men had had a very hard time, having lost a great deal of their gear, and were just beginning to pay expenses when they had to cease fishing. Finally after a good deal of
Supply-Fisheries

discussion the minister extended the season until May twentieth; putting it the other way, he took only ten days off the spring season instead of fifteen as he planned when he gave the men their relief season last December. The minister objected to restoring the full season further, stating that representations had come to him that the price would go down if the request of the men were granted. Now I am informed that the lobster fishing is just really beginning, and if these men had ten days more during which to fish they would be able to make perhaps between $100 and $200 as a result of their total lobster fishing season. At the present time they hope they may be able to pay expenses up to May 20; that is all. I am told that the price has gone up five cents in the last three or four days of the season, just at the time when the minister was advised that the price would go down if the men were allowed to fish. I submit that these fishermen have not been given a fair deal. I know the minister has considered the matter carefully and that representations have been made to him by fishermen in the eastern section of the province against extending the season. But I contend that these men in western Nova Scotia were entitled to their own season, that they were not asking any special consideration. On behalf of the fishermen of the western section of Nova Scotia I protest most strongly against the way in which this matter has been handled. There has been talk about preserving the lobster fisheries, and that we would lose all our lobsters if these men were allowed to fish. As I told the minister the other night, I have a newspaper clipping in my office which indicates that away back in 1895 it was predicted that there would be no more lobsters around Cape Sable island, yet they have been fishing lobsters there ever since. The lobster crop has been up and down, and the theories that have been advanced about the depletion of the lobster have not been borne out. These men should be given a chance to live, and the regulations should be relaxed for their benefit. Again I protest as vigorously as 1 know how against the treatment of these men. The department has given all the other fishermen their full season, but these men have been cut off simply because of the fact that they had a relief season in December.


Alfred Duranleau: I am sorry the faon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is not in his seat, so that I might call on him to answer my hon. friend. He is aware that

all the members from the eastern and northern parts of the province are strongly opposed to the extension of the season from the fifteenth to the end of May. As he has just said, the usual lobster fishing season in the western end of Nova Scotia runs from March first to the thirty-first of May. Last fall on account of a petition for a fall fishing season, we decided to authorize this from December first to January fifteenth, and as an offset close fishing this spring on May fifteenth instead of the end of the month. Unfortunately March, as stated by my hon. friend, was so stormy that a very small catch was made. The April catch has been reasonably good. We received petitions from the eastern and northern fishing areas asking us not to extend the season from the fifteenth to the end of May. According to our figures the catch this year has been as good as if not better than in previous years.


James Layton Ralston: I know the minister wants to be fair, and I am sure he will acknowledge that the catch has been fair only if you count the catch taken in the special relief season. The catch in the regular season was only about half the normal catch.


Alfred Duranleau: That is so, but they had their catches during December and January, and there were many reasons why the season should not be extended for too long a period. In dealing with this matter we must take into consideration two things. One is the effect an extension of the season will have on, the future of the fisheries. My hon. friend knows very well that we have to protect the fisheries and that is why, when the winter season is extended to include December and January, the spring season cannot be extended also. I am told that in 1921 the season in western Nova Scotia was extended, with the result that the fisheries were so badly depleted that conditions did not become reasonably normal until 1925. These are the facts.
The other question to be considered is the effect an extension will have on the other areas. The western area ships all its lobsters nine inches or more in length to United States markets. The live lobster business is the most paying branch of the industry on the different parts of the coast where it is carried on. In southeastern Nova Scotia the season this year opened on the 16th, and in the whole gulf of St. Lawrence division and down through the straits of Canso, to and including the most of Richmond county, the season opened about a week later. Each of these districts ships large quantities Of live lobsters to Boston, as my hon. friend knows, and the

Supply-Fisheries
market conditions there are so bad that, with large supplies coming, the prices are likely to fall to such an extent that the fishermen will not make anything. We had requests some time ago for the extension of the season to May 31, but at the same time we had representations from Boston dealers and from the eastern and northern parts of the fisheries to the effect that prices in Boston would fall if this were done. In March, when western Nova Scotia was the only area shipping and the catches were very light, prices in Boston were from $40 to $50 per crate. Last week, when my hon. friend came to my office, with fairly large shipments going in from both eastern and western Nova Scotia, the price fell to $19, which does not make it a very paying proposition, and it was felt that the price would fall as low as $15. The Boston dealers are all counselling against an extension, as they say that because of economic conditions the market this year cannot absorb large quantities of lobsters. We are told that if these are shipped the prices are bound to fall to very low levels. One of the largest shippers of the gulf division who is now in Boston wired about two weeks ago saying it would be wholly unfair to the gulf division to extend the season in western Nova Scotia.
These facts are well known to my hon. friend, but even though everyone in northern and eastern sections protested we extended the season by about five days. I understood that every one was satisfied; we received no protests following that extension. Of course there was some protest from the eastern fishermen, but I understood that the western people were satisfied. I know my hon. friend is pleading the case of the fishermen of his constituency, but we must take into consideration also the interests of other parts of eastern Canada.


Mr. RHODES:: Perhaps my hon. friend
would permit me to say a word, because I understand it is the intention that we adjourn immediately.


James Layton Ralston: I should like a word before we do adjourn.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: So far as I am concerned that will be quite satisfactory, but I think the hon, gentleman should have the full facts before him. I think the minister has made a very complete answer, but at that time I was in charge of this department and have knowledge of the facts. My experience, which goes back for perhaps thirty years, has taught me one thing: I have never known a period in any area when there was not an agitation, with some special reason assigned, for an extension or enlargement of the lobster
fishing season. You can take that as axiomatic. So when I was approached with the request that this winter season be extended, let me say that one of the arguments they used in support of the request was that it would assist in the relief of unemployment, though that was by no means their strongest point. They wanted to share during a longer period of the year in the profitable Boston market. Having had the experience of which I have spoken, I said I would consider their request upon one condition, and that was that they should consent to a shortening of the summer season. So Mr. Cowie of the department was sent by me, as minister, to the province of Nova Scotia. He conferred with the fishing interests concerned, and in consideration of the extension of the winter season they agreed unanimously not to ask for an enlargement of the summer season.


James Layton Ralston: Who agreed on behalf of the fishermen?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not for one moment assert that Mr. Cowie saw each individual fisherman along the shore.


James Layton Ralston: But who, on behalf of the fishermen of western Nova Scotia, made that agreement?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not propose to be put through a catechism as to whether it was John Jones or William Smith, but I do say that I took pains to send Mr. Cowie to that section of the country, and he conferred with groups of fishermen and with those who were identified with the industry to a sufficient extent to get a proper expression of opinion representative of the views of the fishermen in the areas concernnd. They agreed that they would not ask for an extension.
I say I was at pains to have that course taken, because I knew very well that if they secured this extra six weeks during the winter season they would come along this summer and ask for an extension covering the same weeks as have obtained hitherto. Now, if you please, whatever the reason may be, here they are, and I am not finding fault with my hon. friend for pleading the cause of the fishermen. They want to have their cake and eat it. I say that the acting minister is to be commended, because of the special conditions obtaining, for extending the season for five days, but in doing that I think he went as far as he could be expected to go in the circumstances. We must remember that we must have regard for the interests of the fishermen not only in this particular area but throughout the whole of the maritime prov-
Supply-Fisheries

inces. All these men are shipping to the one market, and the seasons must be rotated so the advantage will be divided equally among the lobster fishermen along the various parts of the shore.
I hope my hon. friend the acting minister will forgive me for having taken up this time, but because of the knowledge I had of the incident I thought I should advise my hon. friend who I am sure wants the whole story.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is moved that the committee rise and report progress.


James Layton Ralston: I am in the hands of the committee, but surely I might say a word first.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We promised to rise at
a reasonable time. The shorthand staff of this house is a little weary, and I had intended to move that the committee rise at 11.45. I think perhaps under the circumstances the hon. gentleman will realize that we cannot, finish this item to-night, and in view of the work that has been done by the shorthand staff I think the committee had better rise.


James Layton Ralston: I could finish in three minutes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But could the item be
finished?


James Layton Ralston: I want to say to my
hon. friend the former Minister of Fisheries that I do not know who was seen by his representative down there. I only know this, that the representations came to me very directly that there had been no agreement of any kind with regard to the six weeks' season, and I do not think that my hon. friend should really talk about an agreement under circumstances of this kind. The circumstances were these. The men needed something to see them through the winter, for they had had a very much more difficult time than usual. My hon. friend knows that the price of ground fish was very low and the market poor. These men had to have unemployment relief, and the government simply said to them, "You can go out and fish lobsters." They were allowed to go out and fish for six weeks, and now the minister says that there was a bargain whereby these men, under these conditions, were going to be precluded from asking, not for an extension, but merely for the regular season. Both the minister and the ex-minister have used the term extension. No one suggests an extension. The ex-minister declares that it had frequently been the practice of these men to request an extension, but I point.out to him that this year all they are asking for is the 
regular season. I submit, therefore, that my hon. friend cannot talk about an agreement..
In the second place, with regard to the other people affected, may 1 ask how it is that this year my hon. friends happen to be so particular about the other people who are affected when every other year the season has been the same and there has been no suggestion of cutting ten days off the season in western Nova Scotia in order to accommodate someone else either on the north shore or in the east. This year ten days are cut off because, we are told, somebody else is going to be injured. As I said to the minister the other night, are you going to cut off ten days merely because someone else does not like the season? Of course the competitors in other sections would like to see the season shortened as much as possible. But the point is that the seasons are prescribed by order in council and have been for some time, and they do overlap. Now the packers and the Boston dealers saw their chance this year and they said, "We are not going to have an overlapping season. Ten days are cut off the fellows in western Nova Scotia and we will see to it that these ten days are kept off." That is not much of an argument, that someone else in some other part of the province wanted to see these men continue to be deprived of the ten days.
Thirdly, with regard to conservation. The Minister of Finance and I do not know a great deal about lobsters, although we were both born near the gulf shore. But I want to say to him-I think he will agree with me-that the lobster fishery has been going on there for a long time and it has taken more than ten days' fishing to destroy the industry. I think that all this solicitude about the conservation of lobsters down there at this particular time could well be left to the fishermen themselves, to the people who, after all, have to make their living out of the business. I do not think that we need be so anxious to do for them what they can do far better for themselves.
As to the price, the minister has not answered what I have said. According to a letter I have received from a director of the Maritime Fisheries Federation, the price has gone up-not down-five cents per pound in the last five days. That is in the face of all the representations which my hon. friend had from the Boston dealers, and I say to him again that the Boston dealers had better be left out of it and the fishermen given a chance for their lives, particularly at this time. I make this representation because letters have come to me with regjard to the matter. If the minister has not yet received any com-

Montreal Harbour Commission
plaint, he will get my letter in the morning. One point more; I ask my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Fisheries: suppose there had been an agreement, even if there had been a signed bond that they would not ask for their regular season, what has he to say about the situation when we find the month of March practically a total blank? I have two letters, both written on March 29. I quote an extract from the first:
Times are hard; the lobstermen have not been able to even set their traps yet, owing to the gales which have prevailed here since the first of March.
From the second letter I quote the following:
The men here have only a few traps out, and as it is awful rough to-day, would imagine that very few of the traps will be left.
I submit, therefore, that the men were justified in asking that the minister maintain the season for the ten days. Questions of conservation, price and other people's views do not enter into the situation where not only the rights but the very living of the lobster-men of western Nova Scotia are concerned.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
Saturday, May 21, 1932