1932-05-19

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee tomorrow 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.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Were tenders called for in the repair work at Ste. Anne's wharf, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, in 1931?
2.	If so, who recommended the contractor?
3.	How much was paid per cubic yard of stone?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 and 2. Work done by day labour.
3.	$2.


PERMANENT FORCE-MECHANIZED EQUIPMENT
Mr. MacINNIS:: Are public tenders called in the purchase and replacement of the spare parts kept in store for the repair of the mechanized apparatus used by the artillery units of the permanent force of Canada, if not, what method of purchase is employed?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Public tenders are not called for the purchase and replacement of the spare parts for the repair of the mechanized apparatus used by the artillery units of the permanent force of Canada. These spare parts when required are purchased from the manufacturers of the mechanized apparatus or from their authorized agents in Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if it were the wish of the house that we should meet on Saturday morning at eleven o'clock, I would be very glad to accommodate the members.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon.   W@: I can only speak for the official opposition, but we are entirely agreeable to sitting on Saturday.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: After the Prime Minister mentioned this matter the other morning I took the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues, and as most of them have made arrangements to go away on Saturday, we would not care to sit on that day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that the practice in a matter of this kind has been not to sit unless there is unanimous agreement. I would not like to make a motion to be carried by a majority under those circumstances. I thought that we would rise at six o'clock on Saturday in any event if we sit on that day.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Might I suggest that a conference might result in some agreement as to the matters that might be taken up on Saturday, which would enable us to get through at least a little sooner than if we did not sit on that day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend from Acadia will allow the matter to stand until three o'clock and indicate if there is any legislation in which his colleagues would not be particularly interested, we might proceed

Conversion Loan
with such business on Saturday from eleven o'clock to one and from three to six, a matter of five hours, in which we might dispose of a good deal of business. I thank the right hon. gentleman for his suggestion and will act accordingly.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is sometimes urged that the members from the province of Quebec go home on Saturday. I rise to say that the Quebec members will be pleased to stay here this Saturday and sit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I apprehend my hon. friend speaks for the opposition.


Robert Gardiner: I shall be very pleased to consult with my colleagues with regard to the suggestion of the Prime Minister and will see him later.



SITTING ON VICTORIA DAY

Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the house should sit on Tuesday, the anniversary of the Queen's birthday?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.



DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) will be home before the end of the session and give us a report on the proceedings at the Disarmament conference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He sails on Saturday. Whether or not this house is then in session will depend upon the conduct of public business.



CONVERSION LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Miuister of Finance):: Some time ago I directed the attention of the house to an observation made by my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) in the course of his remarks upon the budget. Since then my hon. [DOT] friend has been absent and I trust that he has enjoyed a delightful holiday in one of the most beautiful spots on earth. Now that he has returned from Bermuda I trust that he will take a more charitable view of political opponents than is indicated by the language he used on that occasion. In case his memory requires to
be refreshed I would refer him to page 1994 of Hansard where he made the assertion that members of the government had failed to convert their bonds while calling upon the public to do so.


Mr. HOWARD:: I did not say that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The exact words used by my hon. friend were:
Insiders of this government did not convert their bonds.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid I have to raise the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER:: What is the point of order?


Ernest Lapointe: The point of order is that no objection was taken to these words at the time and my hon. friend has no right to bring the matter up now.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I ruled on that point of order some days ago to the effect that the hon. member for Sherbrooke had a right to make an explanation if he chose. It is not a case of objecting to words because they are unparliamentary in form, in which case objection would have to be taken at the time. But this is a different set of circumstances altogether.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but the minister
cannot take exception to them now.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is entirely up to the hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter which has
been spoken to by the Minister of Finance is one that has given some concern to some of my colleagues and if it is impossible for the hon. member for Sherbrooke to mane any statement with respect to the matter I will give formal notice that it be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. Some of my colleagues feel very keenly about it.


Ernest Lapointe: You have no right to do that either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have, and I have exercised it.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, of course-dictatorship.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, common decency.


Ernest Lapointe: The rules of the house are there.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The Speaker gave his
ruling.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Are we to understand that the hon. member for Sherbrooke desires his language to stand?
Bankruptcy Act


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The point of order is there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a point of order at all.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I rose for the purpose of asking permission to discuss the point of order, but Mr. Speaker has ruled that the point of order does not obtain.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 91, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 41, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section 18-Superintendent of bankruptcy.
Mr. CARDIN:: I regret that I am not in a position to agree with the recommendations of the committee appointed to consider this bill. I fail to see the advantage in the appointment of a superintendent to administer, or to look after the administration of, the Bankruptcy Act. As was stated before the special committee and outside the committee there are many defects in the law, but I do not think the appointment of a superintendent is going to better the condition, or to make a better bankruptcy law in Canada.
In the first place the Bankruptcy Act was a mistake. That has been established since the law came into force, and was shown very clearly before the special committee. Complaints from all sections of Canada have been made against the law.


Mr. HACKETT:: No.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: From practically all sections. The eastern section of Canada, that part mostly concerned, has been complaining bitterly against the application of the bankruptcy legislation. When we try to go away from recognized and established legal institutions we make a mistake. When we try to get away from judicial organizations and create

special bodies we make further mistakes. We have endeavoured to create a system which would apply to all Canada. In our attempt to generalize the application of the bankruptcy law-although we have power to do it-we have made a mistake. In the province of Quebec particularly, we have been suffering severely from the application of that legislation. The truth is that very few people are satisfied with the application of the Bankruptcy Act. In my humble judgment the appointment of a superintendent will not cure the evils that have been brought about by the Bankruptcy Act. The present bill will create a new bureaucracy, and from now on the affairs of insolvent debtors are going to be governed, not by law, but by regulations which will be issued by this new department. I think already we have too many regulations taking the place of law and governing our activities in all walks of life, and, speaking more particularly of the province of Quebec, I feel that this would impair the application of our civil laws. Really I do not see what advantage is to be gained by the appointment of a superintendent. We are creating a new organization at Ottawa which will be in a position to dictate to all the provinces. It would be much better to repeal the Bankruptcy Act and revert to the practice followed previously in all the provinces. I may say that when insolvent debtors' estates were administered according to the laws of the province of Quebec the costs were much less than they are to-day under the Bankruptcy Act; further, the creditors are not as well protected to-day as they were before the act came into force.
I am anxious to raise my voice in protest against this bill, and to submit that in my humble view the Bankruptcy Act is no good. The result of its application has proved not at all advantageous either to debtors or creditors in my province; on the contrary it has been a source of embarrassment to them. The licensing of trustees is not going to better the position. Many weaknesses of the Bankruptcy Act which could have been improved have not been touched, more particularly the high cost of bankruptcy proceedings which has been the subject of complaint in Quebec. We are not going to diminish bankruptcy costs by the appointment of a superintendent, for he and his staff will have to be paid, and, I repeat, the licensing of trustees is not going to better the position in any way, shape or form. It would have been easy for the committee-it is easy even yet-to amend the clause regarding costs and to provide that these costs should be taxed by the judge and

Bankruptcy Act
not be determined by the registrar, as is the practice at present.
I see it has been decided to exclude a certain class of farmers in the provinces, except in Quebec, where they are to be exempt from the operations of the Bankruptcy Act if their indebtedness is under $500.


John Thomas Hackett: Everywhere.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I agree with that. So far
as the province of Quebec is concerned, the bankruptcy law has proved no good to the farmers; in fact it has tended to ruin their credit. Farmers are not traders or merchants in the right sense of those terms, and it is certainly a good thing that they have been exempted from the application of the Bankruptcy Act.
I observe that the committee has refused to adopt the principle which was embodied in the bill presented to this house by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset). The principle has been approved twice in another chamber, unanimously on the second occasion. That principle has to do with the place in which the bankruptcy proceedings shall be carried on. Last session I made a few observations on the point. I think it is most unfair that the whole province of Quebec should be considered as one district-


John Thomas Hackett: No, no.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it is; and that an
insolvent debtor even in the county of Gaspe may be forced to go to Montreal, where his assets will be dealt with. Undoubtedly the debtor's assets should be dealt with in the district in which he resided or carried on business when he became bankrupt. This is objected to on the ground that most creditors live in the big centres and that it would not be advantageous for the larger number of creditors to have the bankruptcy proceedings carried on in the debtor's own district. That is not entirely true. From the point of view of the amount involved, I admit you will find creditors with the largest claims living in the big cities, but in the rural communities and the small towns where a merchant is conducting his affairs you will find the greater number of his creditors, small creditors it is true; but I contend that the local creditor with a claim of $100 should be considered just as much as the creditor living in a great city and having a claim of $1,000. Undoubtedly it is a greater deterrent against any inclination on the part of an insolvent debtor to avail himself of the Bankruptcy Act if all the proceedings are carried on in the locality where he lives than if they are to be dealt
with in Montreal. It may be objected that, this would mean greater expenditure on the part of wholesale merchants or manufacturers in the big_ cities. Not at all. When the affairs of an insolvent debtor are dealt with in the district in which he conducted his affairs the costs are lower than when the proceedings are transferred to Montreal or Quebec. In fact it does not cost a cent more to have the bankruptcy proceedings conducted in the local district of the insolvent debtor. Why? Because the wholesaler or the manufacturer in Montreal never goes to the court where the trustee is appointed; he is represented by the man who is after the job of trustee. In a word, everything is done by proxy. For example, if we have to deal with an insolvent debtor residing in the town of Sorel, wholesalers and manufacturers cannot complain that it would cost more to deal with his affairs there than in Montreal. They remain in Montreal and have their claims put forward in the court by a representative with a proxy. Even in Montreal the same procedure is followed. In the practice court of Montreal you never see the representatives of the wholesalers, the big companies, the big indus- . tries, the big manufacturers or the big stores; they are never there. Even their employees, their accountants or their clerks, are not there. The only persons who appear before the practice court or the registrar in Montreal when the trustee is appointed are those anxious to get the appointment as trustee, who present themselves with all the proxies they have been able to obtain from the big creditors located in Montreal. So if these affairs were to be dealt with in the rural sections of the province it would not mean any additional expense.
Everyone in this house seems to advocate the back to the land movement, but we are only talking; no one has shown any real desire to support that movement in a proper way. In the last few years everything has become centralized in the big cities of the province. Business is there; finance is there, railway affairs are there and everything is there. The rural sections of Quebec and the other provinces have been deprived of the natural activities which should be carried on within their boundaries. If we are sincere let us give a little more importance to the rural sections of Quebec and the other provinces of this county. It is absolutely useless to talk about going back to the land because the cities are crowded with people who have come from the farms; I contend that these people have been driven to the cities by the centralizing movement which has been carried on in Canada for a number of years, and more particularly in
Bankruptcy Act

the province of Quebec. Everything in that province has become centralized in Montreal and Quebec City and the people of the rural sections are suffering as a result.
Here we have an opportunity to decentralize, not by some pious expression of opinion but by some definite action. Give to the small towns and rural districts of Quebec and the other provinces the opportunity of dealing with their own affairs, which concern the people residing in that vicinity. I repeat that this would be a very good opportunity to say that when a bankruptcy occurs in a rural section of Quebec where a judicial district has been established, everything in connection with that bankruptcy should be dealt with by the court of that district, instead of having the whole thing transferred to the city of Montreal or the city of Quebec. Let us give the small centres some say in the administration of their own affairs, and we will make them more attractive to live in. Let us keep in those small centres the activities that should be kept there.
Let me say a word with regard to our lawyers. At the present time the life of a lawyer in a small community in the province of Quebec is impossible. He cannot make a living because everything has been transferred to the cities of Montreal or Quebec. Before long the lawyers practising in the small centres of my province will have to move to Montreal, which will mean that the population of the large cities will be increased and the rural sections of the province will be deprived of what is their due. We can get nothing in the rural sections of Quebec. Railway rates are against us; financial organizations are against us; under our banking system everything is being centralized in the big centres and the rural sections are losing their importance to a very large extent.
I think this practice is contrary to the speeches we have heard here and there in support of the back to the land movement. There is nothing to induce people who live in large cities to go on the farms. They would have to go empty handed; everything in which they are concerned and all their interests are located in the big cities. They can live in the country, but if they want something done they must go to Montreal or Quebec, or if they live in Ontario they must go to Toronto, and I believe the same thing applies in the other provinces. It is about time we made a serious effort to revive the rural sections of the country, more particularly in the province of Quebec.
I hope I may be pardoned by you, Mr. Chairman, and by the committee for speak-

ing at such length. I have had this matter in mind for a long time, and this is not the first time I have expressed these sentiments. I think we should do something more practical than make speeches advocating the back to the land movement; we should do something to induce the people to go back on the land, and we should also try to keep on the farms those who are already there. What I said in regard to lawyers applies also to all the other professions and trades. Let me say just here that the lawyers in the rural sections are much better than their reputations would lead people to believe. In the small communities of our province they enjoy a very great deal of respect; in fact a large number of our rural constituencies are represented, both in legislatures and in this parliament, by lawyers and professional men. These are gentlemen of some importance in their localities, and they should not be driven away from their homes and the districts in which they have practised. They should be left to deal with the business arising in the locality in which they live; they deserve some consideration.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I have listened with a
great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu' with regard to the bill now under consideration, which proposes the amendment of certain sections of the Bankruptcy Act. To some extent I am in agreement with the views expressed by my hon. friend, yet on the whole I cannot say that I am in accord with his opinions.
I agree with the hon. gentleman that the question of bankruptcy and the administration of bankruptcy laws in the Dominion of Canada presents very great difficulties. Some of us will remember that as far back as 1876 the first act of the kind was passed by this parliament, known at that time as the Insolvency Act. After that act had been in operation for some six or seven years it was repealed, and the question of bankruptcy, as it came under the jurisdiction of this parliament, was altogether removed from our statute books. We had at that time seven provinces in Canada and each of them attempted in its own way to pass some law to meet the situation. We had no dominion bankruptcy or insolvency law and, as I say, each province attempted to enact laws of its own to meet the situation. There was a great-deal of variation in the provincial laws. Afterwards, "when we admitted two new provinces, they, of course, deemed it proper to attempt likewise to occupy what was federal jurisdiction by passing insolvency laws of their own. So that eventually we found ourselves

Bankruptcy Act
in the position of having nine separate insolvency laws in the nine provinces of Canada, and these were upheld in principle only because it was recognized that as the dominion field had not been occupied by dominion legislation in regard to bankruptcy or insolvency, the provinces should be permitted to pass laws of their own until such time as the Dominion parliament might assume jurisdiction.
The present act has been on the statute books since the year 1921. I believe that the moving cause which operated in regard to the introduction of the bill in the year 1920 or 1921 was the fact that so many protests had been received from foreign countries that had commercial dealings with Canada. Boards of trade and chambers of commerce in the United Kingdom, in the United States and in several European countries had from time to time protested to similar bodies in this country that there was too great a variation and too great uncertainty in the insolvency laws operating in the Dominion of Canada. Foreign dealers who sold goods to Canada felt great uncertainty as to their rights with respect to the question of insolvency. Representations were made from time to time to the government of this country that a uniform act should again be attempted. It will be remembered that under section 91 of the British North America Act bankruptcy and insolvency are questions which are placed specially under the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada and not at all under provincial authority. It was thought in 1921 that we should make an effort to produce a uniform bankruptcy act which would apply throughout the whole Dominion, because by so doing we should wipe out the -operation of the various provincial measures which dealt with the subject.
Now, we have had eleven years of experience under the Bankruptcy Act of Canada, and I agree with my hon. friend from Richelieu that that experience has not in every case been satisfactory. Many complaints have been received by the Department of Justice in regard to various sections of the act, and many suggestions have been made for an amendment by way of improvement therein. Many complaints have been received from various parts of Canada as to the ill effects produced by the operation of the Bankruptcy Act as it now stands on the statute books. There was a great accumulation of proposed amendments and suggestions from all sorts of commercial bodies and individuals throughout the length and breadth of Canada, but on the whole I am bound to say that there 41761-193
was far more general approval than disapprobation of the act. It was thought that the. time had come when there should be something in the nature of a general revision. Having regard to the protests and suggestions which had been made, the Canadian Bar Association, recently, within a year or two, took the matter up and appointed a special committee of expert lawyers to consider the whole act and to suggest amendments. A very able special committee was set up by the Canadian Bar Association and they made an exhaustive study of the act and sent a report of their findings to the Department of Justice. Many of their suggestions were exceedingly valuable and they did not come to a conclusion or make a report until they had made a very exhaustive study of the whole subject in its application to every part of the dominion. Boards of trade representing commercial interests in the great cities -of Canada also made their representations, and an act was finally drafted in the department, including all such suggestions as were deemed advisable and practicable, and which have been incorporated in the bill introduced at the present session of parliament.
The house will realize-I think we all realize -that the whole subject is a difficult and to a large extent a technical one, and it was deemed advisable that a select committee of the house should be appointed to consider the bill as introduced, with a view to having a general discussion and giving an opportunity to persons throughout Canada or to corporations or other bodies in any part of the country to appear before that committee and make representations. I must say that the committee has been quite diligent in the consideration of the bill. It has not reached any conclusions without the very fullest consideration, and my information is that the bill which is now presented to parliament represents a practically unanimous report from that committee. Indeed, my hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) now informs me that it is a unanimous report. May I just here state that the hon. member for Stanstead was chairman of that special committee and he is eminently qualified at this juncture to give the house the fullest information and to explain the reasons which actuated the committee in regard to the amendments which they have proposed in the report they have submitted to the house. In some parts of Canada it may be, as pointed out by my hon. friend from Richelieu, that the bill does not exactly meet the situation; as he says, it does not exactly meet the situation in the province of Quebec in the points which he has

Bankruptcy Act


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, there appears to be some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) which I should like to dispel. It is regrettable that the rural population of the country is pouring into the cities but that is a trend which is not peculiar to our country or to the province of Quebec. If we put to the test of the statute the suggestion made by the hon. member for Richelieu, that a debtor who could not meet his obligations in Gaspe might be haled a thousand miles to Montreal, I fear it will fail. A debtor who is unable to meet his payments as they come due may make an abandonment of his estate to the official receiver of the bankruptcy division in which he lives, or a petition in bankruptcy may be made against him. The jurisdiction of the court before which he may be summoned is fixed by the act.


An hon. MEMBER:: What section?


John Thomas Hackett: Subsection 5 of section
4.	This subsection reads:
The petition shall be presented to the court having jurisdiction in the locality of the debtor.
The petition should not be presented elsewhere. The locality of the debtor is defined by subsection (y) as follows:
''locality of a debtor," whether a bankrupt or assignor, means
(i)	the principal place where the debtor has carried on business during the year immediately preceding the date of the presentation against him of a bankruptcy petition or the making by him of an authorized assignment;
(ii)	the place where the debtor has resided during the year immediately preceding the date of the presentation against him of a bankruptcy petition or the making by him of an authorized assignment; or
(iii)	in cases not coming within (i) or (ii), the place where the greater portion of the property of such debtor is situate;
Let us consider the case submitted by the hon. member for Richelieu. We will suppose that the debtor is a merchant residing in Gaspe, and that his property is there. If the bankruptcy district has been subdivided into divisions he cannot be summoned before any court other than the court having jurisdiction in the bankruptcy division in -which Gaspe is located.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What is that division according to the recent decision of the court of appeal and the Supreme Court? It is the whole province of Quebec.


John Thomas Hackett: No.


Mr. FERLAND:: Supposing a man who
could not be summoned other than in the

Bankruptcy Act
judicial district of Gaspe goes to Montreal and makes a voluntary assignment; that could not be prevented and he would be entitled to have the assignment heard before the courts of Montreal.


John Thomas Hackett: Jurisdiction must be considered from two points of view. There is jurisdiction ratione materiae which deals with substance. The circuit court in Montreal, the jurisdiction of which is limited to $100, would not be competent, even with the consent of all parties to adjudicate upon a case in which more than $100 was involved. Secondly, there is jurisdiction ratione personae, which has to do with parties to litigation. The court may be competent to deal with the subject matter of litigation but have no jurisdiction over the parties to it because of an accident of residence, but that can be overcome by consent. I may be able to bring an action in Montreal against a person domiciled in Gaspe and it is perfectly competent for the man in Gaspe to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Montreal courts.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Even against the will of the creditors?


John Thomas Hackett: I am talking about consent.


Vincent Dupuis: Consent means the consent of both parties.


John Thomas Hackett: The consent of both
parties.


Vincent Dupuis: The interested parties. The hon. member for Joliet (Mr. Ferland) did not submit that case; he submitted the case of an assignee who wanted to assign in Montreal against the will of his creditors.


John Thomas Hackett: I was endeavouring to
make clear to the committee that the jurisdiction of the courts depends both upon the substance of the litigation and the parties to it. In this latter instance, the lack of jurisdiction may be overcome by consent. A gentleman from Gaspe may see fit to come to Montreal and make an abandonment of his property in Montreal, and if no person was prejudiced thereby or did not take exception to it, the courts undoubtedly could deal with the case.
Let me come back to the question as propounded by the hon. member for Richelieu. From the point of view of the superior court the province of Quebec is divided into about twenty-one judicial districts. From the point of view of the Bankruptcy Act, the province of Quebec is one district, divided into twelve 41761-1931
divisions. In each division there is a court, an official receiver, a registrar and all the agencies and machinery necessary to carry out ithe act. If the hon. gentleman will turn to section 160 of the Bankruptcy Act, I think he will find that even though it be desirable to do what the hon. member for Gaspe suggests in his bill should be done, it would not be wise or necessary to do it by legislation because under that section of the act bankruptcy divisions may be created by order in council. The section is in the following terms:
Each province of Canada shall constitute for the purposes of this act, one bankruptcy district, but the governor in council may divide any such bankruptcy district into two or more bankruptcy divisions, and name or number them.
If it is expedient to re-subdivide the province into twenty odd bankruptcy divisions to coincide with the judicial districts, all that need be done is to pass another order in council. An amendment to the Bankruptcy Act is not necessary.


Vincent Dupuis: Has the committee done
anything in this bill to overcome the judgment of the supreme court which decides that a man may assign anywhere in the whole province of Quebec?	[DOT]


John Thomas Hackett: I fear my hon. friend is
under some misapprehension. I have endeavoured to point out that the jurisdiction of the courts may be in some instances a matter of agreement; if a bankrupt from a remote part of the province wishes to go to make an abandonment in Montreal and nobody takes exception, I fail to see the objection as the Montreal court has jurisdiction in matters of that nature.


Mr. BRASSET:: The effect of my bill was
to force the creditor to take bankruptcy proceedings in the district where the debtor resides, but under the judgment of the supreme court the creditor may take proceedings in any division of the province, which is what my bill sought to avoid.
Mr, DUPUIS:	Is there any clause in this
bill which allows a creditor, in the case of a debtor assigning in another district, to bring him back to his own district? Suppose a man assigned in Montreal and resided in Gaspe, is there any clause in the bill which allows the creditor to bring him back to his own district, not necessarily the majority of the creditors but a few creditors or one?
306S
Bankruptcy Act


John Thomas Hackett: I do not know of any
clause in the bill which would permit a bankrupt whose locality was Gaspe to make an assignment in Montreal in the absence of unanimous consent.


Maurice Brasset: We do not want it to be
by unanimous consent. We can do anything by unanimous consent. We want the creditor to be forced to take proceedings in the district where the debtor resides. That was the object of my bill. At present a debtor may reside in Gaspe and the creditor take proceedings in Montreal or Hull, or any other place in the province of Quebec. I think it is only fair that the creditor should be forced to take proceedings in the district where the debtor resides because, otherwise, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the creditor will take proceedings in Montreal or the city of Quebec, and a debtor residing in Gaspe, for instance, will have to come to Montreal or Quebec. That is an injustice which we want to avoid.


John Thomas Hackett: What was the name of
the case in which that judgment was given?


Maurice Brasset: I do not remember the
name of the case, but there was a judgment to that effect. Perhaps the hon. member for Richelieu may remember the name.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not remember the
name of the case, but it was that of a man residing in Roberval, and he was forced to go to Montreal.


John Thomas Hackett: Is it the Lauzon case?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The case came before the court of appeal. Both the supreme court and the court of appeal decided that "division" and "district" in the bankruptcy law meant the whole province and that a man from the district of Gaspe, for instance, could be brought to Hull and have his assets dealt with there.


John Thomas Hackett: I think it would be well to see just exactly what this judgment does say.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am surprised that it escaped the attention of my hon. friend.


John Thomas Hackett: I was waiting for the hon. member for Richelieu to give me the name of the case.


Vincent Dupuis: Was not that case discussed in the committee?


John Thomas Hackett: There is another point which was made by the hon. member for Richelieu with regard to the farmers. The committee heard many witnesses. One of them
[Mr. Dupuis.)
was Mr. Lalonde, the president of L'Union Catholique des Oultivateurs de la province de Quebec. Another was the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec. They were supported by many other witnesses and there was absolute unanimity in their request that the law do no longer apply to farmers. There again there was a misapprehension. The law even now does not apply to farmers, in the sense that nobdy can put a farmer into bankruptcy. That has always been the law. However, it was competent to any insolvent farmer whose liabilities under the act exceeded five hundred dollars to go into bankruptcy. The Minister of Agriculture for the province, as well as Mr. Ualonde and a host of other witnesses testified that the fact that many farmers had gone into bankruptcy had been prejudicial to the credit of the farmers of the province of Quebec. As a result of this unanimous testimony we are amending section nine of the act, and if this amendment becomes law it will no longer be competent for a farmer in the province of Quebec to become a bankrupt. The farming class in the province of Quebec now enjoy the right of going into bankruptcy. At the present time they cannot be put into bankruptcy, but they have the right to go into bankruptcy and they have explained that that right has been abused and used to their disadvantage. For those reasons they wished to yield it up. The bill as it stands at present meets their requests.


Mr. GIROUARD:: Do I understand the
chairman of the special committee to say that under the amendment brought in by this bill a creditor may force a farmer into bankruptcy?


John Thomas Hackett: No; he never could.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: What is the amendment?


Hugh Guthrie: To exclude the farmers of Quebec from the operation of the act.


John Thomas Hackett: I refer the hon. member to section 6 of the bill.


Wilfrid Girouard: So that no creditor can force a farmer into bankruptcy, and a farmer cannot go into bankruptcy himself.


John Thomas Hackett: No creditor could ever force a farmer into bankruptcy in any part of Canada. If the hon. member would refer to section 7 of the Bankruptcy Act he would find the following:
The provisions of this part shall not apply to wage earners or to persons engaged solely in farming or the tillage of the soil.

Bankruptcy Act
That is the law as it stands to-day, and as it has always stood. No one could force a farmer into bankruptcy, but a farmer could make an abandonment of his property for the advantage of his creditors. If this bill becomes law the farmer of the province of Quebec will have yielded up that right and will no longer be able to go into bankruptcy. If unable to pay his debts his property will be seized and sold, he cannot make an abandonment of his property, under article 853 of the code of civil procedure.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As in the old days.


Mr. FACTOR:: Would the hon. member explain to the committee the need of a superintendent of bankruptcy, as provided in this section?


John Thomas Hackett: Bankruptcy is a law which seems to rest more on expediency than on morality.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Hear, hear.


John Thomas Hackett: It is a law which is imposed by discipline, it is a means of excising from the business life of the country the debtors who cannot pay their debts as they become due. Not only does it take from a man all his property, but it frees him from his liabilities.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member referred to the code of civil procedure of the province of Quebec under which a farmer could make an abandonment of his property. Does that article not apply to traders?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: To traders only.


John Thomas Hackett: That is correct


Ernest Lapointe: I make the interruption merely to have it clear.


John Thomas Hackett: Bankruptcy is a departure from the ordinary rules which apply to business, and to that extent it is open to very serious abuses. In some countries a bankrupt-in France, for instance-loses his political and civil rights, he cannot vote or hold public office. In England he is disqualified from sitting in parliament, and is placed in a category of discredit. In this country however it has been said that bankruptcy is sometimes a short road to affluence. In any event there have been abuses of bankruptcy legislation. Those abuses have been traced by investigating committees to improper alliances and understandings between trustees in bankruptcy and dishonest debtors and dishonest creditors. It has been suggested, by several bodies which have investigated these abuses, that if the trustee could be selected with
greater care-care as to integrity, character, experience and business ability-and if he were licensed and came under the supervision and discipline of a superintendent, many abuses would disappear.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Richelieu that it is extremely difficult by legislation to make a man honest and honourable. It is not impossible however to exclude dishonest men from positions of trust. Under the bill no individual or corporation will be permitted to act as a trustee until he or it has been licensed by the Department of Finance. It will behoove the individual or the corporation to satisfy competent authorities that he or it is competent and reliable, and in every way suited for the work undertaken.


Mr. TURNBULL:: I was one of the members of the special committee appointed to consider this bill, and as such I am one who is supposed to be a party to the unanimous report. For good and sufficient reasons, however, I was not present at the time the report was made, and I should like to say that there is one subsection in section 18 of the bill which worries me.
I could see the necessity for the appointment of a superintendent of bankruptcy if licensed trustees were to be required

and licensed trustees apparently were required by the people of the province of Quebec to remedy abuses which according to the evidence existed largely in that province-but I would be very sorry to see the growth of any large amount of departmental assistance to the superintendent, and would be very sorry to see any great extent of financial responsibility incurred. Hon. members will notice that subsection (3) (e) of section 18 in the bill states that the superintendent shall:
(e) From time to time make or cause to be made such inspection of the administration of estates as he deems expedient.
Subsection (3)	(g) of the same section
provides that the superintendent must make an inspection or an examination when any complaints are made to him. It follows that subsection (e) must intend to go farther than merely inspecting or examining complaints. It must mean that the duty is cast upon the superintendent of his own initiative to keep some dose and constant supervision over the administration of the estates. The keeping of a close and constant supervision over the administration of estates, even if qualified by the words "as he deems expedient" remembering that these estates are scattered all over Canada and are numerous, will mean
Bankruptcy Act

the necessity of keeping a fairly substantial staff for the purpose of taking care of that supervision and inspection. For it is not merely supervision, it is inspection as well. This will impose upon estates the burden of paying the expenses of maintaining that staff. More than that, I fear that if in the very imusual event of anything going wrong with an estate whereby money might be lost to the creditors or to the debtor, the existence of this section may lead to demands being made upon the government for reimbursement to the estate of any loss incurred through alleged failure to inspect the estate as oiten as it should have been inspected. We had an experience of that on a very large scale when the Home Bank failed. The claim was immediately made that because of failure to inspect the property and keep close track of the records of the bank, the government was under an obligation to reimburse those who had lost money by the failure; and a moral liability having been found a little later on, it cost the government a considerable amount of money. I fear that subsection (e) will cause the building up of a large establishment of civil servants-and hon. members who have had experience of the civil service know how easily and how quickly those staffs become increased-with a consequent additional burden on all estates in the country, and in addition a possible liability on the part of the government itself if some person should be of the view that a Joss occurring to the estate was occasioned through failure on the part of the superintendent of bankruptcy to make such inspection as was reasonably necessary.
For that reason I should like the minister to consider the deletion of the subsection. I think what is required is sufficiently covered by subsection (g), that is the investigation of any complaint or anything that might be disclosed to the superintendent of bankruptcy as the result of reports filed in his office. If it should be found that that inspection is not sufficient, at a later date it would be very much easier to add to his powers than to give them to him now and so build up a staff that it will be difficult to reduce later.
I very earnestly request the minister to make the powers of the superintendent as limited as possible at the present time, and add to them later on as occasion requires.


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. gentleman, as he admits, was absent from the committee when this aspect of the bill was discussed. It is estimated that there will not be more than one hundred trustees throughout Canada, and
[Mr. Turnbull.1
they will be pretty well localized in a few centres. Moreover, the necessity of a staff to carry out this work was gone into and an outside estimate of its cost was made. The committee came to the conclusion that the great weakness of the act was that nobody seemed to be responsible for its administration. The act contained a provision that its administration came under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice, and this seemed to be taken by the attorneys general in the different provinces as a sufficient reason for holding aloof from assisting in its enforcement.
My friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) has made some reference to a bank failure. The bank was not bonded. The trustee is not only bonded once, he is bonded twice. I doubt if the hazard he refers to exists; the provision making it the duty of the superintendent to investigate of his own initiative without notice and at all times will greatly fortify the administration of the act and make it much more effective. Another weakness of the act, as was pointed out in the evidence, was that so much-too much-was left to the initiative of the individual creditor, *who is rather a helpless person; if one must wait until the horse has been stolen before locking the stable, it is too late, the reason for making the investigation will have disappeared.


Franklin White Turnbull: I think the remarks of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) have, at least in my view, strengthened my argument. If trustees are licensed, and if the superintendent of bankruptcy assumes his proper responsibility in seeing that only properly qualified trustees are appointed, and if those licensed trustees are twice bonded, and if they are compelled to make reports from time to time to the superintendent of bankruptcy in his office here in Ottawa, surely that should be sufficient to enable him to supervise his licensed trustees without the necessity of appointing a staff to go around from time to time and inspect, not the licensed trustees, but the administration of individual estates. It is not a question of inspecting one hundred licensed trustees it is a question of inspecting the administration of hundreds and thousands o.f estates, with all that imposes on the superintendent of bankruptcy. I would suggest that we try out the act on the basis of the minor authority first, in view of the fact that our licensed trustees are properly appointed, and that they are bonded with respect to their appointment and again with respect to the estate itself. Let us confine ourselves to investigating complaints, which after all involve the removal of any licensed

Bankruptcy Act
trustee. Surely the investigation made by the superintendent of bankruptcy should be very largely confined to complaints against the officials whom he has licensed, so he can exercise his discretion as to whether the licences shall be continued or withdrawn. Any other course of inspection beyond a doubt is going to result in the building up of a very large and expensive staff at Ottawa under the superintendent of bankruptcy.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think the fears of the hon. member for Regina are perfectly well justified, and he may rest assured that before long this is going to establish a very important bureau in Ottawa to deal with the Bankruptcy Act. He may also be assured of this, that the moment one creditor is dissatisfied with anything happening during the disposition of the assets of an insolvent debtor, he is going to make complaint at Ottawa and ask for a special investigation to be made by the superintendent. So the superintendent will be travelling all the time covering the whole of Canada, and to answer the requests coming every day to his department it will be necessary that he have an assistant, as well as accountants, stenographers and other officials. In the end it may very well be that in the event of loss to the creditors the government will be charged with responsibility because the supervising by the superintendent had not been efficient, and it will be urged that there is a moral responsibility on the government.
Now, may I be permitted to refer to the case I mentioned with regard to the fact that the province of Quebec is being considered as one district under this bill, and that a man residing in the county of Gaspe may be forced to come to Hull or to Bryson to answer the petition in bankruptcy. The case was decided in the court of appeal of Quebec and the decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1927. I refer to the case of Boilly v. McNulty. The debtor was residing in Roberval, in the extreme east end of Quebec, and he was brought to Montreal. This is the decision of the supreme court:
Held, that the superior court sitting in bankruptcy at Montreal had jurisdiction. According to section 63, subsection 1 (d) of the Bankruptcy Act, the court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy matters in the province of Quebec is the superior court of the province, and according to section 64, subsection 5 of the act, each province of Canada shall constitute for the purpose of this act one bankruptcy district, so that the superior court,_ sitting in any provincial judicial district, has jurisdiction to hear a petition in bankruptcy served upon a debtor residing and doing business in any part of the province.
I think that is quite clear, and this interpretation absolutely confirms my contention.
I think it time this situation was remedied and justice rendered to those living in the rural sections of Canada, more particularly in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend from Stanstead said that boards of trade, chambers of commerce and so on were in favour of these amendments. I have every respect for these organizations, but they are located in the big cities and it is only natural that they should look after their own interests. But they forget the interests of those living in the rural sections of the country. I do not blame these organizations for making these recommendations in order that these matters may be dealt with at their convenience. They are defending their own interests and protecting their own rights, but I think one of the duties of parliament is to look after the interests of all Canada and not to legislate only according to the will or the whim of these big organizations located in the large centres. The rural sections of Canada must be recognized and considered; they should not be deprived of their advantages and their rights.
It is not my intention to move any amendment, but I would ask the Minister of Justice and the government if they would not consider an amendment to provide that in the districts of Quebec, other than the cities of Montreal and Quebec, the clerk of the court should be appointed as trustee to administer the affairs of insolvent debtors. That would save a large amount of money to the creditors. This official of the court could deal with the matter much better than it could be dealt with by any other trustee who might be appointed. The clerk has legal knowledge as well as a knowledge of conditions in the district in which he lives, so he would be in a very good position to dispose of the assets of an insolvent debtor. This would ensure the application of the Bankruptcy Act in a very proper way. That man would be an official of the court; he would know how to deal with legal matters, and he would be dealing with them in his official capacity. This would not greatly increase his duties, because after all there is not very much to do when a trustee or liquidator wants to dispose of an insolvent business quickly; that can be done in a very short time. The delay in the past has been caused by the trustees themselves, who have had many matters accumulate in their offices, and who must adjust everything else in order to leave themselves free to look after one particular matter. So I think if the clerk of the court
Bankruptcy Act

could be appointed as trustee it would be a very great improvement and a relief to the creditors, because they would be sure that no creditor would have an advantage over the others. At the present time the trustees are appointed by the creditors, and when a trustee is appointed because of the support he receives from a certain number of creditors it is only natural that he should be inclined to be nice to the creditors who supported him as against those who opposed his appointment.
Another point is that if the clerk of the court were appointed you would keep in these bankruptcy affairs the judicial character that should be preserved. After all, it is purely and simply a judicial matter; it is not a business proposition. It concerns the division of the assets of a debtor among his creditors according to their claims, and this must be done in fairness and in justice to all. It is a judicial proceeding in its very character. That being so, why not place the whole business in the hands of an officer of the court of the district in which the debtor carried on his affairs? I repeat that it would cost much less than it will cost under the system which has been evolved up to this time and which is being perpetuated by the amendments with which we are dealing; so I earnestly plead with the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to consider that aspect of the case, to see if it would not be possible, without delaying the passing of the measure too long, to permit the appointment of the clerk of the superior court as trustee. We have been speaking of boards of trade and chambers of commerce. I feel sure that these organizations will not object to this change. They should feel much more secure if the whole business is placed in the hands of an officer of the court, so I respectfully but earnestly submit this suggestion to the government.


John Thomas Hackett: It is unfortunate that
the hon. member did not attend some of the meetings of this special committee, where it was made clear by the evidence that the functions of the trustee are not judicial. They are commercial and financial. It is necessary that the trustee be acquainted with business and business methods to realize the largest amount possible on the assets. A person who acts as trustee must have business connections and business experience. Furthermore, it was established that in the United States, where for some years they have caused bankrupt estates to be administered in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Richelieu, they 
have been forced within the last two years to abandon that method. They have found that the court officials are incapable of dealing with large commercial and financial matters in which they have no training.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The trustees that are going to be appointed are not experienced men.


Hugh Guthrie: Then they should not be
appointed.


John Thomas Hackett: That is why we are going to license them.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But if you appoint as
trustee a man who is expert in one line of business he will not be expert in some other line; he may be quite competent in one line and know nothing whatever * about another line of business. He may be competent to deal with the class of goods left by one insolvent debtor and he may be utterly incompetent to deal with some other class left by some other debtor. What is the use of experience of this sort? To a certain extent they will have to deal with distressed goods. Now what is the duty of the trustee? It is to take possession of the goods which are left and to make a valuation of them. Well, is he going to carry out that duty himself? Are the trustees going to do this work themselves? No. They will hire the services of some other person to take an inventory of the goods and make a valuation of them. They will not do this themselves. So that they do not need to have special qualifications in the line of business in which the insolvent debtor was engaged. The valuation of the goods is made by some hired man or firm, and the goods are afterwards sold by auction or privately. You do not need great experience in business to dispose of distressed goods which have been left by an insolvent creditor and which have to be sold either by auction or privately. Under the circumstances, therefore, I do not see why it should be necessary to have so highly qualified a business man appointed as trustee. As a matter of fact, he will not use his experience and his knowledge because he cannot personally go and make the inventory or the valuation; as I say, he has to hire someone. The court can do that just as well. The court can hire the services of some man in the locality, and that would be a good deal less costly than having the valuation made by some man coming up from Montreal. The man in the locality would be perfectly familiar with the conditions there; he would understand quite well the conditions of the trade in

which the insolvent debtor was engaged, and therefore these duties could be carried out as properly and efficiently by an officer of the court.


Hugh Guthrie: I am always ready to
give the greatest consideration to any suggestion that emanates from my hon. friend from Richelieu.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I appreciate that and I
thank the minister for the compliment.


Hugh Guthrie: I must say, however, that my own view is that the proposal to appoint clerks and registrars of the courts is not as sound as it might appear to be. My experience in my own province of the registrars and clerks of the various courts would lead me to the conclusion that they are about the least proper officials to appoint as trustees in bankruptcy. I do not know of any class of persons who, I would say, were less adapted for this purpose than the clerks and registrars of the various courts of Ontario. Then there is this other point to be considered. These clerks and registrars are appointed for specific purposes, and their time is supposed to be fully occupied in their present positions in the courts. The object of this amendment has been to secure as far as possible- men best adapted to act as trustees, and the positions have been surrounded with every reasonable safeguard. They have to be licensed, and only men who are deemed proper for the purpose will obtain licences. Not until then will they be appointed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We had that system a few years ago and it was abandoned.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We had it up to 1923.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to 1923, as the hon. member says, we had the system of licensed trustees and it was abandoned.


Hugh Guthrie: We have the system pretty well safeguarded in the amendment which is now before the committee, and if this amendment carries the result will be that we shall obtain as trustees in this important field men who will be far ahead of those whom we have had under any former system. They will be men better adapted to wind up estates. Personally I think we should try out the proposal reported by the committee. It may be that it will have to be changed at some time in the future, but I very much prefer this system, speaking for myself, to the proposal now made by my hon. friend from Richelieu, and I am basing that statement simply on my own experience of court officials whom I know. I do not think they would be well
Bankruptcy Act
adapted to act as trustees in these cases, nor do I think that they should be asked to do so for the reason that they have already certain duties to perform in the positions they now occupy. However, I am willing to give the matter further consideration. I understand from the hon. member for Stanstead that, the committee viewed the proposal from every angle and there was practically no division on this question. Their endeavour was to secure the very best kind of trustee at the least possible expense, to safeguard the interests of both creditor and debtor, and to see that every dollar could be obtained for those who were entitled to receive money. After considering the question very carefully and hearing the evidence submitted both pro and con. I regard this clause as the considered opinion of the committee, and I should hesitate very much to depart from their report unless very good cause were shown.


Vincent Dupuis: Is there any reason why bankruptcy proceedings should not be taken in the judicial district in which the debtor lives?


Hugh Guthrie: Giving my own opinion, I would say at the moment that I see no particular reason why they should not. But in the case that has been discussed this morning, so far as I heard the brief synopsis given by my hon. friend, the supreme court merely decided that each province constituted a bankruptcy district and that the superior court of the province had jurisdiction in bankruptcy and could entertain a petition in bankruptcy. I assume that this is correct, that the superior court could entertain a petition in bankruptcy. I do not know whether it has been called to the attention of my hon. friend or not, but we have a new subsection, subsection 8 of section 17 of the bill, intended to meet difficulties which may arise through inconvenience and so on. That provision reads:
(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of this act, when the debtor resides or carries on business at a distance far removed from the nearest licensed trustee, the court or the official receiver may, having regard as far as the court or official receiver deems just to the wishes of the creditors, appoint a responsible person residing in the locality of the debtor as custodian, and such person shall be eligible to be appointed by the creditors as trustee and shall, for the purposes of the administration of the estate of such debtor, have all the powers of a licensed trustee under this act and thereupon the provisions of this act shall apply to such person as if he had been duly licensed hereunder.
It was to meet inconvenience and difficulty that that clause was inserted. The court has

Bankruptcy Act
power to meet the situation by employing a local person to take charge of the estate, to act as trustee and to perform all duties provided the creditors are not prejudiced. I think that that goes a long way to meet the objections.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think it is only fair and reasonable, in view of the judgment of the supreme court and other judgments which have been given in the province of Quebec, that it should be made plain that the affairs of the insolvent will be dealt with in the judicial district in which he resides. I can see the force of the argument of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in connection with subsection 8 of section 17, but anyone reading that subsection in the light of past experience, or anyone reading between the lines, must realize that a man outside of the large districts will be appointed only if the creditors living within the large districts are satisfied with him. That is what will occur. I refer again to my first observation, that the creditors in the large cities may be important from the point of view of the amounts involved, but from the point of view of the number of creditors, they are generally to be found in the rural sections, especially when the bankrupt was carrying on business there. I should like to refer to the case of Dubuc versus Bergeron, reported at page 217, volume 37 of La Revue Legale. In this instance two petitions were filed on the same day, one at Chicoutimi and the other at Montreal. The insolvent debtor was living in Chicoutimi but the court decided that proceedings should be carried on in Montreal. Such proceedings should not be possible; it is about time that a condition of this kind was corrected.
I should like to refer to the abuses which have existed in the past and which will exist in the future even with the proposed amendments in connection with trustees. I should like to translate a letter written by a man who desired to be appointed a trustee. This letter is dated in 1931 and the translation is as follows:
Seeing by the reports that one of your creditors is about to sue you, we take this opportunity of offering our services without any obligation on your part or without any payment. If you desire an extension of time, a compromise or an arrangement with your creditors, we are at your service and we can stop immediately all proceedings and unjustified costs. Please fill out and return to us the olank which is enclosed.
That is an example of the action taken by certain people desiring to be appointed as trustees. They endeavour to induce people
[Mr. Guthrie r
to take advantage of the bankruptcy law. Even if trustees are licensed I contend that they will continue to act as they have in the past and try to induce people to go into bankruptcy in order that they may be appointed as trustees.


John Thomas Hackett: That would be an offence now.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that a man who would write such a letter would be disqualified from being appointed trustee.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By consent the house will revert to presenting reports by select standing committees.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Matthews.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand) presented the fifth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization, as follows:
The select standing committee on agriculture and colonization, beg leave to present the following as its fifth report:
Your committee has had under consideration the following order of reference, dated Tuesday, March 15, 1932.
Tuesday, March 15, 1932.
Ordered,-That the report of the committee on grain standards for the crop year 1931-32, in so far as it relates to garnet wheat be referred to the said committee, with instructions that the whole subject be inquired into carefully and that the said committee shall have power to call for witnesses, papers and documents and to report to the house its findings.
Attest.	Arthur Beauehesne,
Clerk of the House.
Your committee, in view of the evidence presented before them, a printed copy of wThich is herewith presented to the house, present the following recommendations:
Your committee recommend that the Canada Grain Act be amended to make, operative for the crop year 1933-34, the recommendation of the western grain standards board, in so far as it relates to the grading of garnet wheat as contained in the annual report of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada for the year 1931. Provided that the said amendment shall have force and effect for the crop year 1933-34, unless the said board shall, after giving due

Business of the House
consideration to the evidence given before your committee and conditions then existing, establish standards for the grading of garnet wheat for the said crop year, different from the standards recommended by the said report of 1931.
Your committee further recommend that one thousand copies of this report and the evidence on which it is based be printed in blue book form for distribution to the growers of garnet wheat so that they may be more fully advised of the intended change in the Canada Grain Act.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke) :	Mr. Speaker, in connection with
my remarks as reported, at page 1994 of Hansard to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) referred this morning, I have re-read the remarks and I do not see anything wrong with the statement I made, but in view of the fact that some hon. members of this house might attach to my remarks a meaning different from that intended I wish to state that I did not in any way impute wrong-doing to any member of the cabinet or to any member of the house.

Mr. LAFLECHE (Richmond-Wolfe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), in doing so, I must read a letter on which the question is based.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Louder!


Joseph-François Laflèche: May I, sir. read to the house the correspondence exchanged between the hon. Adelard Godbout, Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, and myself. This correspondence refers to the distribution of seed grain in Quebec. On May 10, last, I wrote the following letter to the hon. Mr. Godbout:
Hon. Adelard Godbout,
Minister of Agriculture,
Quebec.
Dear Mr. Godbout: . . .


Ernest Lapointe: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, may I ask under what rule or authority the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) is communicating to the house correspondence between himself and the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec?


Joseph-François Laflèche: I rise to a question of privilege.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe is not in order in making
his statement at this time. The house has reverted to motions by consent for the purpose of allowing a certain procedure to take place. I would therefore ask the hon. member to defer his statement until the orders of the day are called at a future sitting, when it might be in order for him to proceed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to intimate to the house that I have communicated with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and he informs me that members of his group have made arrangements that would preclude them from being in attendance on Saturday. I suggested that possibly we might sit beyond eleven o'clock until eleven thirty or twelve to-night and to-morrow night if that were acceptable to the other members of the house, and he said he thought that might be managed. If it is acceptable to the house I would make a motion accordingly.


Ernest Lapointe: As far as we are concerned, it is most acceptable. I am only sorry that we do not sit on Saturday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then with the consent
of the house I move, Mr. Speaker, that the eleven o'clock rule do not apply to-day or to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 41, to amend the Bankruptcy Act-Mr. Guthrie-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To sum up the observations which were made this morning I beg to move that the present bill be amended by adding the following to paragraph (y) in section 2 of the Bankruptcy Act, chapter 11 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as subparagraph (iiii) :
in the province of Quebec the judicial district wherein the debtor carries on his business as defined by the statutes of the province of Quebec.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: I would call the attention of the
hon. gentleman to the fact that according to the information before me section 2 has already passed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In order to expedite business, Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing
Bankruptcy Act

the whole bill on section 2. The object of the amendment I have moved is to define the word "locality" in the bankruptcy act, and so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, if this amendment is agreed to, "locality" will mean the judicial district, as established by the statutes of the province of Quebec, in which the debtor was carrying on his business.


Mr. GAGNON:: What section of the bill
is my hon. friend proposing to amend?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am moving my amendment as section 2 (a) of the present bill to make it clear that the locality of a debtor is the territory comprising the judicial district in which he is carrying on his business.


Hugh Guthrie: How many judicial districts are there in the province of Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Twenty, I think.


Ernest Lapointe: Although I am inclined to agree on general principles with my hon. friend from Richelieu, I would like to ask him if he has considered all the circumstances that may arise. As the law is now, the judges of the superior court in the province of Quebec, which is the court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy, reside, with the exception of Three Rivers and Sherbrooke, where they have resident judges, in two districts only, Montreal and Quebec city, and they are assigned by the Chief Justice in Montreal and by the Chief Justice in Quebec city alternately, according to the needs of the various districts. It may very well happen that at the moment the petition for bankruptcy should be presented there is no judge in the district. Celerity in cases of this kind is necessary. Procedure has to be swift, because if it is necessary to wait weeks there will be no assets left for the creditors. I am afraid that if a strict amendment or provision such as the one proposed by my hon. friend is enacted the parties will suffer because it will be impossible to act quickly in bankruptcy proceedings.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: Unless the same rights
and privileges might be given to the clerk or registrar of the court.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In most cases, already, according to our code of civil procedure, the registrar or the clerk has all the powers of a judge in chambers. The important factor is not the hearings of the petition, but the service. We do not need a judge in the town of Sorel to have a petition in bankruptcy served on a debtor. The petition may be 
served without the judge in attendance; it comes before the judge only when there is contestation.


Ernest Lapointe: While the estate is in the hands of the trustees all sorts of procedures arise and have to be dealt with quickly.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If in the province of Quebec judicial districts, trustees, or persons authorized to act as such, are appointed, I think the difficulties will >be overcome. It is always easy to have a judge in any locality the judges visit at certain periods named by the chief justice. When there is a special matter which must be attended to quickly it is very easy to get in touch with the chief justice and have a judge sent to the district in question. That, therefore, would not be a serious objection.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: A judge of the superior court is always assigned to one judicial district for a fixed period, sometimes as long as a year. For example a petition in bankruptcy can be granted in the city of Montreal against a debtor residing in Chicoutimi. To-day the law in the province of Quebec enables a judge in Montreal to grant a petition for the district to which he is assigned, and his judgment has the same effect as if it had been rendered at the court house in Chicoutimi.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I thank the hon. member for St. Henri for directing my attention to that point. Any urgent matter which arises in the county of Richelieu can be attended to in the city of Montreal by a judge assigned to the county of Richelieu. There can be no difficulty therefore so far as that is concerned. The petition can be served in the absence of the judge, and if any procedure is to be taken to prevent the disposition of the assets of the insolvent, it can be attended to in the city of Montreal by the judge assigned to the district. Therefore all interests are protected.


Hugh Guthrie: If I understand correctly,
I am afraid the suggestion will rather complicate the operation of the Bankruptcy Act. This act has been drawn in pursuance of the idea that there were in the province of Quebec twelve bankruptcy divisions. The whole province of Quebec is divided into twelve divisions, whereas the judicial districts number some twenty or twenty-one. If proceedings can be taken in any one of the twenty-one judicial districts where a debtor may reside it is going to upset the whole, machinery in regard to the twelve divisions already established. I am afraid it would alter a great deal of the framework of the act. The other point I wish

Bankruptcy Act
to mention to the committee is that I am aware of the force of what has been said by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) with regard to the present judicial districts. I am officially aware of the fact that in many of these districts for considerable periods of time there was no judge in attendance. Consequently complaints came to the Department of Justice in regard to that matter.
I forwarded these complaints to the attorney general of the province of Quebec who now has the matter under consideration to see if the present system cannot be improved. I can imagine however that great difficulty could arise by reason of the fact that there is no judge in the particular district at the time he is required. My own view of the whole matter is that while we want to convenience the public in every way possible, the first consideration should be the convenience of creditors. They are the ones most interested, and in the majority of cases the whole of the estates belong to them. The next interest certainly is that of the debtor. Under certain conditions, if he has made an honest assignment and conducted his affairs honestly he may obtain a discharge from future liability. Certainly the convenience of those two parties should be consulted.
I am asking the committee however to let us try out this proposal. This scheme has not come forward without consideration or thought. It has been fully considered, and we believe we have now before us a scheme which will improve the administration of the law, particularly in the province of Quebec where the chief difficulty seems to have arisen. Why not try out this scheme for one or two years and see what, if any, defects may develop in that time. If there is any hardship or any very serious inconvenience in the operation of the act as now proposed, there will be an opportunity to amend it. I should not like however to mix up the twelve bankruptcy divisions as they now exist in the province of Quebec with the twenty-one judicial districts, because I think it will lead to untold difficulties.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: May I say to the minister that there is no such thing as twelve bankruptcy divisions in the province of Quebec. They do not exist.


Hugh Guthrie: Do they not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They have not been established, so there would be no interference created. With reference to the respective arguments advanced by hon. members attacking and supporting this measure, I may say I am not speaking particularly
for the debtors. I, as well as the minister speak for the creditors. I speak particularly however, for those creditors in the smaller centres who most of the time are incapable of having their claims satisfied or properly considered. Most of them have not the means to travel long distances. They cannot go from Rimouski to the city of Montreal to dispose of a little claim involving $50 or $100. For that reason most of the small claims in the rural districts are lost; they are abandoned because the people interested are not in a position to fight in the city of Montreal or other distant centres. This amendment would not upset in any way the operation of the act or the amendments which are being considered. It simply means that an insolvent debtor doing business in Chicoutimi cannot be taken to Bryson to answer a petition in bankruptcy. When a creditor brings an action against a debtor he is bound to take proceedings in the district in which the debtor resides. That principle is just and fair; but when it comes to bankruptcy the -principle is ignored and the insolvent debtor may be put to the expense of meeting his creditors at the other end of the province. The same system applies in Ontario: an insolvent debtor here can be forced to go to Windsor to answer a petition in bankruptcy, for the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that a province means a division, and that the 'locality of the insolvent ddbtor means the province in which he resides. I say that is ridiculous and should be changed.


Mr. GOBEIL:: Can the insolvent debtor go of his own free will and make an assignment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, he can do the same thing.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Samuel Gobeil: Some lawyers say "yes" and some say "no." I should like to have the situation cleared up.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If an insolvent debtor desires to do that it is very easy for him to have one of his creditors present a petition against him at any place where he wants to go.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is different.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That can be done very
easily, in fact a man can assign anywhere; he has only to scheme with a friend to present the necessary petition. I think this should not be permitted when we are attempting to prevent corrupt practices on the part of insolvent debtors, and we should see to it that the bankruptcy proceedings are conducted
Bankruptcy Act

among -the -people wit-h who-m the debtor has been tra-nsa-eting his -business. He will be much more embarrassed there where all his actions will be under review than in Montreal where no one will know what has been going on. I think it is only fair that the territorial jurisdiction should be preserved. It may be objected that the province of Quebec has much to say. I do not care what the province did on other occasions in the field of its activities, but here we have the power, without consulting the province of saying that in so far as bankruptcy is concerned the locality of the debtor means the judicial district in which he has been living and carrying on his business.


Hugh Guthrie: Does not my hon. friend think that subsection (8) of section 17-a new section-will avoid all the inconvenience and difficulty which he has now expressed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, that would not cover
the point raised by my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil); it would not prevent a debtor making an assignment anywhere he wanted to.


Hugh Guthrie: Suppose he did, that is
not the trouble. The trouble is the administration after the assignment-the meeting of creditors and, the winding up of the estate; the court can direct all that to be done in the local district or at any point it deems fit under subsection (8). The making of the assignment is a preliminary act before a judge, it matters not whether in Montreal, or Quebec, or anywhere else if he has the necessary authority ; then takes place the meeting of creditors, the appointing of a trustee and the winding up of the estate, and under the new paragraph which has been introduced into this bill all that can be done in the immediate home of the debtor.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not the case' covered by subsection (8); not at all. That case applies to localities far distant from the place where there is a trustee.


Hugh Guthrie: No. The court may
"appoint a responsible person residing in the locality."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. "Notwithstanding the provisions of this act, when the debtor resides or carries on business at a distance far removed from the nearest licensed trustee-" Mr. GUTHRIE: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, that is not the case we have in mind.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought that was the
difficulty you were picturing.
{Mr. Cardin.]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. Under the present law we may have a licensed trustee in Sorel, and an insolvent debtor in Sorel can be brought to Montreal by his creditors, notwithstanding subsection (8).


Hugh Guthrie: If a majority of the
creditors so decide should they not have the right to say where the meeting of creditors shall be held?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If you say majority in
number, that may be true to a certain extent; but if you say the majority so far as the amount of claims is concerned, you might as well admit that the meetings will always be in Montreal or Quebec. The largest creditors are always in those cities, but the greatest number of creditors are usually to be found in the locality in which the debtor resides. So it is no great protection to say "if the creditors wish." We all know by experience what that means. It is by the creditors' wish that the people of Chicoutimi and Gaspe have been taken to Montreal. It is by the creditors' wish that a debtor or small creditor can be taken from one end of the province to the other. We all know the strength and influence of our financial organizations in the big cities. If you place the debtor and his small creditors in the rural sections in the hands of the board of trade and the chamber of commerce in Montreal or Quebec, you need not fear that any of the bankruptcy proceedings are going to be conducted in the other sections of the province. It is to prevent that practice and to protect the small creditors that we ask that the bankruptcy proceedings be transacted in the rural section where the debtor and most of his creditors reside. Why be afraid of going to the county of Gaspe and settling the affairs ot the bankrupt? The judges are the same.


Hugh Guthrie: All that will be done if
the court thinks it is proper to do so.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It cannot be done. It will not be done.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend must be
reasonable.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I submit the power is not there.


Paul Mercier: If my client has a claim of over 8500 against an insolvent debtor living in Chicoutimi, I draw a petition and the assignment is made right away. I do not need to have a meeting of creditors, I simply serve him with a petition to appear in Montreal. How could you apply subsection (8) to that?

Bankruptcy Act


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection (8) relates to the winding up and administration of the estate, not to the presentation of the petition. That is within the jurisdiction of the superior court of the hon. member's province and I can understand a judge sitting in Montreal or in Hull having the same jurisdiction. But that is only a formal application. We will assume it is granted. Then the machinery is put in motion to wind up the estate, the meeting of creditors and the like takes place, and under subsection (8), as now proposed, all that can be done in the immediate locality of the debtor, if the judge of the court so directs.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If my hon. friend is correct, if all that we ask is practically covered by subsection (8) of section 17-


Hugh Guthrie: All except the formal
presentation of the petition.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If that is the case, why not make it clear and definite by the amendment which I proposed.


Hugh Guthrie: This gives the judge the power to say so; that is the only thing.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But he will never say.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think that of the judges.


Onésime Gagnon: I should like to say that I think the hon. member for Richelieu is right; although I live in the city of Quebec I think it in the public interest that justice should be decentralized. I only regret that members of the rural bar, to which my hon. friend from Richelieu belongs, did not express their views before the committee; I feel confident that if this had been done the amendment now suggested by my hon. friend would have been accepted. Now we are taken by surprise, and possibly the views of my hon. friend will not be accepted. Nevertheless, I respectfully contend that the hon. gentleman is right, that it is absolutely against the interest of creditors in general for a debtor to be permitted to go sometimes two hundred or three hundred miles to make an assignment of his assets. On the other hand it is contended that in the large cities, such as Montreal and Quebec, there are more competent accountants who are experienced in the ways of winding up insolvent estates, but there is nothing to prevent such officers from going to the rural districts and establishing themselves in that business. On the whole, Mr. Chairman, I gladly support the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Richelieu.


Mr. JACOBS:: What are the twelve bankruptcy divisions to which reference has been made?


John Thomas Hackett: May I preface my answer to that question by stating that the judgment of the supreme court, to which reference was made this morning, rests upon the finding that the power conferred by section 160 upon the governor in council to subdivide the province, which is called a bankruptcy district, into bankruptcy divisions was never exercised. The judgment in the case of Boilly versus McNulty, rendered by Mr. Justice Rinfret, is in the following words:
"Parliament authorized the Governor in Council to subdivide each province in two or more bankruptcy divisions, to give them a name and number, however this has not yet been done, except for the administration of the act by the official trustees."
I believe all trouble could be avoided, as well as the possibility of other judgments similar to that in the Boilly case, if the governor in council were to pass an order in council dividing the province of Quebec into twelve bankruptcy divisions.


Samuel William Jacobs: That would get over the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member for Richelieu.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes. The order in council to which reference has been made was passed on August 25, 1923, and is in the following
terms:
The minister, therefore, recommends that the bankruptcy districts of Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia be divided, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection 5 of section 64-
That was before the act was revised.
-of the Bankruptcy Act, for the purposes only of the administration therein of the said act by the official receivers. . . .
If another order in council were passed dividing the district into divisions for all purposes of the act I think everyone would be satisfied.


Samuel Factor: Is Ontario divided in that way?


John Thomas Hackett: In the same way.


Samuel William Jacobs: How do you mean, in the
same way; it has not been done in Quebec.


John Thomas Hackett: They are administering
it in Ontario as though it had been subdivided only for the purposes of administration.


Vincent Dupuis: Is it centralized in Ontario, as it is in Quebec?
30S0
Bankruptcy Act


John Thomas Hackett: Yes. Now, answering the question of the hon. member for Cartier, we find that there are twelve divisions in the province of Quebec. The first is Montreal, which includes the judicial districts of Montreal, Iberville, Richelieu, St. Hyacinthe, Terrebonne and Beauhamois. The second is Quebec, which includes the judicial districts of Quebec, Arthabaska, Montmagny and Beauce, including Anticosti. The third is the division of Rimouski, which is restricted to the judicial district of Rimouski. The fourth is Sherbrooke, which includes the districts of St. Francis and Bedford. The fifth is Three Rivers, which includes Three Rivers and Nicolet. The division of Hull includes Hull and Pontiac; Chicoutimi includes Chicoutimi and Saguenay; Joliette includes Joliette and Montcalm; Roberval includes only Roberval; Fraserville includes Kamouraska; New Carlisle includes Gaspe, and Amos includes Abitibi. So it will be seen that with the exception of the judicial districts which are in the immediate vicinity of Montreal and Quebec, almost every judicial district is a bankruptcy division. The locality of a debtor being in any such division, the debtor could not, once the suggested order in council had passed, be haled before the court of any other division.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why should we not, by this legislation, restrict a debtor making an assignment in bankruptcy to the division in which his judicial district is located?


John Thomas Hackett: There are twenty-five
judicial districts, I think, and it would mean that we would set up thirteen more courts, which would be a considerable expense. There would have to be thirteen more official receivers, thirteen more registrars and so on, involving a certain expense.


Samuel William Jacobs: But the prothonotaries and court officials could act as registrars and other officers, as they do largely in Montreal. You would not have to set up any new machinery; the court house officials could function as bankruptcy officials.


Onésime Gagnon: I should like to add to the few remarks I made a moment ago. I have before me the judgment of the supreme court to which my hon. friend from Stanstead referred, and I think it would be well to ponder for a moment the facts of this case. A man from Roberval named Boilly received service of a petition in bankruptcy at Roberval, which is a superior court district and where a judge comes every month. Although that petition in bankruptcy was served on Boilly at Roberval, where the superior court sits as 
the bankruptcy court, the debtor was ordered to appear in Montreal, which is some five hundred miles from the district of Roberval. I observe from the few remarks referred to in that judgment that the majority of the creditors had their domicile or their place of business in the district of Roberval, although there were some large creditors living in Montreal. But the defendant, through his attorney, took exception and asked that the record from Montreal be sent back to Roberval where the debtor was living and where his assets were; and of course the superior court, the court of king's bench, and finally the supreme court, held that there was only one court of bankruptcy in the whole province of Quebec. In this regard Mr. Justice Rinfret says:
"Parliament authorized the Governor in Council to subdivide each province in two or more bankruptcy divisions, to give them a name and number, however this has not yet been done, except for the administration of the act by the official trustees."
This judgment was rendered in 1927, and the practice may have been altered since; but if it has not been altered then the judgment means that from 1927, although the order in council provides that there might be established more divisions of the court of bankruptcy throughout the province, there has been only one division. Therefore I think it is in the interests of the creditors themselves that the expenses in connection with the winding-up of estates be limited to the utmost. I contend that if a debtor were compelled to make assignment of his assets before the tribunal of his domicile, the cost of the assignment would be less exorbitant and therefore it would be in the interests of the creditors.


Samuel William Jacobs: The cost of the assignment will be the same but the cost of travelling expenses will be very much higher. It is a question of the expenses incidental to travelling all these distances.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Travelling of whom?


Samuel William Jacobs: The debtor.


Hugh Guthrie: He has his lawyer, and the mails are at his disposal. Then there is this safeguard, that the administration of the estate, if the judge thinks proper, will go back to his own locality.


Onésime Gagnon: In my view, the attorney general of the province of Quebec ought to present a demand to the Minister of Justice for the establishment of as many divisions in bankruptcy as there are divisions of tihe

Bankruptcy Act
superior court, and I am sure the Minister of Justice will have no objection to deferring to the wishes of the attorney general of the province.


Hugh Guthrie: But there is another way. We do not need to ask the attorney general to intervene in that respect because we have power now to do it by order in council. The order in council, which was passed in 1923, provided for twelve divisions, though as passed it was limited. That is what Mr. Justice Rinfret points out in his judgment; it is limited for the- purposes only of the administration therein of the act by the official receiver. Now, if we amended that order in council or repealed it, and passed a new one, we have power to create just as many districts by order in council as we see fit, and if it is the sense of the committee that there should be a number of districts equal to the number of judicial districts in the province of Quebec, that can be done by order in council. There is, however, extra expense in that. We have now twelve districts and if it is proposed to increase the number to twenty-five, that, as I say, is a matter that can ibe done at any moment by order in council.


Samuel William Jacobs: The registrar or whoever gets fees out of the estate-


Hugh Guthrie: I am not discussing the question of registrars, because I think the question of trustees is more important. If we have twelve districts properly established by order in council, we probably have enough; but if it is the sense of the house that the government should create more districts, it can be done by order in council. That order in council, however, is too limited according to the view of the supreme court, and for that reason they have held that practically there is only one district in the whole province.


Vincent Dupuis: Will the effect of that order in council be to preclude the making af assignment in any other district? Will that be the result, since it is not amended by the act? In other words, will the order in council oblige the bankrupt to stay in the judicial district established thereunder?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; that would create concurrent jurisdiction, that is all. In the district of Richelieu, for instance, it would give power to deal with the affairs of the insolvent debtor there, but that would not prevent a creditor in Montreal from forcing the debtor to go to that city. The jurisdiction will be there, but no one will take advantage of it if the matter rests in the hands of the creditors in Montreal and Quebec unless the law is 41761-194
amended to provide that all the affairs must be dealt with in the judicial district. There will be concurrent jurisdiction, but that will not prevent a man in one end of the province from compelling his debtor and the other creditors to go to the other end of the province. As I see it, that would offer no remedy.


John Thomas Hackett: It is not my desire to reiterate the argument I made this morning, but I would suggest to my hon. friend that he read the section of the law which provides that the petition must be presented to a court having jurisdiction in the locality of the debtor.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but the supreme court has declared that the locality is the whole province.


John Thomas Hackett: That is because of the defect, or, if we do not like that word, the restriction in the order in council. The moment a new order in council is passed, dividing the district into subdivisions, then the only court which will have jurisdiction is the court in the locality of the debtor.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is the logical theory: the debtor should assign in the locality where he resides. That is the theory of the law.


John Thomas Hackett: Certainly; that is a rough statement of the law. Locality of the debtor is the place where he resides; where he carries on business, or where he has his property.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If it is the opinion of the chairman of the committee and also the sense of the hon. the Minister of Justice that it is so, why not make it clear? Instead of passing an order in council, which is always uncertain and can be changed every month or almost every day, why not declare in the law that this shall be the practice? Why not make that clear?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not like making exceptions for one particular province unless I have to do so.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One has been made already in regard to farmers.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not approve of
making more exceptions than are absolutely necessary. I can assure my hon. friend that the limitation or deficiency in the order in council of 1923 will be corrected and that bankruptcy divisions will be set up in accordance with the real meaning of the act. Section 2 (y) will be made to apply in such a way that the locality of the debtor shall be construed to be that particular bankruptcy section wherein he resides or carries on his business, as is stated in the subsection.

Bankniptcy Act


Ernest Lapointe: Has any person or any associations or chamber of commerce raised any objection to what my hon. friend from Richelieu is asking? If no one objects to it, I do not see why it should not be done.


Vincent Dupuis: I concur fully with the
opinion expressed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when he states that he does not like to make an exception in the case of one particular province. Although this matter is brought up on behalf of the province of my origin, I do not like it myself but still if it is good for the citizens of Quebec I do not see why it would not be equally good for the citizens of the other provinces.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps we had better take the opinion of the committee on this matter. I have no particular wish one way or the other on the subject but I think we should accept the report of the committee.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. .
Sections 19 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On section 28-Abstract of receipts and disbursements.
Hugh Guthrie: I move that this section be amended by adding the words "the registrar" after the word "creditor" in the seventh line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 29-Remuneration of trustee.
Paul Mercier: In my opinion,
the fees in these matters are too high. The cost of stamps and everything is too great and nothing remains in the estate. A lawyer may be representing three hundred creditors and when the proceedings have been completed, nothing is left for the creditors.


Hugh Guthrie: Experience has proven that the cost of the administration of these estates is far too high, and I am inclined to think that that applies to the province of Quebec more than it does to any other province, although complaints have been received from all over Canada. That is one of the objects we have in view in the appointment of a superintendent. The question of law stamps has been raised in many quarters but I think this matter depends upon the laws of the various provinces. One of the main objects of this revision is to see if it is not possible to reduce the cost of the administration of estates, and with that end in view limitations have been placed upon trustees

and inspectors who will be subject to the supervision of the superintendent when he is appointed. I hope that this bill will work a saving for many of the estates.


Paul Mercier: The tariff is to be arranged by the department?


Hugh Guthrie: The tariff is to be framed by the department.


Paul Mercier: Will consideration be given to the views of merchants and manufacturers?


Hugh Guthrie: The department is to frame the tariff of costs and fees.


Paul Mercier: In order to obtain permission to sell goods or to move them from one warehouse to another, a fee of $5 must be paid.


John Thomas Hackett: If my hon. friend has the patience to read the evidence he will discover why this is so.


Vincent Dupuis: Was the act amended for the better?


John Thomas Hackett: The trouble has arisen from the way the act has been interpreted.


Vincent Dupuis: Restrict the interpretation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The officials are taking advantage of the law.


Paul Mercier: The department will have a tariff and it will control them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 30 to 37 inclusive agreed to.
On section 38-Restricted creditors.
Mr. HEENAN:: I should like to make a few remarks in connection ivith the preferential treatment of wages and salaries. While this matter may not come under this particular section, perhaps I may be permitted to discuss it at this time. As I read the bill, wages and salaries come fourth in preference and I understood the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to say last year when this matter was under discussion that when the bill was amended he would give a more preferential position to wages and salaries.


Hugh Guthrie: The wages are in a fairly good position now unless the estate is hopelessly bankrupt. The first claim is for the costs and expenses of winding up. The second is the costs of the first execution creditor; in other words, paying the amount to get the sheriff out of possession. Then comes the third preference:

Bankruptcy Act
All wages, salaries, commissions or compensation of any clerk, servant, travelling salesman, labourer or workman in respect of services rendered to the bankrupt or assignor during three months before the date of the receiving order or assignment.
So the wage-earner practically comes first, after payment of costs, but only for three months' salary or wages. That is the extent of the preference.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 39 to 42 inclusive agreed to.
On section 43-Levy to be paid to the receiver general.
Hugh Guthrie: I propose to re-word this section, and to insert the following instead of the proposed 126A:
"126a. Notwithstanding anything contained in sections one hundred and twenty-one to one hundred and twenty-six both inclusive, there shall be payable to the receiver general, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the supervision by the superintendent, a levy on all payments made by the trustee, excepting the costs and expenses of the custodian, or interim receiver, and the fees and expenses of the trustee, and the costs of the garnishing, attaching. execution or judgment creditor mentioned in section one hundred and twenty-one, and excepting payments made on account of liabilities incurred after the receiving order or assignment. The payments subject to the said levy shall include all payments made by way of dividend or otherwise on account of the claims of creditors, whether ordinary, preferred or secured creditors, and including His Majesty in the right of the Dominion or of any province, claiming in respect of taxes or otherwise. Such levy shall be at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council from time to time and shall be charged proportionately against all such payments and deducted therefrom by the trustee , before payment is made."
This levy is to be paid to the receiver general to take care of the cost of the administration of the act.


John Thomas Hackett: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Do I understand the minister to mean by the amendment which he has just read that a certain percentage of the assets realized upon shall after the payment of disbursements be paid to defray the cost of the administration of the act.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand that the minister has in contemplation a rearrangement of the fees. Is that correct?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: I just want to add a word to what has already been said with regard to 41761-mi
the costs in recent years being altogether out of proportion to the amount that has reached the creditors. The way it seems to have worked out has been this:	There would be
a meeting of creditors, inspectors would be appointed, and frequently the creditors would hear nothing more about the estate. I think the chairman of the committee will bear me out that specific cases were instanced before the committee where the costs approximated pretty nearly the whole estate. I do suggest to the minister, what I see he clearly has in mind already, that if the superintendent is going to serve the purpose which the committee hoped he would, there must be a strict supervision over the costs of administration of these particular estates.


John Thomas Hackett: They must all now be taxed. It is impossible as in the past to waive taxation.


John Campbell Elliott: It will mean, as I understand it, that there will be brought before the superintendent a statement of all the assets of the various estates after deducting the cost of administration. It will be interesting to see just what percentage of the assets that have been actually realized upon reach the creditors. I would suggest to the minister that that check-up should be kept from year to year so that we may be in a position to know just what percentage goes to the creditors. Last year it was suggested that the claims throughout the dominion amounted to something like $5S,000,000, and that about $13,-000.000-I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these figures-was the amount realized out of the assets of the various estates, and that approximately two-thirds of the assets went into costs. That is something that can be very materially improved, and I believe a close supervision over the percentage of assets it takes to pay the cost of administration will be of very great benefit in the administration of the act.


Hugh Guthrie: I can assure my hon. friend that he has put his finger upon the weak spot of the act as it has existed hitherto. The cost of administration was out of all proportion to the work done, and the results showed in only too many cases that the creditors got practically nothing through the mismanagement and the waste of the estates as well as by reason of the excessive costs that were charged. Now that the scale of costs is to be laid down by the department-not necessarily the Department of Justice because the superintendent is to be under the jurisdiction of the Finance department just as is the superintendent of insurance-the depart-
Bankruptcy Act

ment, having fixed the scale of costs will have a man there in the position of superintendent to see that that scale is not exceeded and that every cent of the estate is properly accounted for. I anticipate a vast improvement in the working out of this act in the future. If there is not I shall be very greatly disappointed.


Samuel William Jacobs: We may succeed in
abolishing bankruptcy altogether.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, you started it. I wish to correct an error I made in speaking earlier. I said, the amount of fee to be charged to the estate after the payment of preferred claims; it is before the payment of preferred claims.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 44-When bankrupt or assignor is a corporation.
Onésime Gagnon: As the chairman is allowing a general discussion, perhaps I might say a word at this point. If we are to limit the cost of trustees, why should we not make provision to see that the costs of legal stamps to be paid to the crown are reduced? I am informed that in some districts, more particularly in the big cities, the registrar who is appointed by the government and sometimes by the chief justice receives in some cases a salary of more than ten thousand dollars. I see that subsection 6 of the old section 162 provides :
The fees payable to the officers of the court shall belong to the crown in the right of the province, but the lieutenant governor in council may allow the same in whole or in part to such officers.
I do not know what conditions obtain in other provinces and other districts than the district of Quebec, but in the city of Quebec I think my hon. friend from Quebec East will agree with me that we have been a long time without knowing what was the proportion of the fees paid to the crown in Quebec or paid to the registrar of the bankruptcy courts. I used to go to the courts as solicitor for trustees, and at times was asked to pay $25 for legal stamps. No accounting was kept either by the registrar of the court in bankruptcy or the prothonotary of the court who sometimes assumed both positions, and when we asked for information from the department of the attorney general we could not get satisfaction. It is all very well to reflect upon the fees of lawyers and trustees, but I think the creditors when they give, say, $10 to their lawyers, have a right to know what propor-

tion of the amount goes to the crown and what proportion remains in the hands of the lawyers. In the province of Quebec I have known creditors to criticize lawyers, and they would have been surprised to learn that out of the $25 they had paid, in some instances, $15 had gone to the crown. The Minister of Justice has intimated that very soon there will be a revision of the tariffs, and I think he or the superintendent of bankruptcy, who will be appointed to control the operation of the act, might see fit to take the necessary steps to limit the fees levied by the crown.


Ernest Lapointe: Quite true.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 45 and 46 agreed to.
On section 47-Court may grant or refuse discharge.
Paul Mercier: Subsection 1
of section 142 of the act is hereby repealed. Sometimes a debtor is granted an absolute discharge, and nobody knows it. Sometimes we learn a man has been discharged, all cleared up, and is in a position to start again in business under no debt whatever. The proposed subsection reads in part as follows:
(1) On the hearing of the application, the court shall take into consideration the report of the trustee, and the resolution of the inspectors, and may either grant or refuse an absolute order of discharge or suspend the operation of the order for a specified time.
Does this subsection mean that only the court and not the registrar can grant a discharge?


John Thomas Hackett: If my hon. friend will
turn to section 25 of the bill he will find that. the new section 57 provides that:
The trustee of a bankrupt or assignor shall promptly after their receipt or preparation mail to the superintendent and to the Dominion statistician, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, a true copy of . . .
And among the documents which have to be forwarded are the following:
(d) every order made by the court upon the application for discharge of any bankrupt or authorized assignor.
The term "court'' has been interpreted by the courts to mean the judge or the registrar. Section 159 states specifically that a petition for a discharge, if it is not opposed, may be adjudicated upon by the registrar.


Paul Mercier: If it is not
opposed, yes. Sometimes there is very little delay, the debtor gets his discharge and nobody knows about it.

Bankruptcy Act


Hugh Guthrie: There has to be fourteen days' notice.


Paul Mercier: I contend
only the court should discharge, and it should not be left in the hands of the registrar. The discharge is the most important part of the Bankruptcy Act.


Hugh Guthrie: At the present time only the court can grant a discharge, the court being the judge. That obtains, of course, unless the matter is done by unanimous consent, a proceeding which is sometimes followed in this house. Where there is total agreement the registrar can perform the formal act of signing a discharge, but if there is any objection it can be done only by a judge. We have amended the section so that it can be done only on notice to the superintendent, too, so that he may have notice of the proceedings. If everything is not all right he may interfere.
Section agreed, to.
On section 48-Single judges to be assigned to bankruptcy work by Chief Justice.


Wilfrid Girouard: I should like to ask the minister why jurisdiction cannot be exercised by all the judges of the superior court of the province of Quebec, instead of confining the powers of assignment to the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal?


Hugh Guthrie: That was the original
scheme. It seems in the province of Quebec as well as in the province of Ontario by arrangement between the judiciary and the local legislatures the heads of the courts are given authority to arrange court business, and to nominate such judges as they see fit to act in bankruptcy, in criminal matters or such other matters as come before the courts. The consequence is that the chief justice in the city of Montreal and the chief justice in the city of Quebec nominate a special judge to suit the convenience of the courts and the people, and the result is a uniformity of decisions in bankruptcy matters. That has been the custom ever since the act was first introduced.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 49, to 51 inclusive agreed to.
On section 52-Order by court for prosecution on report of superintendent.
Samuel Factor: I am not here to condone the act of a debtor, but it seems to me strange that a representation can be made by a creditor or another interested person to a court, and that a court may commit for trial
on that representation. That would seem to be a rabid departure from the ordinary procedure in a court of justice.


Hugh Guthrie: If a complaint is made to the superintendent and he comes to the conclusion that the complaint is well founded, then a prosecution can be instituted. It has always been open to anybody to launch a prosecution, if such person thinks the law has been broken. This provision however makes it a duty of the superintendent.


Samuel Factor: Quite so, but the Minister of Justice will find, if he reads the section, that any creditor may make a representation to a court to the effect that there is ground to believe that a person has been guilty of an offence under the act, and the court may commit for trial, without any necessity of the accused appearing before the court before committal. This section reads:
Whenever the court is satisfied, upon the representation of the superintendent or any one on his behalf, or of the trustee, or of any creditor, inspector, or other interested person, that there is ground to believe that any person has been guilty of an offence under this act or under any statute, whether dominion or provincial, in connection with the estate of the debtor, his dealings or property, the court may order that such person be prosecuted for such offence or be committed for trial.
That seems to be a very rabid departure. It says here that a creditor may make representation to a court that he believes an offence has been committed, and that then the court may commit for trial without further formalities. I think the minister should look into that.


John Alexander Sullivan: I think the words "or be committed for trial" should be stricken out.


Samuel Factor: I have no objection to a
prosecution, if the court orders, but the addition of the words "or be committed for trial" in my opinion is unfair.


John Alexander Sullivan: I submit they should be deleted.


Hugh Guthrie: It is a recommendation
of a special committee of the Canadian Bar Association that the words "or be committed for trial" be included in the section. The reason is that in various parts of Canada it has been found that unless they can get the matter before the bankruptcy judge they cannot get anywhere; that all kinds of abuses have crept in and all kinds of offences have been overlooked, and that unless we clothe the judge with some power in the matter we are not going to serve the purpose which they have in view. Personally I am not wedded
Bankruptcy Act

to the words at all, but that is the reason why they are included there; that is, "the court may order that such person be prosecuted for such offence."


Samuel Factor: There is no objection to that. Surely that should be sufficient protection itself, but you add that the bankrupt, without being accused at that time, can be committed for trial. I submit that is going beyond what is necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: We know that under the criminal code there are a number of offences in which the attorney general can order committal for trial without going before a magistrate. But I have no objection to these five words being struck out. I think they are improperly put there.


Samuel William Jacobs: The matter was under discussion before the committee, and I think the law as it now reads is to the effect that the bankruptcy judge tries the case; he sits as a judge.


Hugh Guthrie: That may be, but I do not think the person ought to bn committed for trial without some preliminary investigation.


Samuel William Jacobs: No. Then what happens if the party is committed for trial by a person having proper jurisdiction, a magistrate? The offender comes back before the bankruptcy court for trial.


Hugh Guthrie: Not necessarily; he comes before the ordinary courts of the country.


Samuel William Jacobs: No. As I understand the bankruptcy judge must sit on the case.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, if it is the wish of the committee I think that the words in the last line of the subsection "or be committed for trial" should be deleted.


John Campbell Elliott: Where will that leave us, Mr. Chairman?-"the court may order that such person be prosecuted for such offence."


Hugh Guthrie: That is just as it was in the former act-"order that the debtor be prosecuted for such offence."


John Campbell Elliott: Does that mean more than that a preliminary hearing be held, and if in the opinion of whatever tribunal holds the preliminary hearing the offender should be committed, that he then be prosecuted? Or does it simply mean that he be prosecuted? I am afraid that the amendment is going to get the accused into a worse position than he was before. In the one case he may be

prosecuted; if the suggested change is made he must be prosecuted, that is, he must be tried.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: That does not imply merely a preliminary hearing?


Hugh Guthrie: It implies that he would be prosecuted in the ordinary way provided by our law. But the objection I have to the other words is that you allow the bankruptcy court, without any investigation before any magistrate, merely on the representation of the superintendent to commit the man for trial. I think that is going pretty far.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
On section 54-Administration.
Samuel Gobeil: Before the bill is disposed
of, Mr. Chairman, I desire to give to the farming communities of the province of Quebec a clear understanding of subsection (9) of section 6. I was called out of the house for a few minutes and while absent it was disposed of by the committee. Before this bill was submitted to the committee I had a motion on the order paper-as had also the member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard)-that all persons engaged in tillage of the soil be exempt from the bankruptcy law. I put that motion on the order paper-and I have no doubt the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska did so for the same reason-because I had received several resolutions in its favour from farmers' clubs and other farmers' organizations. I think I can speak for every member of the committee when I say all political ideas were forgotten for the time being when this section came before the committee and only the welfare of the farming class was considered. Not one representation was made before the committee against the change made in the bankruptcy law by subsection (9) of section 6. Since then unfortunately more or less division seems to have arisen, even among farmers, with regard to this change, and I hold in my hand a couple of newspapers containing articles claiming that the remedy will be worse than the disease. Therefore I desire to make it plain that the committee inserted subsection (9) in response to what we considered was a unanimous demand made in the interests of the farming class of the province of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I wish to endorse what my hon. friend has said, and,

Bankruptcy Act
as a member of the committee, to speak in defence of this bill, which to-day has met some rather strong criticism. The bankruptcy law has never been very popular. From its inception the act has been criticized, especially in the province from which I come, but I think the criticism was not limited to Quebec. In 1923 when Sir Lomer Gouin was Minister of Justice he was instrumental in amending the act by inserting some special provisions to make it more in harmony with the civil law of the province of Quebec. Those amendments have to some extent alleviated the objections that existed against the law, but not completely. More particularly was there strong criticism of the farming community being subjected to the bankruptcy law. Of course, it has always been claimed that it was a privilege for the farmers, and even during this session when our committee was sitting members from the other provinces could not very well understand why the farmers of Quebec should ask to be removed from t)he operation of the act. They thought it was a privilege for the farmers to be able to get a discharge from their debts and start anew. But of course conditions among the farming communities in Quebec are not similar to those among the farmers in the other provinces, and it has been clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction even of my colleagues from the other provinces that the act instead of helping the farmers of Quebec has worked an injury to their credit. The farmers of Quebec do not borrow money from the banks or trust companies; they usually borrow from other farmers in their own village or their own parish. These loans are based on mutual confidence, and unfortunately the fact that many farmers were induced to make assignments has taken away some of the confidence that formerly prevailed in the farming communities, which has been rather prejudicial to the farmers in the course of their business operations. The Minister of Agriculture, the presidents of agricultural associations and many other persons have represented that it was better for the farmers [DOT]of Quebec that they should be removed from the operation of the act, and in that respect the committee has been unanimous. If it were for that provision pnly, I think hon. members from the province of Quebec should welcome this bill, which is certainly a great improvement and which has been requested for many years.
The other part of the bill, which I have always favoured, is that establishing control. It could not be done otherwise than by having a superintendent of bankruptcy able to supervise the operations of the act. There is no doubt that there have been grave abuses; what has been said to-day by various hon. members shows the need for some control, which could not be maintained except by having a special officer of the government appointed for that purpose and by having the trustees who may be appointed to wind up estates licensed, so that there may be some control in that respect also. We have had many instances of abuses; people have employed agents to canvass the creditors in order to secure their proxies for the purpose of making some money out of the estate, which should go to the creditors. We must not forget, too, that after all assignments, whether voluntary or compulsory, are made on the principle, which is recognized by the law, that they are for the benefit of the creditors, and the creditors should be considered in providing proper machinery for (he administration of the estate.
On the whole I agree with the Minister of Justice that this improved act should be given a trial. If there is the need for further amendment or revision this parliament will be able to deal with it.


Samuel Gobeil: May I be allowed to add just a few words. My motion a few weeks ago called for salaried men as well as farmers to be exempted from the operations of the Bankruptcy Act. Personally I should like to have seen that provision included, but the committee felt that since no representation had been made by the salaried class it was inadvisable to take that step. I do believe, however, that there is no more reason why the salaried man should be permitted to make an assignment than there is for the farmer to be allowed to do so. I think it would have been more in the interests of the salaried men if they had been exempted from the privilege of making an assignment. Certainly when a merchant makes an advance to a salaried man he must consider the fact that the next day this man may go to some city and make an assignment of all his assets, if he has any.
I should like to see the exemption extended to all non-traders, which in my opinion would make the law much broader. I do not think it is proper that professional men, for instance, should have the right to make an assignment of their property. I do not think it is in accord with the dignity of the legal profession that lawyers should be allowed to assign all their assets. But, as I said a moment ago, the committee considered that since no representations had been made along
Bankruptcy Act

these lines, no action should be taken. As the ex-Minister of Justice has just said, if the law proves to be satisfactory so much the better, while if in the near future the necessity for these changes becomes apparent, perhaps these other classes of people might be exempted as well as the farmers.


Mr. BOULANGER:: May I ask the government if they have considered the advisability of enlarging the principle established in section 6 by doing away entirely with voluntary assignments?


John Thomas Hackett: They have been done away with.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I mean not only for the farmers but for everyone restricting the act only to petitions in bankruptcy.


John Thomas Hackett: That question did not come before the committee; no one was desirous of being denied the right to go into bankruptcy in a cheaper, more effective and more expeditious way.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Then I wish to urge upon the government the study of this angle of the question. It means to me that the principle of voluntary assignments is wrong. The desirability of going into bankruptcy should not be left with the debtor; it should rest with his creditors. After all, at the moment of bankruptcy the creditors are the people most concerned in the estate of the debtor, and if you allow the debtor to make a voluntary assignment very often he takes advantage of that privilege in order to defraud his creditors and save what he can from the wreck. This has been done very often; it has come to the notice of lawyers in many cases. If the privilege of voluntary assignment was taken away you would do away with the bankruptcy canvassing racket which has been mentioned during this debate. It seems to me that the initiative should rest with the creditors, who are the people most concerned. At the moment of bankruptcy everything that belongs to the debtor is the common pledge of his creditors, and it should be left to them to say whether or not a particular trader should go into bankruptcy. The trader himself should not have the privilege of going alone, on his own initiative, and making an assignment to the trustee. Therefore I urge the study of this aspect of the question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 54 and 55 agreed to.

On the title:
Paul Mercier: When will these amendments come into force?


Hugh Guthrie: Within a reasonable time, but in the meantime we propose to establish our tariffs of costs, and I will also look up the question of the districts in the various provinces. It may be that we will have to amend the order in council.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (iCape Breton South) in the chair.
Experimental farms, $1,492,000.
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Is it intended to provide experimental farms in northern and central British Columbia? The former Minister of Agriculture on two occasions went through that part of the country and said it was absolutely necessary, in order to assist the farmers there, to establish not one but two farms, and the Hon. Mr. Tolmie, who was Minister of Agriculture in the Conservative government, also said that provision in this regard was highly necessary. The Grand Trunk Pacific, now part of the Canadian National Railways, was responsible for the settlement in that district of a large number of farmers, and both before and after the completion of that railway farmers took up land there. They have no experimental farm in either northern or central British Columbia. The farms are in the south, where the soil and climate are totally different from what they are in the portion traversed by the Canadian National from YelloWhead pass to Prince Rupert. I should like to know whether the minister, if he has not yet made arrangements in this regard, intends to look into the matter. I can assure him that it is not a political issue, the necessity having been admitted by both the ex-Mindster of Agriculture and his predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Tolmie.
Hon. ROBERT 'WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) : I shall be glad to give the matter consideration.


Ernest Lapointe: On my last trip to Quebec city I came across some farmers from the adjacent district, and there is a rumour to the effect that the operations of the experimental farm at Cap Rouge are to be considerably

Supply-A griculture
curtailed. There is much anxiety over this and I should like to know whether there is any truth in the report. Is the minister considering at all a reduction in the activities of that experimental farm?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: The hon. member is correct. We have cut the appropriation for the experimental farm at Cap Rouge considerably this year, and as a result have curtailed activities there to quite a large extent.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I wish to ask two questions, the first of which I should probably have raised in connection with the last item under discussion. This morning I received information that prompts me to ask that question now. I have reference to the discontinuance of the testing of dairy cows in Manitoba- not the tuberculosis test but the milk test as it is known there. Does the department intend to cut out that testing?


Robert Weir: No; there is no intention of cutting it out.


John Vallance: In connection with the present item, No. 45, I notice that there is a reduction of $833,000. Last year the minister was kind enough to bring under this item forestry farms that would otherwise have been discontinued. My question is this. In view of this reduction of $833,000, is it still the intention of the department to carry on these forestry farms?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: The experimental farm at Cap Rouge is the large farm in the province of Quebec, and I am anxious to know to what exent its activities are to be curtailed.


Robert Weir: The chief work that has been done at that farm has been carried on, I believe, in connection with the development of French Canadian cattle. That will be continued. The poultry work will also be continued, and that was one of the outstanding pieces of work done on the farm. In conjunction with the farm at Cap Rouge there is a horse farm at St. Joachim, and that is being continued.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the amount of the reduction in Cap Rouge?


Robert Weir: The reduction is from $50,000 to $11,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is there any reduction in the activities of the remount depot at St. Joachim?


Robert Weir: No reduction.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is going on as before?


Robert Weir: Yes.


John Vallance: In view of this large reduction of $833,000 in this one vote alone, I suggest that this might be an opportune time for the minister to give a brief outline showing where he proposes to make economies, under this item, in the administration of experimental farms.


Robert Weir: The reductions are distributed as follows:
Central farm, $106,402.
Illustration stations. $17,555.
Branch farms and stations, $312,247.
Importation of live stock, $35,000.
Buildings, Central farm, $51,471.
Buildings, branch farms, $68,525.
Buildings, pathological laboratories, $8,750.
Soil surveys, $30,000.
New farms, $138,950.
Printing, $64,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am surprised at the step taken by the government in reducing the activities at the farm at Cap Rouge, which is the principal farm in the district of Quebec. I am not satisfied with the explanation offered by the minister as to why this vote should be reduced and the activities of the farm curtailed. This is a very important experimental farm, all the farmers on the north shore from Three Rivers down to even my county receiving the benefit of its activities. The farmers in the counties of Quebec, Montmorency, Saguenay and many other districts are interested in this farm. I am surprised that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), in whose constituency the farm is located, is not present in the committee. I should like to know if his consent was asked in connection with the curtailment of the activities of this farm. We are being told that everything must be done to help our farming communities and develop agriculture, but this cannot be done by curtailing the activities of our experimental farms. Unless a more satisfactory explanation is given by the minister, I must protest most strongly against the reduction in this vote. I think I am safe in saying that all members from the adjoining districts will join me in this protest, because this is a very important matter to the districts concerned. I ask the minister for a detailed explanation of the curtailment of the activities at this farm and why such a step is considered necessary when agriculture is so much in need of assistance and when the past activities of this particular farm have proven to be so beneficial to the farmers.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Chairman, before the minister makes his reply I should like to say that I disagree absolutely with the opinion
Supply-Agriculture

expressed by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. I have been at the experimental farm at Cap Rouge several times and it is my opinion that this farm is not correctly located. The soil on the farm does not represent the average soil of the outlying districts. This farm has a particular soil and the experiments carried on do not give the proper information to the farmers of the surrounding districts.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I wonder if the hon.
member for Compton could tell the committee the average of the soil in the district surrounding this farm. It is a most unfortunate thing that the activities of this farm have been reduced so greatly. If these farms are to carry on experiments, perhaps one of the first they should undertake is to find out how many hon. members of this committee owe their seats to agriculture. After making other surveys, perhaps they could endeavour to find out how many hon. members on the Conservative side owe their seats to the promises made to agriculture. To hear the hon. member for Compton state that we have too many experimental farms and pretending-


Samuel Gobeil: I did not state that.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I would rather hear the minister give an explanation in order that we might discuss this question at greater length.


Robert Weir: The purpose of experimental farms is to attack and attempt a solution of agricultural problems. When such solution or information in connection therewith has been obtained, the endeavour has been to put that information before the farmers of the district by means of either publications or illustration stations. We are endeavouring to eliminate what wastage we can without doing injury to agriculture in any province. We are cooperating with the provincial departments of agriculture in attacking the problems which are retarding agriculture. Any of the activities eliminated at the experimental farm at Cap Rouge will be conducted either at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Lennoxville or other experimental farms in Quebec. Before any further experimental farms are established we intend to have a definite agreement with the provincial departments of agriculture as to what their policy is in the particular locality where it is contended a farm should be established. At Cap Rouge a certain amount of field husbandry will be eliminated but this work will be dealt with just as well at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. When I stated that there was some $11,000

for Cap Rouge I omitted to mention that there is an additional six or seven thousand dollars in the supplementary estimates.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are the activities
to be curtailed at that farm?


Robert Weir: Cereals, forage
crops, some field husbandry and horticulture.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When was the farm
established?


Robert Weir: I believe in 1909.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It has been in continuous operation up to the present time?


Mr. LUCAS:: After the transfer of the
natural resources to the three western provinces there was a reorganization in the Department of the Interior. I understand that that department formerly carried on the tree nurseries at Indian Head and Sutherland. It is my understanding that after the reorganization these nurseries were transferred to the Department of Agriculture. I should like to know if this vote will cover the maintenance of these nurseries.


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: Is sufficient money being provided this year to cany on the work, or is there a reduction?


Robert Weir: There is a reduction, but sufficient money is being provided, we believe, to carry on the work satisfactorily.


William Thomas Lucas: Is it the intention of the
department to extend this work to the other provinces? Some time ago a survey was made and it was stated that the government intended to extend this work and establish another farm in the province of Alberta. I believe that this is very important work. I noticed in the press a short time ago that Mr. T. C. Mann, consulting engineer for the Saskatchewan drought commission, speaking at Winnipeg, is reported as saying that in order to conserve moisture and end crop failures he would recommend planting at least one mile of good hedge on every quarter section of land and set out areas to young trees. He would also stop the draining of lakes and sloughs. I think everyone recognizes that it is very important to encourage tree planting as much as possible, to prevent in every possible way the drifting of the soil which has been taking place in the west for a number of years, and I trust that the minister will see that this branch is not neglected.

Supply-A gricult ure


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister in his remarks mentioned that some of the activities that were being carried on at Cap Rouge are being transferred to Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, and other activities are being transferred to Lennoxville.


Robert Weir: Not transferred.
They are being carried on now at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and also at Lennoxville.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have not so very much objection to some of the activities being carried on at Cap Rouge and some that are being carried on at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, but on the other hand I would point out that Cap Rouge is easier of access, and this change is taking away from the farmers of the district nearest to the city of Quebec the advantages which they enjoyed in the past. I also protest vigorously against part of these activities being transferred to the experimental farm at Lennoxyille in the district of Sherbrooke. I would not object so much if this change was being made to serve a new district, but it is going to serve the whole of the eastern townships. We know that the eastern townships at the last election returned mostly supporters of the government of the day, and I suppose that this is one of the plums which the administration is handing over to the eastern townships for the support then given them. But I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that it is to the great disadvantage of the people of the district of Quebec and the people I have the honour to represent in this house. For these reasons I emphatically and strongly protest against the transfer of the activities that were being carried on at that farm to a farm in another district which is much more difficult of access to all the villages in the district of Quebec and on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. While I do not object to this change inuring to the benefit of the people of the eastern townships, I say it is not fair that the activities of this farm, which has been maintained in operation from 1909 until today, under two or three different administrations should be curtailed. My hon. friend from Compton has mentioned the fact that the soil was not suitable. If that is so, the officials of the department who year after year have been advising the minister of agriculture in different governments ought to be criticized because it took them such a long time to find out that the soil was not suitable for experiments. As I say, these activities have been carried on there since 1909 and there was no question at all of changing to any other district. Therefore I think I must be right in saying that this change is a reward which the
government is giving to the eastern townships for the support which it gave the administration in the last election. The government is taking away from the district which I have the honour to represent the advantages which the farmers there received from the activities of this farm and is handing them over to friends of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Weir: In reply to what the hon. gentleman has stated, there are no activities being transferred. The work is now being done and has been done at the two experimental farms at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and Lennoxville. So far as the political significance which the hon. gentleman tried to hitch on to this matter is concerned, that is pretty well answered by the fact that the farm where the cut has been made is situated in the constituency of the Solicitor General, so we cannot very well be accused of any political activity in making this cut. The criticism that was made was not so much with reference to the unsuitability of the soil, as that the soil was not typical of any great area. In addition there is a provincial farm just about twenty-five miles away from this farm at Cap Rouge, and the results of any experiments carried out at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere or at Lennoxville can be demonstrated at Cap Rouge, where there is still remaining the superintendent and the technical adviser to explain any experiments for the benefit of farmers who visit the farm.


Onésime Gagnon: In view of the fact that
the experimental farm at Cap Rouge is situated in the constituency of my friend the Solicitor General I should like to say a few words. I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is protesting on account of the fact that there will be greater activity at the experimental farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. I understand that the county of Charlevoix is exactly opposite the county of Kamouraska, and it is easier for the people around St. Irenee or Murray Bay to go to Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, some nine miles away, than to go to Cap Rouge.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, if you would put
on a ferry boat.


Onésime Gagnon: I know that my hon.
friend, who is an excellent lawyer, is pleading the case which the former Minister of Justice handed over to him just before he left the chamber. I wish to say on behalf of the electors of Quebec West, who are represented in this house by my friend the Solicitor General, that I have seen the Minister of
Supply-Agriculture

Agriculture and begged him not to curtail too much the activities of that farm, but the Minister of Agriculture pointed out to me, and with justice, that the province of Quebec has always been fairly treated in the matter of experimental farms, that there are five in the province now, and that no other province has been more generously treated. The minister has also been good enough to assure me that the number of experimental farms in the province of Quebec will not be curtailed. I am not an expert in agriculture, but I can quite understand that it might be advisable to transfer activities from one district to another that was more suitable for the purpose. At all events, I do not think we ought to raise any party prejudice in connection with this matter, and we should not try to make the people of the province of Quebec feel that they are being discriminated against. Personally, although I am not an expert, I think that the soil in the county of Kamour-aska and in the district of Lac St. John and Chicoutimi is much more suitable than the soil at Cap Rouge. For these reasons I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is doing no injustice to the province of Quebec.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My hon. friend would
be right in his contention that it is easier for the people of my county to get access to the farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere if there were in existence to-day the same communications that were maintained in years past by the Canada Steamship Lines and also by the ferry from Riviere Ouelle to Murray Bay. But those two services have been discontinued, and the farmer in that district who wishes to go from Murray Bay to Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere will now have to go a long way around. He will have to go down as far as Tadoussac and take the ferry boat, a distance of over twenty miles, cross the river St. Lawrence or else take the train on the Quebec and Saguenay railway, go up to Quebec and then cross over the river and go the whole way round on the south shore of the St. Lawrence before he reaches Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere-or as an hon. gentleman suggests, swim across, because there is no ferry boat service. With the farm at Cap Rouge, and the activities all being carried on there as they were in the past, it would be much more convenient and easier of access and to the greatest advantage of the people of that district of Quebec. _


John Vallance: When I asked the minister how the $833,000 was made up he gave his answer rather hurriedly, and I was not able to take down the figures. I noticed however there was a considerable cut for

illustration stations. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of a press report I saw some time ago to the effect that the government had bought and taken over the Seager Wheeler farm at Rosthem, what price was paid, and also whether it is going to be operated by the same help as is operating the experimental farm at Rosthem to-day. Will the same superintendent be in charge?


Robert Weir: With reference to the Seager Wheeler farm, I would say that we have not paid anything for it, we have not bought it or we have not rented it. We have however established the position of experimental substation superintendent for Doctor Seager Wheeler. He will operate the farm as he has done in the past, continuing to carry out the experiments in which he has engaged so successfully. He has experimented not only in connection with grains and grasses, but also with fruits. At great sacrifice of his own time he has been an inspiration to many farmers and has been most unselfish in his advice to them. We felt no better investment could be made than to pay Seager Wheeler $2,220 per year as superintendent of a subexperimental station to assist him, now when he is getting up in years, to hire the necessary labour, so that he may have more time at his disposal to advise and assist the farmers in their experiments.


John Vallance: Outside of the gratuity given to Seager Wheeler by the government, he bears all the expense of the operation of the farm? He pays the taxes, and other expenses?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: As the experimental farm at Lennoxville is in my county, I should like to know the curtailment of the grant in connection with it.


Robert Weir: The total reduction on the Lennoxville farm is $9,335, or 18 per cent.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What branches of work
are to be curtailed?


Robert Weir: The salary reduction takes care of part of the decrease. So far as actual experimental activities are concerned, there will be no curtailment. We have decided it is not advisable in connection with the Lennoxville and various other experimental farms to try to carry on special breeding or genetical work with more than one breed of cows or other animals. In that way

Supply-Agriculture
we are saving considerable money by moving animals from one farm to another, and eliminating duplication.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should like to ask if the same staff which was in charge 1930, at St. Joachim is still the same, or has there been any change since that time?


Robert Weir: The same staff is there. It is under the supervision of the superintendent at Cap Rouge.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to the farm at Lacombe, Alberta. How much was spent last year and what will be spent this year? Although the farm is not in my riding, being in the constituency of Wetaskiwin, it is near my home, and I have made many pilgrimages to the place and have taken a good deal of interest in it. I have always felt they were doing all they possibly could with the money at their disposal. In what way could expenditures be curtailed on that farm without reducing the service they are giving?


Robert Weir: In the year 1931-32 there was expended $50,984; the estimate for this year is $42,500, or a reduction of $8,484. Some of this reduction is because of the reduced salaries, and a further reduction is made by a change of policy in regard to live stock on the farm. That is, we are reducing our stock to certain breeds of one type. Prior to this year a farm was rented in conjunction with the work at Lacombe. The farm has been sold and for that reason we have found it necessary to a certain extent to curtail the work.


Alfred Speakman: If the farm is sold there is no possibility of its being purchased by the government to form part of the experimental
station?


Robert Weir: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can the minister tell us the locations of the five farms mentioned by the hon. member for Dorchester? I know of the ones at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Lennox-ville, and Cap Rouge, I do not know where the others are situated.


Robert Weir: Farnham and
L'Assomption.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When were those farms established?


Robert Weir: Farnham in 1922 and L'Assomption in 1927.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When were the other farms established?


Robert Weir: Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere in 1911, La Feme in 1916 and Lennoxville in 1912.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What activities are
carried on at Farnham and L'Assomption?


Robert Weir: Tobacco growing.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The other farms are used for general mixed farming?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Were there any other farms established under the new administration?


Robert Weir: No, not in the province of Quebec.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is it the intention of the government to establish any new farms, other than those at present in existence?


Robert Weir: The intention of the government will be made known when any new farms are established.


Mr. MARCIL:: Have demonstration plots in the province of Quebec been reduced?


Robert Weir: There is a reduction of seven.


Charles Marcil: Throughout the whole province?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is it true that the sixth farm mentioned by the hon. member for Dorchester, namely that at La Ferme, was closed?


Robert Weir: Activities have been curtailed to a certain extent because the department did not feel the farm was well situated. It was in a low lying place, and the soil was not typical of the surrounding country.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Does the minister realize that in new districts, such as La Ferme, farms are very necessary? It would be most unfortunate if this farm was closed. These days we are hearing a great deal of talk about a back to the farm movement, and most of the talking is done, of course, by those who know nothing about farming. The first back to the land movement was initiated during the last election campaign. But since the members who were elected with this flag have resumed their ordinary urban occupations, they do not care any more about the back to the land movement. There is no minister for whom I have greater sympathy than the Minister of Agriculture, because he entered on the ad-
Supply-Agriculture

ministration of his department burdened by the many great promises made by his chief, and in his endeavour to redeem those promises I fully realize he may well be called the busy bee of the ministry, for I know he is overworking himself. But not only has he many great promises to redeem, he is further handicapped by his estimates being reduced one-third. I am sure he will agree with me that what is most needed to-day is not a back to the land movement, but a colonization movement. Colonization presents many difficult problems that the ordinary farmer is unable to solve, and I hope the minister will take into consideration the establishment of a new farm to be devoted especially to the solution of colonization problems, especially in the province of Quebec.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, before this item is passed I thank the minister for not having curtailed his appropriation for the Lennoxville experimental farm. I also want to thank him and the officers of his department for the cooperation they have given, through the farm at Lennoxville-the finest experimental farm in all Canada-to the whole farming section of the eastern townships. But I do offer this criticism. If there is one thing that can help us back to prosperity it is to increase the purchasing power of the agricultural classes. When I consider the curtailment of the minister's estimates I realize he has had a very hard job in retaining them even at their present figure, but I think he should put up a still harder fight. There is no excuse whatever for cutting the agricultural estimates by over $3,200,000 odd. I do not criticize the curtailment of the appropriations for certain branches in connection with the different experimental farms, but we should at least maintain the estimates for agriculture at their last year's figure, without of course undertaking new buildings and similar expenditures. I follow very closely the work at the Lennoxville experimental farm, and no doubt the committee will be interested to learn that last year, on Farmers' day, 1,500 farmers from all over the eastern townships attended a picnic at the farm. That is the largest meeting of agriculturists that has ever been held in any section of the eastern townships. It was not a political gathering; the farmers present were trying to better, if not increase, agricultural production. I repeat, the only criticism I have to offer is that the minister should not have reduced his estimates at all, but should have maintained them at least up to the standard of last year.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, as
I am responsible for the estimates in my department, I was confronted with this question: Could we in. view of present conditions, or even if these conditions did not exist, make any cut in the agriculture estimates without affecting detrimentally our agricultural interests? Personally I think that this cut will have practically no effect at all so far as efficiency in the department goes.


John Vallance: Has the minister an
itemized account showing the reductions that he proposes to make in the expenditures on the various experimental farms? I notice my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) thanked the minister for the kind manner in which he had treated the Lennoxville experimental farm. Naturally I am interested in our experimental farms, because I have one right in the middle of my own constituency. I should like to know to what extent the minister proposes to cut down that appropriation.


Mr. BOYES:: While we are not discussing the item of dairying at the moment, Mr. Chairman, yet we are dealing with the agriculture estimates. Therefore I wish to pay tribute to a gentleman who has been in the service of the government for a period of over forty years, and as he comes from the vicinity of my home I thought possibly it would be fitting on my part to give the committee a short account of his career. I refer to Doctor J. A. Ruddick, Dominion dairy commissioner.
He was born near Dorchester in Oxford county, Ontario, in 1862. As a young man he learned to make cheese and was engaged as a cheesemaker by the late D. M. Mac-Pherson of Lancaster, Ontario, who owned and operated some sixty cheese factories located in eastern Ontario and Quebec. After one year in charge of a factory Mr. Ruddick was engaged as superintendent of the combination.
Following the appointment in 1890 of the late James W. Robertson as Dominion dairy commissioner, Mr. Ruddick was in the spring of 1891 appointed to the dairy commissioner's staff and this was the first appointment to the staff. Mr. Ruddick as a member of the staff of the dairy commissioner carried on experimental work in the use of the Babcock milk test as a basis of division of factory proceeds, operated winter creameries in eastern and western Ontario for demonstration purposes, and in 1892 supervised the manufacture of the mammoth cheese for the world's fair, which cheese weighed eleven tons. He assisted in the organization and management of

Supply-Agriculture
creameries in the Northwest Territories and later became superintendent of the Eastern Dairy School, Kingston, Ontario. About 1898 he entered the service of the New Zealand government as first director of dairying in that dominion and remained in New Zealand for about eighteen months. He returned to Canada about 1900 and again joined the staff of the Dominion dairy commissioner. In 1900 he organized the work of cargo inspection at Montreal, which service is designed to ensure proper handling of perishable produce intended for export. In 1902 under the direction of Mr. Ruddick central cool cheese curing rooms were established at Woodstock, Brock ville, Oowansville and St. Hyacinthe for the purpose of demonstrating the benefits to be derived from the proper curing of cheese. During the latter part of 1901 James W. Robertson resigned as dairy commissioner and Mr. Ruddick was made Dominion dairy commissioner. During the great war he acted as a member of the cheese commission, set up to purchase and export Canada's surplus cheese. In 1918 the name of this commission was changed to the Dairy Produce Commission and it handled surplus butter and condensed milk as well as cheese. In 1921 the milk utilization service of the dairy and cold storage branch was organized. This service is designed to promote the domestic consumption of milk and milk products. In 1923 the grading by federal officers of butter and cheese for export became compulsory and the grading service was organized under Mr. Ruddick's direction. The same year the division of dairy research was established, the object of which is to determine causes of defects in cheese and butter and to suggest remedies.
In 1924, Mr. Ruddick was given the honorary degree of LL.D. by Queen's university of Kingston, Ontario.
I regret very much that Doctor Ruddick has arrived at the age of seventy years when he is supposed to retire from his duties. I am sure the Dominion of Canada will lose the services of an honourable, faithful and efficient servant in the person of Doctor Ruddick.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What is the amount of
the reduction, if any, in connection with the Kapuskasing experimental farm?


Robert Weir: First, in reply to
my hon. friend from South Battleford, so that he will not worry unduly, the vote last year was $46,145 for the experimental farm about which he asked. The vote this year is $40,000, so the reduction amounts to S6,145, the greater part of which is a salary reduction.
With reference to Kapuskasing, last year the vote was $48,045; this year the estimate is $41,000, a reduction of $7,045.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What activities will be
particularly curtailed?


Robert Weir: The chief reduction
is in salaries. Land improvement work will be curtailed and there will be some reduction in the live stock division.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I really believe the land improvement work could be dropped for the time being, but I want to protest as strongly as possible against any curtailment of work in connection with live stock. We in northern Ontario hear on many occasions of the wonderful things that are being done for the western farmers. We do not begrudge them anything, but northern Ontario is a new and rich agricultural section of the country. It is in what we call a clay belt, and instead of being curtailed the live stock activities should be increased for the very good reason that many of our farmers cannot afford to go to southern Ontario, Quebec, or the western provinces for the stock they require. I think the full activity of this branch should be maintained. I speak feelingly on this matter, because while I was on the government side of the house I asked every year for an increase in the amount voted for the Kapuskasing experimental farm, and I was to some extent successful. I think this is not the right time to curtail the amoimt spent in that way. I fully realize the situation in which the minister now finds himself, but I hope he will be able at least to maintain the live stock activities carried on at the Kapuskasing experimental farm. I do not wTant to say more on this subject, because I have spoken on the matter previously.
There is another question I should like to ask the minister, and in this connection I should like to give all credit to the province of Ontario. Last fall they threatened to close the Hearst demonstration farm, but we are glad to learn that they are not going to do so. I understand, however, that the federal government has built a dwelling house at Kapuskasing for the superintendent of the Hearst demonstration farm. We know that this gentleman, who is exceptionally well qualified for his work, should live in the town of Hearst, and the settlers of that district do not want to see the head of that demonstration farm moved to Kapuskasing. Experimental farms come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, while demonstration farms come under provincial jurisdiction. It has been brought to my notice
Supply-Agriculture

that a certain amount of money has been spent by this government for the construction of a house for the superintendent of the Hearst demonstration farm, and I should like to know from the minister if that information is correct.


Robert Weir: I may tell my hon. friend that the reduction is in the number of cattle. We decided, for the very reason the hon. gentleman has in mind, that we must give all the assistance possible in these new areas, but we felt that we would do more in that way by disposing of the grade cattle and increasing the number of pure bred cattle so there would be more seed stock available in that new country. With regard to the closing of the Hearst demonstration farm, which is a provincial farm, as I stated at the outset this action was taken in accordance with the policy of cooperation between the federal department of agriculture and the provincial department. It was felt that the money expended on the Hearst farm could be better used in further assistance to farmers in northern Ontario and that the work could be well carried on, as far as attacking agricultural problems was concerned, at the Kapuskasing farm. I did not catch the last question of the hon. member.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have received a number of letters to the effect that the federal government spent a certain amount of money in the construction of a dwelling house for Mr. Hanlan, a friend of mine of the north country, the superintendent of the Hearst demonstration farm. The people in Hearst, who expected the demonstration farm to be maintained, believed Mr. Hanlan should remain in Hearst so that there might not be any conflict between the activities of the two governments. It will be hard to explain why a provincial official should come under federal jurisdiction, and why his activities should be curtailed to a certain extent.


Robert Weir: His activities will
not be curtailed. It was felt that it would be better for him to live on the farm where the experiments were being conducted, so a cottage was built at a cost of about $3,100. So long as he makes that cottage his headquarters my understanding is that he will continue to occupy it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We were under the
impression that the Hearst demonstration farm was to be maintained by the provincial government. The statement appeared in the press that activities at that farm were not

to be curtailed, and if that is to be the case it seems strange that the superintendent should reside at the Kapuskasing farm.


Robert Weir: The Hearst farm is a provincial farm, but in conference we agreed that it would cut out waste, without removing any great benefit from agriculture, if the provincial government should close that farm and have that money available for other purposes. It was agreed that Mr. Hanlan, who is now residing on the Kapuskasing farm, should make that his headquarters.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then I understand that by arrangement between the two governments the demonstration farm has been closed. I think that is a bad move, because I maintain that the provincial government should have continued to operate the demonstration farm at Hearst. In northern Ontario we need to have all the agricultural experiments that we can get the benefit of, and the activities carried on at the Hearst demonstration farm were doing a great deal of good. This farm is at least seventy-five miles from the Kapuskasing farm, and it dealt with matters that were not taken up at Kapuskasing. If it is at all possible I think the federal authorities should tell the provincial authorities that the Hearst farm should be maintained and that Mr. Hanlan, a very able agriculturist, should be sent back to Hearst. He might extend his activities to Kapuskasing or other portions of northern Ontario if possible, but he should be located at Hearst, and I hope the minister will use his influence to bring about that result. The province of Ontario should be able to maintain that farm without asking the help of the federal government, or at least without discontinuing its needed services at Hearst.


Robert Weir: I gather that the
Hearst farm is in the constituency represented by the hon. member. There is no gain, so far as experimental work goes, in having a farm at Hearst, because soil and other conditions are almost identical at Kapuskasing. With regard to the Ontario department of agriculture, we have spent a great deal of time in bringing about cooperation in attacking agricultural problems of an experimental or research nature, and it was agreed after full consideration that there was no advantage in operating the two farms.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want to thank the
minister for his explanation. He said something about the experimental farm at La Ferme, pointing out that the soil was not of such a quality as warranted the continuation

Supply-Agriculture
of great activities there. I happen, to know something about the constituency so well represented by the hon. member for Pontiac. The statement that the soil is low is not quite right; it is fairly high and fairly hilly. Has the minister in mind some other site for an experimental farm in northern Quebec? This is important. Although I do not belong to the province of Quebec, I am interested in the northern section of Canada and its agricultural development, and I am fully convinced, from the series of experiments we have carried out at Kapuskasing and La Ferme, that the possibility has been demonstrated of extensive colonization in that district. Does the department intend to choose another site? I said that the land was not altogether low; it is not typical of the clay belt, but it also has some good farming features. Did the minister have in view another site on which enormous sums would be spent before it could become an experimental farm? I thought it would be wise to maintain activities for a few years instead of curtailing them on that farm.


Mr. REID:: Is it the policy of the experimental farms to sell their surplus products?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Thomas Reid: This being so, I wish to lodge a complaint with the minister on behalf of the honey producers of British Columbia. In their search for a market they were told by the wholesalers that they would have to accept 2 cents less per pound owing to the fact that the experimental farm had sold honey at a lower price. If we have surplus products from our experimental farms, surely the penitentiaries and other government institutions could take them. It is very unfair to our producers in British Columbia for them to have to compete with the experimental farms. We have to meet competition from the rest of the world, particularly from the east, and our situation is aggravated when the honey producers have to compete with an experimental farm that has the dominion behind it. I hope the minister will take this matter into serious consideration and in future prohibit such competition in the open market with our producers.


Robert Weir: No doubt the instance cited by the hon. gentleman is correct. It certainly is not the policy of the farms to compete with private producers by underselling them. My information is that they sell to the wholesalers at prevailing prices, and as a matter of fact we have had a good deal 41701-195
of criticism by reason of the high prices charged by the experimental farms. I shall be glad to take the matter into consideration.


Thomas Reid: The complaint was made to me on behalf of the honey producers of the province.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Mr. Chairman, may I submit to the committee the correspondence exchanged between the hon. Adelard Godbout, Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, and myself. This correspondence refers to the distribution of seed grain in Quebec. On May 10, last, I wrote the following letter to the hon. Mr. Godbout:
Hon. Mr. Adelard Godbout,
Minister of Agriculture,
Quebec.
Dear Mr. Godbout,-
Mr. Emiliano Simoneau, farmer, of Windsor Mills, informs me that he will be unable to sow his land this year. He has not the funds necessary to purchase seed grain.
Mr. Simoneau is an excellent farmer who is much attached to his land, he would be thankful to receive government assistance. This gentleman is desirous of securing 100 pounds of millet, 100 pounds of medium red clover, 25 bushels of oats and 10 bushels of barley. If you could possibly assist Mr. Simoneau, he would greatly appreciate it.
Yours faithfully,
F. J. Lafleche, M.P.
The following is the Hon. Mr. Godbout's answer:
Department of Agriculture Province of Quebec Office of the Minister.
Quebec, May 16, 1932. Mr. F. J. Lafleche, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-
I am in receipt of your confidential letter, dated the 10th inst. and in which you request assistance from the provincial government on behalf of Mr. Emiliano Simoneau, farmer, of Windsor Mills, in order to enable him to secure seed grain.
The provincial government in fact, distributes seed grain to farmers in need in the poorest parts of the province. This distribution is carried out through the medium of parish committees presided by the local parish priest, the members of these local committees are, in fact, better able to judge of the needs of each person.
The amount set aside by the provincial government, this year, to assist the farming class in purchasing seed grain for those w'ho most need it, is still larger than last year.
For your own information, allow me to point out to you that we have again requested, from the Dominion government this year, assistance for the Quebec farmers, just as they do for other provinces; unfortunately we have not been able to obtain anything, no more than we were able last year.

309S
Supply-Agriculture

May I further state, for your information also, that we were informed last year that the Dominion Unemployment and Farm Relief Act could not be so interpreted as to apply the money for the relief of those in need, to purchasing seed grain.
You will readily understand that, under these circumstances, it is impossible for us to do more. Indeed, although it may not seem very large for each parish, the contribution of the Quebec government, alone, this year, amounts to a much larger sum owing to the great number of parishes of the province, where we are obliged to contribute, and this, notwithstanding that money is scarcer this year. We requested the government, at Ottawa, to contribute an amount equal to the one we, ourselves, apply to these purchases of seed grain; if the Dominion government had consented, at least, to contribute a portion, even had it been only half of what we appropriate for that end, or again if the government, at Ottawa, had but guaranteed the amount required, I think that we would have probably been able to distribute to all farmers that were in need, in Quebec, the quantity of seed grain they required.
It is unfortunate, indeed, that the Dominion Act in this respect does not equally apply to all the provinces.
May I assure you of my best endeavours, Yours faithfully,
Adelard Oodbout.
I should like to inquire from the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), whether it is a fact that the Quebec provincial government has made such a request and whether the Dominion government refused to consider it.
This question interests particularly the Quebec farmers, since the press siding with the opposition contend that the Dominion government grants all the requests coming from the western provinces and refuses those from Quebec. The Minister of Agriculture of Quebec has written to the local member of the county of Wolfe a similar letter as the one addressed to me.
It is important to know definitely whether the statement of the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec is founded on fact or not. I therefore beg the hon. Minister of Agriculture to inform the committee in this respect.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
for Richmond-Wolfe signified his intention of asking this question with reference to assistance from the federal government to the farmers in the purchasing of seed grain in the province of Quebec. On May 2 I received the following telegram from the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec:
Hon. Robert Weir,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
An inquiry reveals that a very great number of farmers and settlers are absolutely unable to secure their seeds this spring. The Quebec

government has already granted $200,000 to answer the most urgent requirements but we realize that it is insufficient and that another $200,000 will be necessary to meet the situation. We hope that the federal government could supply that additional amount. Letter follows.
Adelard Godbout,
Minister of Agriculture.
On May 5 I replied to the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec in this letter:
Ottawa, May 5, 1932.
Hon. A. Godbout,
Minister of Agriculture,
Quebec, Que.
Dear Mr. Godbout:
I asknowledge receipt of your telegram of the 2nd instant, reading as follows:
An inquiry reveals that a very great number of farmers and settlers are absolutely unable to secure their seeds this spring. The Quebec government has already granted $200,000 to answer the most urgent requirements but we realize that it is insufficient and that another $200,000 will be necessary to meet the situation. We hope that the federal government could supply that additional amount. Letter follows.
And also your letter of the 3rd instant. We have no authority or appropriation to provide for the purchase or distribution of seed in any province and, therefore, I am unable to comply with the request which you have made.
In case you have been misinformed with regard to the situation, I might say that we are not purchasing or distributing seed grain for any province as this is considered to be a provincial responsibility entirely.
I believe the letter from Mr. Godbout to the hon. member for Richmondt-Wolfe was written on May 16, at least ten days later. I have endeavoured on different occasions to make this point as dear as possible: the federal. government has not purchased seed for any farmer in any province of the Dominion of Canada. If for any reason the provincial governments felt that they could not carry on the services of government and have submitted that -condition of affairs to the federal government, the matter has been given full consideration and money has been loaned to the provincial governments when the federal government felt that the, demands were warranted. I do not know that I can make this point any clearer than that. I have made that statement before in the house more than once, and I regret that Mr. Godbout evidently did not understand my letter, although I do not know how I could have made it any clearer than in the language I used. The government of Quebec has not made any request to the federal government for a loan to help to carry on the services of government and look after their farmers in connection with seed grain or other matters. If they had, no reasonable person would suggest for a minute that they would not be

Supply-Agriculture
treated the same as the other provinces. I do nob think there is anything I can add in respect to this matter.


Wilfrid Girouard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to protest against the remarks just made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. In order that the Quebec farmers be granted assistance by the Dominion Minister of Agriculture, the latter insists that, as an essential condition, the government of that province should prove that it is so financially embarrassed, that it is unable to provide for its own agricultural requirements.


Samuel Gobeil: Exactly like in all other provinces.


Wilfrid Girouard: What the . Quebec Minister of Agriculture requested the dominion government to do, was that the government or the Department of Agriculture should grant the Quebec farmers an amount equal to the one contributed by the provincial Department of Agriculture. I think, it is only fair, especially, when we are aware of the fact that if the Minister of Agriculture occupies his present position, it is due to the numerous pledges made to the Quebec farmers. They were promised, among other things that they would be assisted in all their requirements. There is no better time to do so than now. This government has now been in power for two years and has done nothing to help the Quebec farmers. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) for whom I have much regard-he is aware of it-


Vincent Dupuis: He deserves some.


Wilfrid Girouard: -stated, a moment ago, in the course of this debate, that the impression should not spread in Quebec that the government grants nothing to this province and all to the western provinces. It is not only an impression-we are facing a fact-and I am quite convinced that the Quebec members, whether they belong to the Liberal or Conservative party, if they wish to be impartial, will necessarily come to the conclusion that the Minister of Agriculture has done nothing to help the Quebec farmers.


Joseph-François Laflèche: May I ask the hon. member a question?
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Order!


Wilfrid Girouard: And when the provincial Minister of Agriculture asks the dominion minister to co-operate and requests him to grant to our farmers a similar 41761-195J
amount to that granted by the provincial government, in order to assist the farmers in purchasing seed grain, the only reply from the minister, is that the dominion government gives no seed grain to any province; if any province wishes to secure seed grain, that province-I repeat what I stated at the outset-it must be so financially embarrassed that it is unable to provide for their own agricultural requirements.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Not necessarily.


Wilfrid Girouard: I wish to protest against the stand taken by the Minister of Agriculture. It is said, not only in Quebec but also in Ontario, that this government seems to grant its favours rather to the western farmers. I state that this impression is founded on facts. Last year, when the question of granting to western farmers a 5 cents rebate per bushel of wheat exported, came up, we requested the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Minister of Agriculture to grant a similar rebate to those who, in Quebec and Ontario, were engaged in the dairy industry. This request was refused. On various occasions, this session, we again made the same request. In my comments on the budget, again I made the request to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, that they grant to the Quebec farmers a similar amount to the one granted to the western farmers. When the government conceded this 5 cents rebate per bushel of wheat exported, they were not making a loan to the western provinces, but a gift. We ask the Minister of Agriculture to grant, this year, to Quebec the same amount which was given last year to the three western provinces. I think that this is a legitimate and fair proposition, and I cannot understand why the request made by the hon. Mr. Godbout-


Joseph-François Laflèche: There was never an official request made.


Wilfrid Girouard: -was not granted by the dominion government.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska in his remarks just before six o'clock referred to the correspondence of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe with the Minister of Agriculture at Quebec and to
3100.
Supply-Agriculture

the letters read by the Minister of Agriculture passing between himself and the Hon. Mr. Godbout, and it was apparent from the whole remarks of the hon. member that he had one object and one object alone in view and that was to sidetrack the question. The letter of Mr. Godbout to the hon. member for Rich-mond-Wolfe said in part:
It is indeed unfortunate that the federal law .n this respect does not apply in the same way 10 all the provinces of Canada.
That was the contention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture in the province of Quebec. The federal Minister of Agriculture in his answer made clear that the same law and the same treatment applied to everyone in Canada. Now what is the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska asking for? He is asking for special treatment for the province of Quebec; not that Quebec should be treated the same as the other provinces, as Mr. Godbout contended in his letter, but that Quebec should receive special treatment. He asks that the federal government at Ottawa should make a special grant to the province of Quebec for the purpose of buying seed grain, and so I say, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is trying to sidetrack the question.
I can quite understand that the Quebec government would not dare to make application to this government for any aid for the citizens of the province of Quebec, for the very good reason that the Prime Minister of the province in his manifesto issued at St. Raymond, declared that there was no unemployment in the province of Quebec and that any there might be the government of the province of Quebec could very well take care of.


Ernest Lapointe: What has that to do with seed grain?


Samuel Gobeil: Well, if the situation in Quebec was so flourishing that there was no unemployment, and if the Quebec government could take care of any unemployment there might be without help from the federal government, I do not see how Mr. Godbout or Mr. Taschereau or the provincial government can now come to this government and ask for aid.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Ferguson said in 1930 that the Ontario government could take care of the unemployed in the province, and then later he lambasted the Dominion government because it did not assist.


Samuel Gobeil: I am not aware that the government of Ontario has applied to this government for seed grain.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: You may not be aware of it, but we know it.


Samuel Gobeil: How can the Quebec government come here and ask for aid in view of their declarations? If they ask for aid they will receive at the hands of this government exactly the same treatment as every other province of Canada. But in view of the declarations the premier of the province made in his manifesto, and which have been repeated several times since, not only by himself but by every member of his cabinet, and in view of the amount that the provincial government allowed to be expended on the roads last year during the election campaign, I think it would be very hard for them to prove to this government that the province of Quebec was entitled to seed grain. But if they come to this government- and put before them the situation exactly as it is, I feel sure this government will grant them every aid and lend them money just the same as it has lent money to the western provinces. Perhaps the government of Quebec will come to this government and say: We owe to the citizens of the province of Quebec ten or eleven or twelve or thirteen -million dollars for work done on the roads of the province last year and not yet paid for. I trust the house realizes the situation in which our poor people of Quebec are placed. I do not know the exact figure, and I do not think -the provincial government itself knows, but it does owe approximately ten or twelve million dollars for work done on the roads last year. I know one parish in my county where the provincial government still owes $12,000 for work that was done, and in general fifty per cent of the work was useless. But the money was spent just the same ; the poor farmers of Quebec earned ithe money and as yet they have not received one dollar of it. I could' give you -the names of many municipalities in my constituency in which work was done for which the provincial government- owes money. So I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the Quebec government would put the facts as they are, not as they represent them to be, before this government, they would: receive just the same treatment as any other province. Mr. Taschereau claims that he is going to have another good surplus on the thirtieth of June. Very likely he will show a surplus, but the province will still be owing to its citizens between twelve and fifteen million dollars. I repeat, that if the Quebec government places before this government, the situation exactly as it is in the province of Quebec, I have no doubt that -the provincial government will receive its seed grain, because undoubtedly Quebec is in as bad a position as many of the other provinces.

Supply-Agriculture
But that is not all. Not only is money owed by the provincial government to farmers and settlers who have been working on the roads, but the provincial government also owes .practically all grants to schools, .practically all grants to farmers' clubs and practically all grants to agricultural societies of every kind. They have not made any payments since last year. Then I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars is owing by the provincial government to its employees for salaries. One man told me personally that the provincial government owed him over one thousand dollars in salary. That is the situation with all their employees in the province of Quebec. I do not wish to delay the committee, Mr. Chairman, but I think these facts should be placed before it so that every member will realize the situation in which we are placed in the province of Quebec. _ _
There is just one other matter. The Minister of Agriculture this. afternoon was very charitable. He said he thought the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Godbout, must have misinterpreted his letter. I disagree in that regard, because I believe Mr. Godbout understood perfectly the meaning of the letter. When he wrote the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe he knew he was not writing the truth. He knew that the statements in his letter were not according to facts. Although he is a new minister in the executive council' of the province of Quebec, and although we may say he is a new politician, he has learned the game very quickly.


Mr. SPOTTON:: They do in Quebec.


Samuel Gobeil: They certainly do. He has followed the example of the rest of the council. Politics is the first thing they think about; it is ahead of everything. Politicians in that province think first of the party; then if the interests of the citizens do no't conflict with party interests the citizens are given some consideration. The fact is, however, that every day of the year they are sacrificing the interests of the citizens of the province of Quebec, because they are not in accordance with the interests of the Liberal party.
I conclude by saying that Mr. Godbout was not sincere at all. I have no doubt he sent a similar letter to many other people, in an effort to deceive the population of the province of Quebec. He is trying to put a load on the federal government which they themselves cannot carry. That is his intention, and that is -what he has been doing.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, I was just
going to-


An hon. MEMBER:: What do you know about Quebec?


Peter Heenan: I was just wondering. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to get into this fight. I must say I do not know any more about the province of Quebec than does the hon. member who has just spoken.


John Thomas Hackett: Whom are you complimenting?


Peter Heenan: I do know, however-and I think the hon. member for Compton does not know it-that this government owes something to the province of Quebec. My hon. friend's leader promised in 1930 that he would put every man to work, or perish in the attempt.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheap.


Peter Heenan: The province of Quebec has
been forced to proceed with its plan of road work because of the failure of this government to carry out its promises.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The old story.


Peter Heenan: The Prime Minister of Canada promised to put old age pensions in the province of Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not.


Peter Heenan: The Prime Minister promised to put old age pensions in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: Consequently, Quebec having to pay its share of old age pensions in other parts of the country, this government owes something to that province.


Mr. VENIOT:: I notice that under the relief work carried on in the province of New Brunswick $60,000 was spent for clearing land. I have been informed that part, if not all of the money was expended to clear land of the experimental farm at Fredericton. Could the minister give the committee any details in that connection?


Robert Weir: That work would be under the unemployment relief measures, and comes under the Department of Labour.


Peter John Veniot: I know it does, but the money was expended by officials of the Department of Agriculture.


Robert Weir: What amount does the hon. member think was spent in the work of clearing land?


Peter John Veniot: In the report of the superintendent of unemployment relief there appears an amount of $60,000.


Robert Weir: 


Peter John Veniot: Yes, expended on a fifty-fifty basis, divided between the federal and
Supply-Agriculture

provincial governments. My information is that the greater part of that sum was expended on the clearing of lands connected with the experimental farm at Fredericton.


Robert Weir: Although that does not come under the Department of Agriculture, my information is that the money spent for clearing land on the experimental farm at Fredericton totalled about $6,000.


Peter John Veniot: Only $6,000?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: How much was loaned by the federal government to each of the prairie provinces for the purchase of seed grain?


Robert Weir: I have not that information before me; it does not come under my department.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Will the minister
undertake to bring it down to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not in the minister's department.


Robert Weir: That does not come within my department. If the question were put on the order paper the Minister of Finance could answer it.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: If I put a question on the order paper at this late stage of the session I would never get an answer.


Edward Joseph Garland: How many experimental substations are there in Alberta?


Robert Weir: Two.


Edward Joseph Garland: One of them is at Morrin.


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member speaking about illustration stations or experimental substations?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am referring to experimental substations, and particularly to the rock farm at Morrin.


Robert Weir: I think the farm to which the hon. member is referring is neither an illustration station nor a substation, but a farm used by the entomological branch for experimental purposes.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Will the minister tell me if the money loaned to the prairie provinces for the purchase of seed grain is loaned under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Robert Weir: I understand it is.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Is it correct to say that the farmers are giving notes to the provincial governments for advances made to them for seed grain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Probably I had better answer that question. The Dominion of Canada offered to lend money to any province desiring to purchase seed grain for its people. It loaned money; it did not give it. The provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta secured loans for that purpose, for which they gave their treasury bills or notes payable with interest. They made the arrangements with their own people as to the terms on which they loaned the money to them or bought the seed grain for them.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Is it possible to get the amount of the loans?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the figures in my head. I think however it was about $6,000,000 in Saskatchewan, about $1,650,000 in Manitoba and less than $150,000 in Alberta.


An hon. MEMBER:: That information has been given before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I speak subject to
correction. In order to assist last fall Mr. McFarland took some preliminary steps to secure seed grain, which was subsequently bought by the province and distributed to the population, for which I understand under the provisions of a statute they gave notes secured by liens against the crops which will be grown with the seed. The terms and conditions under which the money was expended for seed, and the conditions under which the settlers received the seed, are wholly within the power of the provinces, and they made their own arrangements.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Suppose the farmers
do not give any security for their notes, and suppose that times continue to be bad, the notes will not be paid, and then the provinces will turn round and say to the federal government:	We have not been able to collect on
our notes, and therefore we are not going to pay our loan. Then eventually the loan will be written off. This is the money of the whole Canadian people to which the people of my province are contributing; and in that way they are contributing for the purchasing of seed grain in some sections of Canada while at the same time they are not receiving the same benefits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Observations such as we
have just listened to are what make for national disunion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Agriculture


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is talk just such as
that which brings public men into disrepute. The hon. gentleman is a past master at that sort of thing; that seems to be his one job, to endeavour to stir up animosity between provinces or between peoples. He knows perfectly well that the money loaned by this dominion to the provinces was secured by the treasury bills or bonds which they gave for the loans. He knows further-as every hon. gentleman knows-that the provinces made their own arrangements with respect to the purchase and distribution of seed grain, and took a loan upon the crop to be grown therefrom. To suggest that these men would repudiate their obligations or endeavour to escape the debts which were created does scant justice to the hardy pioneer spirit which they have shown. The other day a gentleman who had just come back from the west told me that the only optimists he had discovered were the men who are doing just what these men are doing. I cannot but deprecate-and I think every fair-minded man deprecates-this attempt to have it appear that Quebec is paying money for seed grain in Saskatchewan, and that possibly it will be lost money, a bad debt, and will have to be written off. If the province of Quebec desires to take a loan from this dominion for the purpose of providing its settlers with seed grain, that is available to-morrow. What is more, that is well known, too. I have seen the circulars that have been sent about by some members from Quebec for the purpose of endeavouring to have it appear that this government is favouring the three western provinces at the expense of the people of Quebec. I am bound to say that decent-minded people resent that kind of thing. There is no part of this country more willing to make its contribution to the national wellbeing than Quebec, and the hon. member does not interpret the genius of those people in their attitude towards the other provinces.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: What the Prime Minister deprecates so strongly now was part of the campaign of the Tory party in 1930.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Very cheap.


Edward Joseph Garland: When party feeling has subsided-


Ernest Lapointe: It has not.


Edward Joseph Garland: -may I ask the Minister of Agriculture to tell me what was the character of the work carried on at the Morrin rock farm substation, or whatever they call it?


Robert Weir: The chief work was a study, under the entomological branch, of the western cut-worm.


Edward Joseph Garland: They were also carrying on some investigation into the wire-worm ?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is that work to be continued or has it been curtailed?


Robert Weir: I understand it has not been curtailed; it will be continued.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I have not heard
any discussion with regard to the illustration stations which come under this item, except as to the extent to which the item has been reduced. I think $17,555 apportioned for the illustration stations has been reduced. I would commend to the minister the work of these small illustration stations-at least as I know them. It so happens that in the province of Saskatchewan we have just four experimental farms. Obviously they are very far removed from each other, and it is impossible for the people in general to get in touch with them. In my own constituency I happen to have two of these small illustration stations, and I can say in regard to one of them that it is doing a splendid work in a small way at a minimum of expense. I think I am correct in saying that the total expenditure in connection with that one illustration station is about $250, possibly less, and yet it serves a community within a radius of twenty-five or thirty-five miles. I have figures showing that the expenditure in connection with some of the experimental farms amounts to over $40,000 each. Therefore one hundred and sixty of these little illustration stations could be run at the same expenditure as is necessary for one of the large farms. I am quite sure what they would accomplish would be comparatively more than what is accomplished by the large farms.
I do not know whether the minister is curtailing the work of those illustration stations or closing some of them out, or whether he is just decreasing the amount of money expended on each, but I would bespeak his favourable consideration for them. The large farms operating in Saskatchewan are located on a type of soil that is qute different from the soil in some other districts, and that is where the small stations can perform a very useful work. The one in my own district is close to the town in which I reside and is located on a heavy type of soil. We are fortunate in having a good practical farmer to supervise that station. He keeps everv-
Supply-Agriculture

thing in good shape. The farm is located on a well-travelled provincial highway, and is open for the inspection of the public at any time they go by. Every fall the supervisor has a field day- when some two or three speakers are brought in either from the Scott or Swift Current experimental farms and a general assemblage of the farmers of the district is held under the auspices of the Kinders-ley Agricultural Society. I have been privileged to attend a number of those field days, and they impressed me very favourably. Considering the small expenditure made, the number of people that take advantage of those gatherings would indicate that the benefits to the local farmers are more than one might expect. Possibly from seventy-five to a hundred farmers assemble for the afternoon to listen to the addresses and inspect the different crops on the illustration station. They also get information with regard to different kinds of grain and grass seeds, and so on. Therefore I would say that having regard to the expenditure involved the work done by these small illustration stations is of considerable advantage to the farmers in the locality and should be continued. So far as Saskatchewan is concerned, have any of the illustration stations been closed?


Robert Weir: Three have been recently closed.


Archibald M. Carmichael: How many are still in operation?


Robert Weir: Twenty-eight.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: I think last
year a two hundred and fifty acre farm was purchased near Regina for experimental purposes. What is being done with the land?


Robert Weir: It was suggested
that we purchase an experimental farm in that heavy clay ground, but it was felt we could achieve the purpose and deal with the problem that they wished dealt with much more cheaply by renting a half-section. The work carried on is the study of weeds and especially of soil conditions, and the work is being continued.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to dominion experimental farms in Ontario. Other than the farm here, what other experimental farms are there in this province?
Mr. W'EIR (Melfort): There is Kapuskasing in the north and Harrow in the southwest.


Frederick George Sanderson: That would make three, the one at Ottawa and the two the minister has just mentioned?


Robert Weir: Those are the experimental farms, and there is a substation at St. Catharines.


Frederick George Sanderson: There is a reduction of
8833,000.	What proportion of that reduction is made in connection wfith the three Ontario farms?
Mr. WrEIR (Melfort): The reduction in the substations is $16,000, and the reduction in the central experimental farm is $106,402. The percentage of reduction in Ontario is about 21 per cent, I am told, while the total reduction is about 24 per cent. The reduction of $106,402 in the amount to be spent at the central experimental farm in Ottawa is due to the fact that this farm is much more expensive to run under ordinary circumstances.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I would like to know if the three illustration stations in the southern part of Saskatchewan, at Agema, at Rockglen and at Gravelburg, will be kept in operation this year.


Robert Weir: They are still in
operation.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I should like to ask the minister if any of the illustration stations in the northern part of Saskatchewan, or to be more exact in the riding of North Battleford, have been closed.
Mr. W'EIR (Melfort): In all there have been three recently closed. Is the station at Churchbridge in my hon. friend's constituency?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, I do not know where that is. I think before the last government went out of office there was an investigation made into the possibility of opening an illustration station in the northwestern part of the riding of North Battleford, north of the Beaver river. I asked for and received a parliamentary return last session in that regard, and the decision at the time was that establishment of the station in question could not be entertained. I am sure the minister will agree with me that during the last two years a great many farmers have gone into that part of the north from the southern and central parts of Saskatchewan, and because of this, that area is now fully settled. I believe the time is at hand when the people in that northern area would be very grateful to the minister if he would take up that question again and do what he can to open an illustration station there to guide and help the farmers in the development of that splendid territory.
Wkile I am on my feet I want to thank the minister for what he has done in opening

Supply-Agriculture
a new illustration station at Hafford, on the Canadian National railway between North Battleford and Prince Albert. I am not sure whether or not that station is in operation, but I know it was intended to have it going this year.


Robert Weir: It is in operation.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Thank you.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Just a few minutes
before recess I understood the minister to say that his department contemplated the closing of the experimental farm at La Perme, in the Abitibi district of northern Quebec. I strongly urge the department that this farm be continued, because of the peculiar situation which exists in that part of the country. This is a new country which has been opened to agriculture for only perhaps fifteen or twenty years. The people have gone there with that pioneer spirit upon which the Prime Minister is so prone to expatiate in this house. It seems to me that by closing down the experimental farm at that point the department would do a very poor service for those pioneers, those new settlers, those brave and worthy Canadians who are trying their best to open up a new district. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take the case of these pioneers into his very serious consideration and not close down the experimental station at this point.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, the discussion seems to have wandered rather far from the item before the committee, and if I may I am going to direct a question to the minister which is not directly associated with the item now under discussion.
On different occasions in the house mention has been made of a marketing board; something has been said in favour of such an organization and something has been said against it. The county which I represent, so far as it is engaged in agriculture, is largely devoted to dairying and is deeply interested in butter, which is selling at a very low price. Whether or not a marketing board would prove successful in coming to the rescue of the beef producers or the wheat growers 1 do not know. It seems to me that the useful service which might be rendered by a marketing board depends to a very great extent on what proportion of the commodity produced is available for export, because it is the portion which goes into the markets of the world that determines the price at home. We are told that the consumption of butter in Canada has decreased materially due to hard times. We are told that last year we produced about
280.000.	000 pounds of butter and that this amount, less than about 3 per cent or from
10.000.	000 to 11,000,000 pounds, was consumed in Canada. The rest was exported, and the price of that small portion which was exported has fixed and determined the price of that which was sold in the country. As someone put it, if we produced 100 boxes of butter and shipped one box. the price at which we could sell the one box determined the price of the remainder. If it be true that we have but this small surplus to export, and we are exporting it to countries whose currency is depreciated, and as a consequence we are obliged to accept a price which is not only low in the face value of that currency, but lower still when it is transferred into our own currency, might we not do something for this industry by applying to our butter industry what other countries similarly situated have done? One-half of one cent levied on each pound of creamery butter produced in Canada last year, estimating the production to have been about 200,000,000 pounds, would have given $100,000, which would have been sufficient to raise the price of our export butter 5 or 6 cents a pound. And if it is the price of export butter-


Frederick George Sanderson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would direct your attention to item 39, which is dairying.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: The hon. gentleman is right. This discussion is absolutely out of order. If hon. members are to return to the marketing board we shall never get through the estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: It was discussed all afternoon yesterday.


John Thomas Hackett: That is quite true, but we have talked about everything under the item expect butter, and my suggestion was merely this-


Frederick George Sanderson: May I ask for your ruling on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I must uphold the point of order; the present discussion is out -of order. The committee is now considering experimental farms.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Not yet. I do not think I should allow this vote to go by without expressing some of my disappointment at the emasculated condition it was in when it first came down. Earlier in the session I was capable of being shocked, and in fact I was shocked when I first saw the
Supply-Agriculture

vote; but I have had so many shocks since then that my shock-absorber has reached the saturation point, and I have ceased to be shocked any more. Besides that, I am somewhat mollified by the supplementary estimates, at least to the extent of about six per cent. There has been some reparation, especially in connection with this vote for experimental farms, so that the government has come back to normal to the extent of six per cent. I am not going to blame the minister very much. I have been in his shoes so many times and so long that I know he did not bring down the estimates to council in this dismantled form in the first instance. I am sure that his director, sitting in front of him, did not pass them on to his deputy in that reduced way in the first instance, nor the deputy to the minister, the minister to the treasury board, and the treasury board to council. There was a nigger in the woodpile somewhere else when these estimates were prepared, and I am wondering who it was. The then Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) has, of course, to sit hard on the chest; that is his duty. But if you have a good case-


Onésime Gagnon: I rise to a point of order also. The hon. gentleman is out of order, and it is to be regretted-


William Richard Motherwell: I am talking about this vote and the smallness of it, and I was going to give the minister a kindly tip how to avoid such disastrous reductions in the future. If the minister says that he does not want it, I will not give him the advice-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: -but I am not going to heed the bowlings of the rear guard.
4n hon. MEMBER: He doesn't need your advice.


William Richard Motherwell: I needed it at one time, and I suspect the minister won't be any the worse for it. However, we will let it go and I will give it to him confidentially.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: No,.it is not carried. \ou don't like my tips over there. I wonder whether the minister would consider this-


Onésime Gagnon: I want a decision on my point of order.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no point of order about it. As I was saying, I want the minister to consider this. We have had various kinds of cuts this session-the Bennett cut, the Rhodes cut, and the cut on civil servants-

but this experimental farms cut is "the most unkindest cut of all," and I was wanting the minister to avoid it another year. We have been promised that the ten per cent cut in salaries and indemnities will be for one year only, and if the minister would assure us that he would endeavour to have his colleagues seriously consider making this reduction in connection with experimental farms and agriculture generally for one year only, trying to get back to normal next year, I would not say anything further. In fact. I would not say anything at all about any of the estimates because there is not much use doing so, pai

ticularly now the government have demonstrated in the supplementary estimates their recognition that they made a profound blunder in reducing agriculture in this way in the first instance. I want to express my appreciation of what the government has come to realize and admit this to be so, and I trust that the minister will endeavour to put agriculture in the same one-year category as the rest of us in regard to reductions. I am asking for agriculture only what has been granted to myself, namely, that this reduction as in the case of the members' ten per cent cut, will be for one year only. The Senate has got the same promise and so have the civil servants, and surely agriculture, which sustains us all and keeps half the people of Canada occupied, is worthy of the same consideration that is given members of the house and of the Senate. I do not even ask the minister for a reply; I simply ask him to take this suggestion into his very best reasoned consideration and work hard for its consummation next year.


Mr. CAYLEY:: I have just one question to ask the minister. I know that he realizes the mistake that he has made in connection with the estimates, and I have faith that he will play the game, in spite of what my friend has said. The minister knows quite well how important the tobacco industry in southern Ontario is, and what rapid strides it has made. He knows what it means to those farmers engaged in it. He knows what is being done in part of Oxford county, in Norfolk and Elgin, in experimentation and demonstration for the benefit of the farmers who are following along that line. May I ask for a statement from him in this regard.


Robert Weir: The Harrow station, in the vicinity the hon. member is discussing, is carrying on experiments and there are illustration stations which are also doing demonstration work. In addition to that, there is the soil survey, which is perhaps the most

Supply-Agriculture
important thing of all in connection with the growing of tobacco. That is not being curtailed.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Is there any likelihood of
establishing another demonstration farm east of that in Norfolk county or in Oxford?


Robert Weir: Only demonstration plots this year, not demonstration farms.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Can the minister give any information in regard to the experimental ranch at Summerside, Prince Edward Island? A considerable amount of money was spent there in improvements last year, and if the minister has any information under his hand I should like to have it. I should be glad if he would inform me as to the first estimate, also the total cost of the house, how it was built, and in fact all the information he has regarding the whole matter.


Robert Weir: The house referred
to was built by day labour and cost approximately 18,000.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Built by whom?


Robert Weir: By day labour, not
by contract.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Who was in charge of the work?


Robert Weir: I am afraid I have
not that information available, but I shall be glad to forward it to the hon. gentleman.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: A few moments ago
I was referring to the possibility of establishing an illustration station in the northwestern part of the North Battle-ford federal riding, for the Loon lake, Makwa and other districts, and I intimated that a report had been made on this matter three years ago. My own impression of that report is that it was political in character and absolutely unjustified, and I ask the minister if he will personally look into it and if possible investigate the area with a view to establishing in this new -and rapidly developing district an illustration station as soon as possible. If he will do this, I shall be obliged.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Assistance to fairs and exhibitions, including the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, $350,000.
John Campbell Elliott: What fairs are affected
by the reduction of 8300,000?


Robert Weir: The amounts of
grants to B class fairs are not changed, nor are those to regional fairs. There will be some reduction in the grant to the Toronto royal winter fair, and the grants to A class
fairs are being reduced to $2,500 while the grants to the other winter fairs are reduced to $2,500. The grants to boys' and girls' clubs of various kinds are not being reduced.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am gratified to hear
that the grants to class B fairs are not being reduced below $1,500. If I remember correctly, a few years ago these grants ran as high as $4,000 each. Under the old government they were dropped to $2,500 each, and then brought down to $1,500 each. I understand some pressure was brought to bear upon the department this year to make a further reduction, but the minister did not accede to that request. He did the right thing by not making that reduction. The only reason I am saying anything to-night in connection with this matter is because I would like to impress upon the minister the importance of raising these grants in the near future from SI ,500 to S2,500. These fairs are doing work equally as good as, if not superior to, the class A fairs and I do hotpe the minister will give all the support he can within the next year or so to a move in this direction. If he does, I am satisfied he will have the support of the agriculturists of Canada in the districts in which these exhibitions function.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Do I understand that the grants to regional fairs have been dropped?


Robert Weir: The same sum is
included in this vote for regional fairs as was included last year. The plan we are following in this connection is to select one B class fair in each province to which a special grant of $1,000 is given. This grant is made in an effort to encourage healthy rivalry between the different communities surrounding the particular B class fair. The different townships or municipalities surrounding that centre group together in making district exhibits. Last year the district winning the most points at that fair is given out of the $1,000, a grant of $400 by the fair board as first prize to be used to encourage the local agricultural association or society. This method brings the district together as a unit rather than dividing it under the old system of individual prizes. The district winning the second highest number of points is granted $300, the next district, $200. and the next, $100. This procedure will be followed for a number of years in each province in an effort to see the results obtained. I might say that we were very gratified last year at the results obtained and we purpose continuing such grants to different B class fairs. In this way the grants for B class fairs will be practically raised.
Supply-Agriculture


Thomas McMillan: Is the department looking after the provincial winter fair at Guelph as usual?


Mr. GOULET (Translation):: Mr. Chairman I notice, by this item, that the government is carrying on its policy of cutting down expenditure. Last year the government appropriated for agricultural exhibitions the sum of $650,000. This year the grant is reduced to $350,000. It is a cut of $350,000 at 46 per cent. The assistance given to agricultural exhibitions represents outwardly, since it is a kind of advertisement, assistance to farming. The item therefore entirely sums up the government's policy. This year, the government under pretext of cutting down expenditure, thought fit to reduce the estimates of agriculture. Others who preceded me in this debate have stated their views on this kind of economy as vexatious as it is irrational. If there is a department where the estimates should have been increased instead of being cut down, it is certainly. that of agriculture.
It is common topic that agriculture is the foundation of the national economic structure. This house has often heard it repeated. It appears daily in the press. Economists are unanimous in proclaiming it. A nation without agriculture cannot subsist. History gives us many proofs of this. The world of to-day would not be undergoing such a serious crisis, if it had not forgotten that underlying principle. It is not only in the economic field that a chasm intervenes between the principle and the practice. But it is always amazing to note how easily under the sway of ambition, one neglects what would prove its strength and resistance, and how easily one forsakes the prey for the shadow.


Ernest Lapointe: The Canadian people have done so.


Alfred Goulet: The shadow is overcapitalized industry, industry on a large scale. The prey is the land, the soil, agriculture. A number of countries such as England, Germany and Japan, owing to an overcrowded population from which they suffered had to forsake the land and go in for an intensive and unbounded industrial development. They depend on other countries for their living. And it is in the former countries that the crisis is most acute: it is industrial, financial, commercial, and therefor social in character.
Here, in Canada, there would be no reason to suffer from such depression, if we had strictly adhered to the principle that agriculture is the foundation of all lasting economic structure, if we had not despised this axiom,

a common-place one, so admitted by all. Canada encloses a vast area of land suited to farming but not yet settled. The land at our disposal is perhaps not unlimited as it was truly pointed out, it is, however, considerable, especially in Ontario and Quebec.
We are fortunately witnessing a change of thought which we would, however, like to see, more general. Some still imagine that when they have discussed trade, finances, currency, gold standard, transportation, they have covered all topics and feel quite at their ease.
They are laggards, they were responsible for the fiasco of our immigration policy and our deplorable emigration to the United States. Governments are still entangled in the webs of incoherent economic theories.
Broadminded people clearly saw the path to follow. They advocated settling the country and the back to the land movement in order to relieve congested cities and bring back the deserters to the farm.


Samuel Gobeil: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman is reading his speech.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It is rather late in the session to raise that as a point of order.


Alfred Goulet: However, it is important to convince ourselves that we must, to insure the success of the back-to-the-land movement, begin by improving the condition of agriculture. Much was done to foster industry. It was no doubt necessary. Measures of urgency are always measures of urgency. But now that industry seems to enjoy permanent assistance through a protective tariff, special transport rates, dumping duties, etc.; would it not be opportune to grant an efficient and substantial assistance to agriculture?
It has been considered. There has been enough proof of good will. Up to the present, however, people have been too exclusively concerned with the one-crop (wheat) system of the west. There again, the government was right to grant a rebate of 5 cents per bushel of wheat exported. The appeal of the western provinces was urgent. The situation there was desperate. However, since so much was done for the single wheat crop, why should nothing be done for mixed farming and live stock breeding in the eastern provinces.
The situation of Ontario farmers is alarming for all those who are well acquainted with it. If in Northern Ontario and New Ontario,

Supply-Agric ulture
the situation is less critical, owing to more favourable local markets and better prices for farm products, it is nevertheless a fact that the farming sections of the south-west, and especially those of the east, comprised within the counties of Russell, Prescott, Stormont and Glengarry are seriously affected by the crisis. Their condition has become alarming. The lack of markets for farm products and the extraordinary low prices prevailing, have placed especially the farmers of these sections, not only in straitened circumstances, but are forcing them to abandon their farms either through the land being seized or sold by sheriff sale in order to recover the taxes.
I was informed, a few weeks ago that, in a parish of my county and in the most fertile concession a number of families were abandoning their farms. They found it impossible to meet the taxes and their rents. The banks admit that they will have to levy execution in order to recover their loans. Farmers are therefore in great difficulties. It is urgent, as urgent as to grant a rebate on wheat, to come to their rescue.


Samuel Gobeil: I rise to a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, and it is that the hon. member is not speaking to the question before the chair. The hon. member for Stanstead was called to order for not speaking to the question, and I think the hon. member for Russell should be called to order.


Alfred Goulet: It behooves
the government to do its utmost to improve the lot of the farming class. In the counties of Russell and Prescott, farmers draw their main revenue from the sale of dairy products; milk, butter and cheese.
Without disbursing a cent, the government could give some relief which has been requested for a long time past by owners of cattle. We have reason to believe that the milk producers do not get all that is coming to them by right. I wish to congratulate the member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) on the speech he delivered last week. The hon. member for Prescott drew the attention of the government to the treatment meted out to the farmers by the dairies.
The producer receives SI .10 per cwt. of milk delivered under contract. For the surplus or balance he receives 55 cents per cwt., the accounts being settled weekly or every fortnight. While the city consumer pays for his milk 9, 10 and 11 cents a quart. As there are forty quarts in a 100 lbs. of milk, the consumer therefore pays $3.60, $4.00 or $4.40, per cwt. The difference between what the producer receives and the consumer pays, is
therefore $2.50, $2.90 or $3.30. Is this margin not excessive? Is it entirely absorbed by the cost of pasteurization, bottling and delivery? Nobody could believe that, and such is practically my view in the matter.
At all events, it behooves the government to ascertain, once for all, the reasons for this remarkable spread between the prices received by the producer and those paid by the consumer and it should redress the grievances of the producers of that section of the country. These grievances are the more so justified seeing that their milk would but give them a return of 55 cents per cwt...
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Hear,
hear!


Alfred Goulet: ...because
the dairy factory reckon it as surplus.
It is contended that the milk, cheese, butter and leather trusts hold the farmers in bondage.


Mr. TETREAULT:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman is not speaking to the question before the chair. The hon. member for Stanstead was called to order for not speaking to the question, and I submit the hon. gentleman is equally out of order.


Alfred Goulet: They are so strongly held in bondage that they find it impossible to break their shackles. They are forced to accept the price offered to them. The Quebec government is holding an inquiry in connection with the milk industry. They started...
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Let
them complete their work.


Alfred Goulet: . .the inquiry a few months ago, and I am informed that the results obtained up to now are very satisfactory.
The Dominion government have experts, in this connection, in the Department of Agriculture. Would not these experts be most willing to hold an inquiry of this kind? The government should appoint a commission to study thoroughly this question of farm product trusts. It is regrettable to note how easily and remorselessly the government forsake the farmers, when it does not, through its negligence, hand them over closely bound to the trust which exploit them.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Carried.


Alfred Goulet: The farmers request also, not only in Ontario counties but throughout every county of Quebec, a bonus
Supply-Agriculture

on butter and cheese. Precedents have been established by assisting industries which were certainly not as deserving as the dairy industry. Election pledges were made in this connection, and we are still waiting for these pledges to materialize.
Last Sunday, at three different meetings, held successively at St. Albert, Hammond and Marionville, in the county of Russell, the farmers were unanimous in endorsing a request to the government for the granting of a bonus on butter and cheese. And I am pleased to act as their mouth-piece in praying to government to comply with such a reasonable request on their part.
The farmer, without being taxed with exaggeration, could claim redress for many other grievances. Why should they be backward about it since others do not have the same scruples and unceasingly request millions of dollars from the government? For whom was the Hudson Bay railway constructed? For whom is a trans-Canadian highway being built? For whose benefit-does parliament enact the high protective tariff which is a loss to the treasury of many hundreds of millions of dollars per year?
The farmer requests to be exempted from the Bankruptcy Act. Is it not possible to grant him more favourable interest rates so as to carry him through the present crisis?
The government would be well advised to increase the appropriations for Agriculture instead of cutting them down, and grant to the man on the land some of the favours which it reserves to industry and trade. If it earnestly wishes a return to prosperity the path is opened. No class of our community is more deserving of sympathy than that of the farmers. No class, either is more courageous when faced with difficulties. However, this must not be a reason to foresake them.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I just
wish to say a word on this item which affects particularly my section of the country. Ma}'
I appeal not only to hon. members on this side of the house, but to hon. members opposite who represent eastern township constituencies to support what I am going to say. The eastern townships of the province of Quebec constitute one of the leading dairying sections of the dominion. Every fall in that section we have what are known as regional or count}' fairs. After the county fairs have been held in the different counties the prize winners go to the city of Sherbrooke and exhibit at a class A fair known as the "Canada's great eastern exhibition," which is held every fall in that place. For years past the federal

government has agreed to pay to the farmers in prize money one-third of the money paid out by the directors of the exhibition association, up to $5,000. The province of Quebec pays two-thirds of the prize money up to $10,000. Hon. members will note, therefore, that the government is not giving a grant of that amount to the exhibition. The prize money is handed out to the farmers, and goes back into the eastern counties of the townships. I want hon. members to understand that the federal government pays one-third and the provincial government two-thirds of the prize money.
As everybody knows, last year the Eastern Townships Agricultural Association, with headquarters at Sherbrooke, had a very bad year, went considerably behind in their receipts and suffered a severe deficit. This year it was questionable whether or not the fair would be carried on. If it were a local fair it might possibly get more support from the surrounding country, but being a class A fair and the climax of all our county fairs in the eastern townships, it is in a class by itself I think the government and hon. members opposite who come from the eastern townships should insist that the department pay at least one-third of those prize moneys which go directly to the farmers. The grant I have been describing was cut off entirely. I understand from the minister that the department will consent to give $2,500, but I claim that under present conditions that sum is not sufficient.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Compton criticized the legislation of the province of Quebec. I ask him to consider the difference in treatment in this connection given by the federal and provincial governments. The province of Quebec pays two-thirds of the prize moneys, which go direct to the farmers, or the sum of $10,000, on the condition that the federal government will pay one-third, or $5,000. The federal government has cut the grant off entirely. On the other hand the exhibition directors went to Quebec and were told that the provincial government would pay its share, just the same, that they would pay their $10,000 regardless of the action of the federal government. The federal Minister of Agriculture has since decided that help to the fairs is necessary to the continued development of the live stock industry, and has decided to pay one-half of the regular sum, namely, $2,500. I thank him for that, and I am not criticizing. If, however, he realizes the absolute necessity of trying to keep agriculture to the forefront and trying to keep the boys on the farms,

Supply-Agriculture
trying to ensure the permanence of that dairying section of the eastern townships, he would make an exception in this particular case. I expect the other hon. members from the eastern townships to back me, and take steps to have the federal government's share replaced at the $5,000 figure.
Realizing that the prize money goes not to the exhibition authorities but directly to the farmers, the provincial legislature has decided, in spite of the fact that the federal government has reduced its share to $2,500, to give a further $2,500 to help out in the present crisis.
I said this afternoon and I repeat to-night that it is unfortunate to cut the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to the extent of $3,000,000. Surely that is one industry which should have been encouraged. In this particular instance I appeal to the hon. members for the eastern townships, whether they be Conservatives or Liberals. I ask them to get together, to get behind this movement and have the grant replaced at the old figure of one-third of the sum paid out in prize money up to $5,000.


James Langstaff Bowman: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the regional fair grants to class B fairs throughout the Dominion to which the hon. member has just referred, may I say that last year in the province of Manitoba the class B fair was held at Dauphin, in my own constituency, and was chosen as an experiment. I have before me a letter from the president of the Dauphin fair board in which he states that last year they had the most successful fair in the history of their organization. They attribute their success very largely to the grant of $1,000 received from the government for the purpose of experimenting in regional fairs.
I had hoped that the minister would see fit to continue the grants to fairs which made the experiment last year. The department must remember that the $1,000 does not go to the fair board, but to the district. As the minister has explained, it is divided in the sums of $400. $300, $200 and $100 to the districts winning first, second, third and fourth marks respectively. By the distribution of this money a friendly competitive spirit has been aroused among the exhibitors in the outlying districts. The district served by the central fair has been divided into districts, each of which has a class C fair. As a result the boards of directors of the class C fairs have taken a very active interest in the class B fairs. The consequence is that in a very large district covering perhaps a radius of one hundred miles, there has been a keen
competitive spirit among the class C fairs to earn these grants of from $100 up to $400 as the case may be. It should be pointed out that when these moneys were distributed they were in turn added by the winners to their prize lists, and so the grants had a cumulative effect. Might I point out to the minister that while the class B fair at Dauphin in Manitoba did not get any money from the actual grant, nevertheless the managers were put to a very large expense in arranging for the competition, additional stabling room alone representing an expenditure of $600.
If it can possibly be done at this late stage, I would suggest that the same grant be given to the fairs that made the experiment last year in order that they may continue it further. I have it from the authorities at home who have been in charge of the local fair for years,-and it is one of the most successful in western Canada,-that this is the best spent money that has ever been contributed by any government for fair or exhibition purposes. I trust the minister will see his way clear to continue this grant but on a larger scale.	.
Mr. HA'CKETT: While the hon. member for Sherbrooke was on a mission to foreign parts the officers and directors of the eastern townships exhibition came to Ottawa, where they met the members for the eastern townships- and would have met the member himself had he been here. Those gentlemen and the members waited upon the Minister of Agriculture, and it may be that one of the results of the conference was the grant of $2,500 which is to be made by the federal government. At that time only $10,000 was available from the Quebec government. If a further sum of $2,500 has come to the fair from the province, it has been received recently, because when here the directors were very definite that $10,000 was the maximum that would come to them from the provincial government. The hon. member for Sherbrooke suggests that we are all interested in that fair.


Mr HOWARD:: Hear, hear.


John Thomas Hackett: That is quite true. I am sure he knows the government is very much interested in it, and that if the government has not found it expedient to contribute as much this year as in the past, it is for the very best of reasons. We know that demands upon the treasury have lately been very heavy. The exhibitors from the eastern townships will this year, even on a reduced prize list, receive more as prizes than they ever have in the past by reason of the new policy
Supply-Agriculture

introduced by the exhibition authorities excluding all professionals who for many years have taken away the prizes from these local shows.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Would you suggest then still further reducing it if that is going to give them more money?


Robert Weir: With reference to the statement of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, the sincerity of his desire to help agriculture and his interest in it is, I think, best exemplified by the fact that he does not even know how the federal grant has been given to the Sherbrooke fair. The rest of his speech did not deal with agriculture so much as Quebec versus Canada, and I would think we have heard enough of that to-night. Regarding the policy of this department in assisting the live stock men in Quebec, we feel that the money we are expending in a different way, as was discussed the last day my estimates were before the committee, is of greater benefit to the farmers of that province than the contributions to fairs in the past. I prefer without any hesitation to allow the farmers of Quebec to pass judgment on our policies rather than those who are actuated by purely political motives.


Ernest Lapointe: What was the amount of the grant to the Quebec city provincial exhibition last year, and what is the amount to be given this year?


Robert Weir: Last year Quebec city got $5,000 as a straight grant and $3,000 as a building grant; this year those grants will be $2,500 and $3,000 respectively. This year I understand the provincial government are convinced there is so much merit in the regional system of fairs that they have decided to adopt that system for the entire province.


Alfred Speakman: In view of the number of communications that we have received from the officials of the B fairs and the anxiety they display, have they been notified that the grant will be again paid in full this year?


Robert Weir: They will be notified.


William Richard Motherwell: Has the ten year grant of $25,000 for the royal winter fair expired yet? I think it expires this fall.


Robert Weir: Last fall.


William Richard Motherwell: Will the grants to the twelve or fourteen A and winter fairs throughout the country be continued in full?


Robert Weir: The A fair grants will be $2,500 as a straight grant.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Where will the regional fair be in Ontario this year?


Robert Weir: Last year it was at Peterborough.


Mr. RAYMOND:: What was the grant to the Valleyfield fair last year, and what will it be this year?


Robert Weir: It was $5,000 last year and this year it will be $2,500.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like to know if
small county fairs will receive grants this year.


Robert Weir: The federal government does not give grants to county fairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Post Office-outside service, $31,451,100.
Mr. POULIOT:: As my good friend the Minister of Finance said the other day, I have obtained quite a number of returns this session and I am very grateful for the information they have contained, but this discussion will last much longer if the minister does not give satisfactoiy replies, because then I will have to submit my case to the house. If the hon. gentleman who is Postmaster General will be fair enough to give fair answers to my fair questions, however, the discussion will be very short. We have been speaking of fairs for the last few minutes; now I will speak about fairness.
There is a matter which caused some concern to the house some time ago. I refer to the case at St. Eusebe de Cabano, and I remember that when the question was answered in the house it aroused quite a storm. The gentleman who is now postmaster there carried liquor for the purpose of canvassing during the last provincial election, and I have denounced him from my seat in this House of Commons. I do not know what are his politics, because he changes so often, but he was appointed by the present Postmaster General, who has been fair enough to promise an investigation into this case. This is satisfactory, but the answer is not complete. We have had investigations held by commissioners who have not been sworn, though they have administered the oath to witnesses. I should like to know from the hon. gentleman first if such an investigation is carried on under his instructions, if the commissioner will be sworn before undertaking that investigation, and in the next place whether the investigation will take place before the end of June. That was

Supply-Post Office
the date I mentioned previously. Now I will ask whether it will take place before the end of July, and I would be very grateful to the minister if he would answer my questions.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to inform the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that I shall do everything possible to give him satisfaction in connection with the case of St. Eusebe de Cabano. I further wish to state that it is not the usual practice to have the commissioner sworn in. I simply followed the practice adopted, in the past, by my hon. friends in the opposition when they were in power.
The commissioner is appointed by order in council and carries out the inquiry which is requested of him when a reasonable complaint is lodged. So far as the date of the inquiry in question, I may state that it will be held as soon as possible, but as to fixing a date, a day, that is rather difficult. I do not think that the hon. member for Temiscouata can expect as much.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Will the
commissioners be instructed to find the postmaster guilty?


Jean-François Pouliot: The Postmaster General's answer pains me much because I have personal knowledge that certain commissioners, immediately after the inquiry, had first stated that they had nothing to reproach the person charged, then later on put him to the rack. They sent in reports without first taking the oath. The hon. Postmaster General is very kind to promise me that an inquiry will be held in the case of St. Eusebe de Cabano, however, if the commissioner does not take the oath, I would rather not have the inquiry; in fact, if there is none held, the commissioner will not be given the opportunity to lie about the person charged.
This is all, sir, I have to say to the hon. Postmaster General, for the moment, with reference to the St. Eusebe de Cabano affair. There has been an offence committed by a postmaster, an offence far more serious than others for which postmasters have been dismissed. In the present case the postmaster will have to undergo an inquiry before an individual who is not a commissioner but an executor, I do not care to have an inquiry, and I wish to thank the Postmaster General, all the same, for his kindness, but there is always the immanent justice which will settle the case of the postmaster who transported liquor during election time.
With regard to the oath taken by commissioners I should like to make a constructive 41761-196
suggestion which will help bring about economy in the department. I have not much faith in these investigations. They have cosi, a good deal of money, though I do not blame the Postmaster General for that. I understand very well that the supporters of the defeated candidate hang around him like flies around a jar of honey, trying to get something for themselves or for their friends. They consider him like honey in order to get money, but the point is that these investigations are rather a farce. They have been carried on for a number of years; sometimes they are fair and sometimes they are not. I suggest first of all that the complainants, or those who give evidence against any postmaster, should never be given a job. At the present time, in my county, I know of nine cases in which men who have given evidence against the postmaster for political reasons have obtained the job. This is most unfair. A man is out of work and he decides that he is going to get a job. There is a good man already occupying the position, one against whom no one has anything to say. But it happens- and this is true only too often-that only one man, the man who wants to get the job, is prepared to say that to his knowledge the postmaster has been a political canvasser. The leaders of the Conservative party, one after another, will say, "To my knowledge that man has never played politics since his appointment," and the only evidence against him is the evidence of the man who is anxious to get the job. And at times that man is appointed by the minister instead of by the commission. Now I can assure the minister that the man who gets the job at the expense of the other fellow deliberately lies in many instances. This, I submit, is most unfair, and to sum up my suggestion, I say that in these cases there should be no political investigation by a commissioner, but instead there should be required two or three affidavits from people who are absolutely disinterested. People who have no interest whatever in the matter should give evidence to the satisfaction of the new lawyer in the department of the Postmaster General.
An hon. MEMBER; Who is he?


Jean-François Pouliot: I refer to Mr. Lalonde,
and I congratulate the minister on that appointment, for it is well to have a lawyer there to check the returns. I am entirely in favour of that; it is a very wise move. We shall see how he does his work and whether he is entitled to blame or praise. If he does his work well, he will receive some praise from me, because there are other lawyers who

Supply-Post Office

carry on investigations in a most unfair way. I ask the minister, is not that a sensible suggestion? It would save $33,000 in the Post Office Department.
I very much regret that two departments presided over by ministers from the province of Quebec should show the largest number of investigations and dismissals. It is very sad. Is it not better to have two or three affidavits sworn to by people who are not looking for jobs themselves than to have only one witness, and that witness the very man who is anxious to get the job? He is sure to give such evidence as -he thinks will bring him the job. I know of instances where a man has lied in his evidence and his statement has been denied under oath by other people. I will mention cases with which the Postmaster General is familiar, and which are repugnant to any man's sense of justice and fair play. The commissioner asks a witness: Do you swear that this man has never played politics since his appointment as postmaster? The man swears, yes. Later on the question is asked him: Do you swear that of your knowlege? He replies; Yes, I swear it. And further on: Do you remember whether that man has ever played politics? The answer is, no, I don't remember. Very well. Then he says in his report, "This man does not remember that the other man has played politics." It is not a negation; it is a shade, a distinction, but it is crooked just the same. And it is more crooked for the commissioner to act that way, to put words into the mouth of the witness. Moreover, the evidence of the man was denied by another person. I would therefore ask the minister to consider very seriously the suggestion I have made in the interests of economy, and for the sake of the dignified and proper discharge of duties which are quite onerous. Is it not reasonable to ask that those who shall lodge complaints or those who shall give evidence shall not be persons who are likely to benefit from their own action? It is fair play, so much so that there is not an honourable member who will get up in this house and say otherwise. But not only that; if the minister wants to enjoy peace in his department, he must establish general principles by which people shall abide- principles which must govern members who have been elected from the Conservative party and defeated candidates as well, who, perhaps, are most troublesome to the peace of mind of the minister.
I wish to cite some cases, and I shall be very brief. I will start with the case of Sully of Temiscouata county.


Ernest Lapointe: I know the man.


Jean-François Pouliot: The ex-Minister of Justice says he knows the man. He knows the postmaster who has been dismissed, and I know him too. He is well known by his fellow citizens, and that explains the fact that he has been mayor of the municipality for many years. But before taking up the Sully case may I once more ask the minister whether he will kindly consider my suggestion that complaints shall be lodged only on the strength of affidavits sworn to by people who are not likely to be appointed, or by a member of parliament, from his seat or over his own signature.
. Mr. SAUVE (Translation):	I was about
to ask the hon. member for Temiscouata if I might answer the suggestions he has just made as to this new method of carrying on investigations. I say without hesitation that the suggestions of the hon. member for Temiscouata are worth looking into. The method is a new one, never followed by my predecessors. I do not know if the hon. member for Temiscouata has consulted with the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) who enjoys a wealth of experience; if he has not, I shall make it a point to ask his opinion when the time comes because the matter is of a truly serious nature.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Hear, hear.


Arthur Sauvé: As to the commissioner,. I am rather surprised at what the hon. member for Temiscouata says. He is a lawyer, he is intelligent, he has political experience-	.
Mr . DURANLEAU (Translation):	Hear,
hear.


Arthur Sauvé: -he knows perfectly well that since the time of Laurier up to the present, investigating commissioners have been appointed by the governor in council. If the hon. member for Temiscouata desires to make certain exceptions in the case of a few errors that may have happened, as he says, very well. But why denounce all the investigating commissioners?
As to' having three commissioners sworn I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this method has not been followed heretofore. If complaints are made against certain commissioners there are ways of bringing such charges. But the hon. member for Temiscouata mentions no names in his denunciations; he accuses all those commissioners who, in the past, have carried on investigations without being under oath. This, to my mind, does not reflect his real thought.

Supply-Post Office
Now, Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee and of the hon. member for Temiscouata, I shall answer the questions asked the other day when we began the discussion of the Post Office estimates. I wish to be well understood. My hon. friends of the opposition will admit that I have sufficient parliamentary experience to know what constitutes a proper reception of their remarks, their protests and their criticisms. I am ready to accept, and to answer as decently as I may, the varied criticisms of my opponents. If I have not continued, before this, the discussion of my departmental estimates, it was, first of all, because I had not been called upon to do so, and also because my deputy was the victim of an accident and has not recovered sufficiently to permit of his resuming his work.
The hon. member for Temiscouata began by mentioning certain cases. I prefer this method to that followed last week. You understand how difficult it would be for me to answer a volley of questions from all sides at once, and all treating of entirely different matters. Mr. Chairman, I have never been afraid of any task assigned to me: I have never given ground in the presence of duty, nor turned tail before an antagonist. The hon. member for Temiscouata knows me well enough to realize that I am fully disposed to answer, to the best of my ability, any reasonable question asked of me.
As regards the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) he will allow me this evening to advise him, in the most well-intentioned language, to refrain from overstepping the mark when giving evidence of his animosity towards myself, an animosity that I fail to understand, but which appears to be inspired by people outside of this house.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed-


Arthur Sauvé: If it pleases
the committee I would like to finish my reply; the hon. member for Laprairie-Na-pierville can speak afterwards.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order. The Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) claims that I have a personal feeling against him. I should like him to withdraw that remark because I speak here only as a member of parliament, as a representative of the people and in the interests of the people.


Arthur Sauvé: I never said
what the hon. member for Laprairie-Na-pierville claims I did. I continue. The reproaches he hurled at me from the other side of the chamber fell mostly on the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). The hon.
member for Laprairie-Napierville had he any right to attack me in the peculiarly violent manner he used the other day? Had he any right to declare that he was being abused, to decry my treatment of postmasters in the county of Laprairie-Napierville? There are seventeen postmasters in that county; only one was dismissed. There you have my crime!


An hon. MEMBER:: Injustice.


Vincent Dupuis: I beg your
pardon; if the hon. minister will consult his departmental files he will see that there were three or four dismissals.


Jean-François Pouliot: That's nothing.


Arthur Sauvé: I say again
that only one postmaster was dismissed in Laprairie, and his dismissal followed on a report of the commissioner appointed by order in council.


Vincent Dupuis: Was he under oath?
Mr.SAUVE (Translation): A commissioner appointed by order in council. Under the Liberal administration such commissioners were never sworn and the hon. member made p.0 protest..
Now, Mr. Chairman, if you please, let us settle this matter of dismissals; le.t us see how great was my guilt, how far my hon. friends on the Liberal side were justified in being scandalized at my conduct. Out of a grand total of 12,487 postmaster's in Canada the present government, since August, 1930, has dismissed 650-


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Not very many!


Arthur Sauvé: -after investigations conducted by commissioners appointed according to the law and regulations laid down by preceding governments.


Vincent Dupuis: Will the hon minister allow a question?


Arthur Sauvé: Pardon me;
when I am through with my statement the hon. member can speak as long as he wishes.


Vincent Dupuis: Just one question; I would like to know, for the province of Quebec-


Arthur Sauvé: I will come to that. I made these dismissals following personal declarations of sitting members, or the reports of my departmental inspectors. Dismissals may be due to different causes: political partisanship, unsuitable premises or faulty administration. I did not cause a single
Supply-Post Office

dismissal to be made without the authorization given under the law and the regulations established before I took up the Post Office Department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. SATTVE (Translation):: Under the
Liberal regime of my hon. friend the member from Laprairie-Napierville, 1,147 postmasters were dismissed, yes, 1,147.


Vincent Dupuis: Within how many years?


Arthur Sauvé: Of which number 387 were made without any investigation whatsoever. From September, 1926, to August, 1930, the Liberal government dismissed 676 postmasters, 211 without the slightest investigation and without any complaints that may be found in the files of the department.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Shame! Shame!


Wilfrid Girouard: I shall wait patiently.


Vincent Dupuis: What were
their salaries?


Arthur Sauvé: I hare been
accused of undue severity towards the postmasters in Quebec, my own province; I have been called a traitor to my province.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): For shame!


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is true.


Arthur Sauvé: There are other Liberals who do not speak in the same way.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): In what way?


Arthur Sauvé: In such a way as to ensure me the praises of opponents whom I have fought. I ask my hon. friend to read Le Soleil of Quebec which says that I have always shown myself to be a loyal and honourable opponent. That is what I wish to be, now and always. It is said against me that I dismissed too many postmasters in Quebec province. There are 2,469 postmasters in Quebec, and 317 of them have been dismissed.


Mr. PERRAS (Translation):: That means sight per cent.


Arthur Sauvé: Did our friends across the aisle dismiss a greater or a smaller number? If their dismissals were more numerous why did our friends of the opposition who in those days sat at the right of the Speaker, not protest against what to-day they call a revolting evil?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Dismissals were made with more fairness then.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: Yes, without investigation.


Arthur Sauvé: Our opponents dismissed postmasters without an inquiry and mostly without any complaint having been lodged against them.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): That is what the Marine department does.


Arthur Sauvé: We are speaking of the Post Office Department. Our opponents dismissed, while they were in power in their last regime, 396 postmasters in Quebec province, and 189 between 1927 and 1930.


Jean-François Pouliot: Those dismissed were not postmasters; they were Louis Philippe Pelletier's padlocks.


Arthur Sauvé: I like the
natural talents of the hon. member for Temis-couata better than this witticism, which is rather strained. Hands off the grave of a man who would well know how to defend himself if he were here to-night.


Peter John Veniot: Give us the number once more.


Mr.   SALTVE@Translation: From 1927 to 1930, 189 in the province of Quebec.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Four
years.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: Without an inquiry.


Arthur Sauvé: Such are the facts, Mr. Chairman, and that is the crime. On this matter of postmaster dismissals my hon. friend the ex-Postmast.er General (Mr. Veniot)-towards whom I do not believe I have been lacking in consideration, in courtesy and in broadmindedness-had this to say last week:
" Under my administration 162 postmasters were dismissed for political partisanship. My successor has dismissed 474."
And our Liberal friends cried: shame! My hon. friend's answer was very clever; but it was not complete. What my hon. friend from Gloucester did not say, or did not wish to say was that besides the 162 he mentioned he also dismissed 317 postmasters without any investigation, without any complaint even, to be discovered in the departmental files.
Do our hon. friends of the opposition approve of this method of inquiry and this policy of dismissal under their own administration?

Supply-Post Office


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: You have talent for imitating bad examples.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville says that the former Postmaster General set us a bad example?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: You followed his example.


Arthur Sauvé: This number,
Mr. Chairman, shows political partisanship not on the part of the dismissed postmasters but on the part of the minister who dismissed them without an inquiry and without any complaint having been made against them.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising- and my hon. friends on the opposite side will admit as much-that these dismissals have brought about reprisals, have given rise to complaints and local criticisms against postmasters who had taken an active part in politics. It has been said: the Postmaster General is dismissing postmasters in his own province, but very few are being let out in Ontario and in the west. That is so. Why? It is a matter of compaign customs, of political turn of mind, of precedents. The same minister has jurisdiction over postmasters in Ontario and in the western provinces. From that part of the country he has not received one-fourth as many complaints as have come from the maritime provinces and from the province of Quebec. That is why there have been fewer dismissals in Ontario and in the west than in the eastern provinces.


Donat Raymond: Do you
mean to imply that the people of Quebec are not so well-behaved as those in the other provinces?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member from Beauharnois is far too intelligent to have understood any such thing.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It does not show.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, one can see it in his face. I say again that it was not a pleasant duty for me to make these dismissals. Those who know me, those who are not blinded by party spirit and are willing to do me justice, realize that this part of the administrative task assigned to me has been most unpleasant.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: We know it. May I ask a question of the hon. minister?


Arthur Sauvé: You may.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is it not a fact that in a number of cases these dismissals were insisted upon and demanded by the minister's colleagues? It was generally after one of his colleagues had passed through, my former opponent in Kamouraska riding-


Jean-François Pouliot: The useless being.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: -that
these dismissals took place-unjust dismissals, as I shall have occasion to show later on.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Kamouraska has just said that he intends to deal more fully with this subject on some later occasion. With his permission I shall await his explanation before replying; no doubt by that time I will understand better just what he means.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: You can ask the Solicitor General.


Arthur Sauvé: There are
members in the opposition ranks who can bear witness to my sense of fair play. There are members on the other side who have made representations to me and been listened to; there are opposition members who have asked certain things of me, which I was only too glad to perform, when at all possible. I put politics behind me-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Arthur Sauvé: -I did not consider whether they were opposition or government members.	.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): That is true.


Arthur Sauvé: Some are listening to me, others are absent, who can bear me out in this. I wanted to make this statement about dismissals in order to acquaint the house with the true facts and so that our Liberal friends should discern my administration from another angle than that used so far.


Vincent Dupuis: May I be
allowed to complete the history of the case I brought up on April 28, that of Noel Fontaine of Laprairie. The hon. minister has just stated that I should not complain because there have been but few dismissals in the county of Laprairie-Napierville. That is like someone saying to me: "Don't complain; the thieves robbed only one individual in Laprairie-Napierville. Let them be."
The case of Noel Fontaine is the most typical that can be brought to the attention of the house. The hon. Postmaster General says he means well and that I appear ill-disposed towards him. It seems to me that when I have spoken in the house I have
31 IS
Supply-Post Office

'very often shown that I esteem the hon. minister, that I have a very high regard for him and that if he had made all these dismissals it was because his hand had been forced. In my remarks of April 28 concerning the Noel Fontaine case I stated clearly that the pressure came from the outside, that people in the county had appealed to the defeated candidate and he in turn to the minister. It was fair to the hon. minister to remember his words to me: "If Noel Fontaine did not mix in politics, if his wife alone went to meetings, Noel Fontaine has no cause to worry." I can go further and repeat what the minister said in Laval-Two Mountains when two Conservatives from my constituency went to see him. When the dismissal of Noel Fontaine became known in Laprairie two Conservatives and one Liberal called on the hon. minister who told them then and there: "Try to get Gustave Monette to withdraw his complaint and Noel Fontaine will not be interfered with. I wash my hands of the whole affair."
I am sure the hon. minister did not enjoy ordering these dismissals. I know, for instance, that when an investigation is made on a postmaster with the definite intention of relieving him of his functions, it is not a pleasant thing for the Postmaster General. To show more clearly how repulsive the dismissal of Noel Fontaine was to the hon. minister may I remind the house that the inquiry was held in February, 1931, and that the dismissal was not made until shortly before the provincial elections, when a delegation of Conservatives from Laprairie waited upon Mr. Gustave Monette and gave him to understand that if he did not cause Noel Fontaine to be dismissed the Conservatives would remain at home or would work for the Liberal candidate.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Shame!


Vincent Dupuis: Those are the circumstances which justify the hon. minister and which explain his conciliatory attitude of a moment ago. I want to be just towards him. Nevertheless this iniquity has been perpetrated against a postmaster who remains independent, impartial and who only seeks to do his duty. Allow me to give you a few more details concerning the dismissal of Noel Fontaine. The investigation did not reveal a single thing to his discredit. So then the attackers turned on Mrs. Fontaine. False testimonies were used, and I can prove it. A lady testified at the inquiry, under orders from a Conservative leader-I should not employ that expression, for the great name of Conservative, as I understand it, cannot apply to people capable of such action. A

vile individual forced an ailing woman to commit perjury by swearing that she had heard Mrs. Fontaine speak at one of my opponent's rallies during the last campaign. This same woman admitted two months later-the thing made her positively ill- in the presence of two witnesses, that she had sworn a false oath, that she was sorry and that she begged Mr. Fontaine to forgive her all the trouble she had caused him. What did they do? They got false witnesses to swear that the postmaster's wife had addressed a meeting held in the interests of Mr. Gustave Monette. Six witnesses, two Conservatives and four Liberals, swore under oath that Mrs. Fontaine was not present at the meeting in question; they established an alibi. Notwithstanding this, Noel Fontaine was dismissed. But how did they go about his dismissal? The investigating commissioner was Mr. Bruno Nantel-


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: A good
Liberal!
Mr. DUPUIS .(Translation): Mr. Bruno Nantel made a report in which he quotes the evidence-I could mention the names of witnesses-and draws his own conclusions. Is there anything, I shall not say more disgusting, because that is unparliamentary, but more iniquitous than a report from which the names of witnesses who proved the alibi of Mrs. Fontaine are deleted. The following persons appeared as witnesses during the investigation: Jeannette, Mrs. Paul Bonneterre-I wish the hon. Postmaster General would inquire as to how, where and by whom these names were struck out-Samuel Racine, one of the leaders of the Conservative candidate, Wilfrid Ste. Marie, another good Conservative, David Racette, Emilien Lamarre, also a conservative, and Mrs. Arthur Lamarre. Six witnesses, two Conservatives and four Liberals, came and proved beyond all doubt that Mrs. Noel Fontaine, the same evening when she is accused of having attended the meeting of Mr. Gustave Monette, was at St. Mathieu de Laprairie. What did they do? They struck out the evidence of those six witnesses. I call the attention of the Postmaster General on that fact and I am asking him to explain to the house why those statements in favour of Noel Fontaine were struck out.
Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to draw the attention of the committee to these facts that came to my knowledge only recently, after the remarks I made the other day. The question is serious enough to be worth mentioning.
I have only a few words to say about the very fair request that I made to the hon.

Supply-Post Office
Postmaster General. I addressed him very courteously, and I shall now say it in English.
At page 2985 of Hansard will be found my question to the hon. Postmaster General:
May I ask the hon. Postmaster General when he intends to continue with the estimates of his department ?
To this question the minister gave- quite a vague answer. I do not blame him. He might not have been in a position to answer definitely, because, as I understand, it was a matter to be decided by the cabinet. He said:	.
I have no objection to discuss the estimates of my department immediately if the rules so permit. I will submit them again to the house when the rules permit me.
I repeat, thait is not an answer to my question. Then the right hon. Prime Minister brought forward another matter altogether. When he was through I said:
A few minutes ago I asked the hon. Postmaster General when he expected to proceed with his estimates. As he seems to be unable to answer, I would ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if he is able to tell the house when the Postmaster General will proceed with his estimates.
What did the right hon. Prime Minister . answer? He said that I had insulted the Postmaster General. I did not catch that at the time because the right hon. gentleman spoke in an undertone, otherwise I would have asked him in all fairness where and when and in what manner I had insulted the hon. Fosbmaster General.


Mr. MANION:: It is not a compliment to say that a minister cannot himself answer a question.


Vincent Dupuis: It was only my interpretation of the fact that as the Postmaster General was not able to decide the matter alone it might have been decided by the Prime Minister. It was not intended as an insult at all. If it was an insult it would have been the duty of the Prime Minister to ask me to withdraw my remarks, because I have no right to insult a member of this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: And no insult ever came
out of your mouth.


Vincent Dupuis: I bring this matter up because I do not want to have the reputation of insulting anybody. If the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals would ask my good friend Mr. Monette, my opponent at the last election, I am confident he would tell the minister that I never insulted anybody even in the heat of the campaign, and it was a very
strenuous fight. It was very unfair on the part of the Prime Minister to say that I insulted anybody.


Jean-François Pouliot: Never mind.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like the Prime Minister-he is not in his seat at present-to withdraw his statement. If I did insult the Postmaster General I would expect him to ask me to withdraw whait I had said.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Prime Minister will
withdraw the next time he comes to the house.


Wilfrid Girouard: The hon. Postmaster General spoke, a few moments ago, of the discussion that took place when his estimates were submitted to the committee, on April 28th. On that occasion I called his attention . on the activities of a man named Garfield MacKinnon and I asked him to be kind enough to say what his department intended to do.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, I must say that the information I gave the other day to this house has been corroborated by the legal adviser of the department.


Wilfrid Girouard: Based upon what?


Arthur Sauvé: Based upon
the fact that MacKinnon has a right to form an association, to ask the rural mail carriers to become members of it and to exact a fee of $5 to cover organization expenses. He promises them that by being members of that association they will be better protected. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, who is a good lawyer, will admit that I should not be blamed1 for not having taken legal proceedings against that organizer. Perhaps he will say: Yes, but the Postmaster General received complaints or an affidavit signed by three citizens of Megantic. From a legal point of view can that affidavit be taken into consideration by the department? I am informed that it cannot, because it bears three signatures. The affidavit says that at the end of January, 1932, a man named Garfield MacKinnon, who styles himself as secretary of the Rural Mail Carriers' Association, called at the homes of the undersigned, and asked them to contribute a sum of $5 as mail carriers, failing which they would lose their contract. Ii: says also that the said Joseph Cote was the only one to pay $5 and the others refused to do so. That is the statement of Antonio Boulanger, Wilfrid Boule and Joseph Cote. Is that affidavit sufficient evidence to allow the post office department to prosecute that
Supply-Post Office

promoter? It is not, according to the information I received from the legal adviser of my department. We advised the inspectors throughout the province and the whole country that MacKinnon was not authorized by the Post Office Department to form such an organization and that the rural mail carriers were not bound to listen to his representations or threats. We even issued a public statement to that effect, and we asked all our inspectors and superintendants to take up the matter and to warn the people that the Post Office Department had nothing whatever to do with that promoter.
Mr. Chairman, if that man MacKinnon commits any fraud in a province, it is up to the Attorney General of that province to prosecute him or else let the people whom he has deceived lay a complaint with the Attorney General.


Wilfrid Girouard: The hon. Postmaster General is perfectly right in saying that this man MacKinnon has the right to organize the rural mail carriers; to that extent, certainly there is nothing wrong. He has also the right to exact $5 from the mail carriers who wish to join his association. If the activities of that man were limited to these two things, the Postmaster General may be sure that I would not object. The only point on which the Postmaster General has some doubt is whether the sworn statement that was sent to him by the hon. member for Megantic (Roberge) is sufficient to establish before the courts that MacKinnon obtained money under false pretences. Here is a man going through all the parishes of the province of Quebec-and others, I presume-gathering the mail carriers together and telling them that they will lose their contract, unless they pay him a sum of $5. That is the kind of pretence that induces the mail carriers to pay $5 in order to join the association.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that such a threat is what might be called extortion and according to the provisions of the criminal code the department has a perfect right to prosecute that man MacKinnon. The evidence in the hands of the department is complete. The hon. member for Megantic has offered the Postmaster General to bring three witnesses to prove the facts. To tell these people that unless they pay him S5 they will lose their contract shows very clearly that MacKinnon was extorting money. The hon. Postmaster General has three witnesses at his disposal.


Arthur Sauvé: How could the Postmaster General deal with a man who is not in his employ?
(Mr. Sauve.J


Wilfrid Girouard: The hon. Postmaster General will easily understand that it is a question of public interest. Here is a man who travels through our counties and obtains money in the way that I have just mentioned. Therefore it seems to me that if there is anybody that is interested in protecting his. employees or the people connected with the Post Office Department, it should be the Postmaster General. I think his reputation is at stake. I don't reproach him with not having taken any steps before this very day, for he had not enough evidence; but he has it now, thanks to the activities of the hon. member for Megantic. Now the hon. Postmaster General says that anybody can lay a complaint: either the Attorney General of the province of Quebec or the person who has been deceived. In this case I respectfully submit that it is for the Post Office Department to see that the mail carriers in the different provinces are not victimized by cheats and swindlers who are acting in the way that I have mentioned in order to extort five dollars from people under contract with the government. By his threats, MacKinnon leaves the people under the impression that he has some influence on the Postmaster General.
Mr. Chairman, I am not unaware of the fact that some Conservative members, being deceived by MacKinnon whom they didn't know, accompanied him when he made his tour of the province. The presence of these Conservative members or candidates alongside of MacKinnon led the people to believe that he had a certain influence with the Postmaster General or else that he was an employee of the department. I shall not speak any further on this subject, but I most respectfully submit that it is about time that the Post Office Department should prosecute MacKinnon.


Arthur Sauvé: Does the hon. member mean that this affidavit is legal and can be accepted by a court?


Wilfrid Girouard: Mac-
Kinnon can be charged not with perjury, but extortion. Whether it is a sworn statement or not, that has no effect on the charge to be laid against MacKinnon, because, as I already said, it is not a charge of perjury but one of extortion and the department has three witnesses to prove it.


Arthur Sauvé: Does my hon. friend not think that it is up to the party that has been wronged to prosecute?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No.


Wilfrid Girouard: It is very well in a private case; but here is a question

Supply-Post Office
of public interest and under the circumstances as I have mentioned a moment ago, the most interested party is the Post Office Department.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of discussing the estimates of the hon. Postmaster General to-night. As I thought he would not be able to get through to-night I intended to discuss them later on. But since the activities of that Mr. MacKinnon have been brought up again to the attention of the house, I think it is my duty as a former Postmaster General to sa}7 a few words about the behaviour of that gentleman while I had the honour of being at the head of that department.
In 192S my attention was called on the activities of Mr. Garfield MacKinnon. I gave instructions for an investigation to be made and I found out that Mr. MacKinnon was going through the different districts of the country. I even saw him in my own constituency. I did not know then whether he was authorized by the Post Office Department to canvas the rural mail carriers such as he was doing. Upon my return to the department I made inquiries and Mr. Anderson, superintendent of mail contracts, informed me that Mr. MacKinnon was not connected at all with the Post Office Department and that he had organized an association which was not recognized by the department. We endeavoured to get some evidence about the activities of that gentleman and his false representations to the mail carriers. Had I been able to secure affidavits such as those of which the hon. Postmaster General has now in his possession I would have prosecuted Mr. MacKinnon; but we had none, and for several reasons. When we saw that we could not secure any evidence, I publicly denounced in this house the activities of Mr. MacKinnon. At that same time I sent-


Arthur Sauvé: The postmasters were warned.


Peter John Veniot: I sent a
circular letter to all the mail carriers warning them against MacKinnon. That was on the eve of the election in 1930 and Mr. MacKinnon was then pleading for the mail carriers.
A debate took place in this house in which four or five present members of the government took part. They were urging an increase in the price paid to the mail carriers and they even pledged themselves,-I have here their very words-if they came into power, to give the mail carriers a monthly salary or else to pay them at the rate of $70 a mile. Hon. gentlemen promised to carry
out that change upon their coming into power. They are now in power, but they have never kept their word. To prove what I have just said, I have here a circular letter from the Conservative party in which they criticize the then Postmaster General and promise to raise the salaries or the rate allowed in the rural mail contracts. They were to give rural mail carriers a monthly salary or $70 per mile.
Mr. MacKinnon was then going throughout the country pretending that he had a formal promise from the present members of the government, who were then members of the opposition. When our Conservative friends came into power, MacKinnon asked them to fulfil their promises, but he did not succeed. And since then MacKinnon still travels around and states that he has the promise of hon. Mr. Sauve, Postmaster General, and hon. Mr. Guthrie, Minister of Justice, that they are both in favour of a rate of $70 per mile for rural mail contracts, or else a monthly salary, and the mail carriers being placed under the Civil Service Commission.
Moreover, some of the French-Canadian members from the province of Quebec attended meetings at which they are reported as having asserted that they, as Conservative members of this house, knew of hon. Mr. Sauve and hon. Mr. Guthrie being in favour of that plan. Acting on the faith of these promises MacKinnon asked the mail carriers to pay him five dollars. I want to be well understood; I am not saying that the Postmaster General is responsible for what happened, but I want him to know-


Arthur Sauvé: I know pretty well.


Peter John Veniot: -what is going on in his own province.
Mr. POULIOT (Translation) Hear, hear I


Peter John Veniot: I want the hon. Postmaster General to know that some hon. members who are supporting him as *members of the government, some members from the province of Quebec, are attending these meetings and are telling the people-I shall give some names-


Jean-François Pouliot: Very bad, very bad.


Peter John Veniot: -telling the people that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Justice are ready to adopt MacKinnon's plan.


Arthur Sauvé: Would the hon. member give the names?
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I am going to give them right here.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Give them out.	,


Peter John Veniot: I have before me a circular letter from MacKinnon which is written both in French and English. I shall now read it in both languages:
Assemblee de 1'Association des courriere ruraux Richmond, Que., 22 decembre 1931. M. W. Provencher,
R.R. I. Bromptonville, Que.	_
Une assemblee de l'Association des Courriers ruraux du comte sera tenue, a Richmond, a l'ho-tal-de-ville, mardi soir, le 22 decembre, a 8 heu-res. p.m.	.
Votre devoue depute a Ottawa, M. Franqois-Joseph Lafleche, sera present et adressera la parole. Tous les courriers ruraux et entrepreneurs de malles, soit de bureau de poste a bureau de poste, ou de gare au bureau de poste, sont ins-tamment pries d'assister a cette assemblee^ ou Ton discutera de questions eoncernant l'amelio-ration de la situation des courriers ruraux. Qu'on soit present a tout prix!
Votre.devoue,
Garfield MacKinnon, Secretaire de TAssociation des Courriers Ruraux Canadiens.
Mail Contractors Association Meeting Richmond, Que., December 22, 1931.
Dear Sir,
An Association meeting of all the Mail Contractors for the County will be held in Richmond, in the Town Hall, on Tuesday evening, December 22nd, at eight o'clock.
Your Worthy Representative, and member of Parliament, Mr. Francois Joseph Lafleche, will be present and address the meeting.
All the Rural mail contractors, and The Post Office to Post Office mail contractors, and the Post Office to Railway Station Mail Contractors, are urgently requested to attend the meeting as matters of great benefit to the mail contractors will be discussed.
Kindly arrange to attend this meeting without fail.	_
Yours very faithfully,
Garfield MacKinnon, Secretary,
Canadian Mail Contractors Association.
P.S.-If there are former contractors of recent time in your locality, kindly invite them to attend meeting also.
This meeting was held. Garfield MacKinnon delivered a speech and the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe also spoke at the meeting.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This is
more serious.


Peter John Veniot: According to
a report of this meeting which I have here there were between 50 and 60 persons present.


Arthur Sauvé: At Brompton?


Peter John Veniot: At Bromptonville.


Mr. BLACKETT (Translation):: At Richmond.


Peter John Veniot: I will read
this report in English.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: It is to the effect that the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe had spoken at the meeting and had said that the hon. the Postmaster General and the hon. the Minister of Justice were in favour of an allowance to mail'contractors of $70 a mile.


Joseph-François Laflèche: This is
absolutely false. I will tell the hon. member he is speaking an untruth.


Peter John Veniot: Did you
speak at the meeting?


Joseph-François Laflèche: Certainly, sir.


Peter John Veniot: And you
deny-


Joseph-François Laflèche: I deny
having said what you have claimed to-night.


Peter John Veniot: I am pleased
to learn that the hon. member denies, and that for two reasons: the people who were present will read the hon. member's denial-


Joseph-François Laflèche: I hope so.


Peter John Veniot: -and they
will judge thereby who speaks the truth.


Joseph-François Laflèche: That is
understood. They will observe that the party who wrote this report lied and that you are lying at the same time.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his words. He has no right to say in this chamber that an hon. member lies.


Joseph-François Laflèche: I do not
say you lie but that you distort the facts.


Peter John Veniot: That is still
worse.


Joseph-François Laflèche: If it is
worse, all the better.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon.
member wishes to deny, all he need say is that what I am reading is untrue.


Joseph-François Laflèche: And I do
say so.


Peter John Veniot: However,
withdraw your remarks.

Supply-Post Office


Joseph-François Laflèche: You are
ill-informed.


Mr. YENIOT (Translation):: Learn to
choose you words when addressing me, because I am too old a man to have you call me a liar.


Joseph-François Laflèche: You reproduce the letter of a liar.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon.
member were any kind of a man he would walk out and take his medicine from me, old as I am.
Mr.	LAFLECHE	(Translation):	That
makes no difference.


Peter John Veniot: Old as I am,
I can give it to him.
Mr.	LAFLECHE	(Translation):	I have
met stronger men.
Mr.	VENIOT	(Translation):	The hon.
member does not deny being at the meeting.


Joseph-François Laflèche: No, I do
not deny it.
Mr.	VENIOT	(Translation):	Could the
hon. member tell the committee what kind of a speech he delivered on that occasion.
Mr.	HACKETT	(Translation):	A fine
speech.
Mr.	VENIOT	(Translation):	Would he
deliver here the same speech he delivered that night?


Joseph-François Laflèche: What
speech?


Peter John Veniot: You spoke at that meeting?


Joseph-François Laflèche: What did I say at that meeting?
Mr.	VENIOT	(Translation):	You spoke
and I am asking you whether you would deliver the same speech to-night?


Joseph-François Laflèche: What
speech?
Mr.	VENIOT	(Translation):	I did not
deliver it, you know all about it.


Joseph-François Laflèche: If you
know nothing about it, don't mention it.


Peter John Veniot: The letter I
have here charges you with-


Joseph-François Laflèche: That is
nothing, that is some Tobin talk.


Peter John Veniot: That letter charges you with having said that the hon. Mr. Sauve was in favour of...


Joseph-François Laflèche: I positively deny having said that.


Peter John Veniot: You deny it?


Onésime Gagnon: Would you have any objection to telling us who signed that letter?


Peter John Veniot: I have not the right to tell but I will use it.


Joseph-François Laflèche: You have the right to make charges, but you have not the right to say whence they come?


Peter John Veniot: Sit down.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It rubs in.


Peter John Veniot: It rubs in.


Joseph-François Laflèche: It does not rub in at all.


Peter John Veniot: The man is William Provencher.


Joseph-François Laflèche: He is
Tobin's man, that is not surprising.


Peter John Veniot: Provencher is as honest as you are.


Joseph-François Laflèche: That is not true, he is not as honest as I am. He is a man who refuses to pay his employees.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I will go further now. Provencher was the mail carrier and I hold in my hand the original notice advising him of the renewal of his mail contract.


Joseph-François Laflèche: You may possibly choose to be Tobin's "dust-pan".


Peter John Veniot: You are
excited, sit down.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Withdraw that statement.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe has in a single sentence twice infringed the rule. He must withdraw the word "dustipan", and his attack against a member of another chamber.


Joseph-François Laflèche: I withdraw the word if it is unparliamentary, but inwardly...


Peter John Veniot: I want him to withdraw according to the rules of the house.
Supply-Post Office


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand) (Translation):: That is unnecessary, he has withdrawn the word.


Peter John Veniot: That is not
sufficient.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it possible to preserve order?


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member is so excited that he is not afraid to address the house in that manner. The hon. member is too excited to know how to express himself in this chamber.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Start by being a gentleman and the others will follow your example.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Oh, oh!


Peter John Veniot: If he did lose his job he has got a good one to take its place. No one can fool the public like hon. members did in the last elections. I am prepared to obey the rules, Mr. Chairman, but I ask that you keep order on the other side of the chamber and not allow interruptions from those who do not understand me when I am speaking in French.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Speak in French.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member tells me to speak in French. If I had had during my youth the same opportunity as the hon. member to acquire an excellent French education under the just laws of the province of Quebec, instead of having to suffer the 'Sects of the persecution directed against my language, I would speak French better than he does to-day.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear! hear!


Peter John Veniot: If any one wants to examine closely the language used by this gentleman and the language I use, I ask myself whether my language would not be more proper than his.
I hold in my hand the notice which the superintendent of mail contracts forwarded to Provencher advising him that his contract had been renewed for a period of four years at the rate of $200 as in the past, without the formality of calling for tenders. What happened? He receives a notice that his contract will be continued. Following the meeting attended by the hon. member for Riehmond-Wolfe when Provencher refused to subscribe the $5 demanded, he receives a notice that his contract is not renewed and that tenders will be called for.


Joseph-François Laflèche: That is not the reason.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say what was the reason. The hon. member is getting excited again.
Tenders are called for and received. Provencher put in a tender for $595; a man named Richer for $800; one Blake for $825, and one Boulanger for $875. The contract was awarded to Richer at the price of the lowest tender, that submitted' by Provencher.
Richer had put in a tender for $800 and Provencher for $500, and Richer learnt that he would secure the contract if he would lower his tender price to $595. That happened after the meeting of December 22nd at which Provencher refused to pay $5 to MacKinnon. I do not say that is the reason.


Joseph-François Laflèche: There is no connection.


Peter John Veniot: The Post
Office Department gave me these figures. Surely, Mr. Chairman, they are correct. Surely, the hon. member for Riehmond-Wolfe will not say these figures are false. If the figures are incorrect, I have been deceived by the Post Office Department.


Joseph-François Laflèche: You have been deceived principally by Provencher.


Peter John Veniot: I am certain I have not been deceived. Now, Mr. Chairman, having acquainted you with MacKinnon's conduct, I do not ask you to -take action-


Joseph-François Laflèche: Ask Tas-chereau.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Be intelligent.


Peter John Veniot: How sad, Mr. Chairman. I regret very much that my language and my remarks should have excited the hon. member for Riehmond-Wolfe.


Joseph-François Laflèche: There is not as much excitement as you imagine.


Peter John Veniot: I had always taken him for a perfect gentleman, and I still regard him as such, but the hon. member forgot himself in his excitement.


Joseph-François Laflèche: He did
not forget himself.


Fizalam-William Perras: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I submit that vhen Mr. Tasehereau's name is mentioned in this chamber he should be called the Hon. Mr. Tasehereau.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Now, sir, I
am putting you on your guard. I am not asking you to institute proceedings against MacKinnon.


Joseph-François Laflèche: He has
been doing that for the past twelve years.


Peter John Veniot: But I again
ask you to renew, if you have not already done so, the notices issued in a circular letter, two or three years ago, to all small contractors, to urge mail carriers not to have anything to do with this man who is at the head of an organization which the Post Office Department does not recognize. I believe that is all the minister can do under the circumstances. After that, should the carriers want, as we sometimes say, to let themselves be fooled by this Mr. MacKinnon, let them suffer the consequences of their foolishness.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Chairman,
I may say that a statement will be given to the newspapers within a few days which will produce the effect desired by the hon. member for Gloucester.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the honourable Postmaster General has spoken of the dismissals that have occurred in the province of Quebec. I do not intend to delay the house discussing this particular subject, but I do wish to point out that at the time his predecessor, the honourable Louis-Philippe Pelletier was appointed Postmaster General, the powers that be ordered the dismissal of so many postmasters, that one need not be surprised that there should have been to some extent certain reprisals when the Liberal party assumed office in 1921. Now, should the reprisals be kept up ever lastingly, this thing will never end.
Reference was made a moment ago to dismissals that took place upon the representations of members. I noted among others that of a postmaster whom I was instrumental in appointing and who afterwards canvassed against me with the use of liquor which he dispensed in the post office. The situation being as it was, I deemed it my duty to ask for his dismissal. I do not think the department has any record on the matter, but they had my word. I supplied the honourable Postmaster General with full explanations and outlined the whole case.
Another thing that impresses me in connection with the suggestion I submitted a moment ago to the honourable Postmaster General1-and I thank him for having so favourably received what I did say-I wish to say that in the province of Quebec the
Conservative members did not behave too badly in connection with the post offioes since there were only 78 dismissals-according to the return secured by my honourable colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Gi-rouard)'-in counties represented in the house by Conservative members. On the other hand, 160 dismissals were made at the request of defeated candidates.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): That is a fact.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is
wrong.


Jean-François Pouliot: Those gentlemen seem to look upon these demands for dismissals as a form of sport.
That is -why I wish to complete the suggestion I made, a short while ago, to the hon. Postmaster General, and request him that all complaints against postmasters be made by affidavit; that two or three affidavits at least, be required from responsible and disinterested persons. The defeated candidates have a perfect right to request the dismissal of postmasters, however, in such cases, their requests should be supported by an affidavit. This would result in giving a fighting chance to postmasters and a reason for the hon. Postmaster General to act. A member would be entitled ,to request the dismissal of a postmaster, and even the department would be required to conform itself to the complaints lodged by the member. I think this suggestion is but a fair one towards my colleagues who, to-day, support the government. If they continue to behave as they have done since the beginning-I am referring simply to the members who are in the house-things will rum smoothly. I must congratulate the hon. member for Chateauguay-Humtingdon. I do not know what has transpired since, however, when the report was published there hiad been no dismissals in his county. I think he has given proof of broadmindedness. I shall, perhaps, have an opportunity of discussing with him another subject, when the dairy industry question comes up, however, to use an English proverb " I give the devil his due."
Previous to referring to the de Sully affair, I would like to inquire from the hon. Postmaster General, whether he has any objection to appointing a commissioner who would take the oath, in connection with the St. Eusebe de Cabano inquiry', or whether he intends to send a commissioner to hold the inquiry, without being sworn in, and have him, later on, sworn in.
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: I have no
idea who will be the commissioner holding the inquiry at St. Eusebe de Cabano; it is not the practice to have commissioners sworn in. It is likely that the person who will hold the inquiry will not need to take the oath to dispense justice. I like to follow the precedent established.


Peter John Veniot: So far as I am concerned, I never established such a precedent. I must frankly confess that I was unaware whether they were sworn in or not, however, I never established the principle that they should not be. I was unaware of the fact, and never gave it a thought.


Arthur Sauvé: The practice was introduced before my hon. friend became Postmaster General.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I should like to obtain some information from the Postmaster General in connection with a subject which was referred to me some time ago. It especially concerns the staff of the Quebec post office. I suppose what takes place in Quebec also happens in all post offices. I am informed that the employees of the Quebec post office have to submit to two tests yearly. In other departments, employees must undergo one entrance examination, after that they are not further troubled. However, it seems that in the post office they have to undergo two tests a year, one on the Postal Guide and another in 'connection with the assortment of mail. I w'as further informed that lately, the employees at Quebec were threatened with a cut in their salaries if they did not pass successfully the two yearly tests. I do not know exactly what truth there is in such information, however, I understand that civil servants' salaries are fixed by act of parliament and that the various chiefs of departments or even the minister directing the department, have no right to reduce the salaries of employees. Can the hon. Postmaster General inform me whether this is a fact or not?
With reference to the same subject, might I request the hon. Postmaster General to show some consideration for the old civil servants of his department. It is contended that it is quite a task for these old employees to undergo with success these yearly tests. For instance, those who have reached SO years are not gifted with the memory they had when younger. In consideration of their long years of service, I think they should be, at least, exempted from one of these tests, and only be required to pass the Postal Guide test. Moreover, I am told to obtain the yearly statutory increase, it is but necessary to pass

the Postal Guide test. Lately, in Quebec, they have become much stricter and in order to obtain the statutory increase, one must undergo both tests, namely the Postal Guide and the one connected with the assortment of mail. I have been informed of this fact.


Arthur Sauvé: In reply to the hon. member for Bellechasse, I must state that I have never heard that any employee was threatened with the loss of his position for refusing to pass the test. They might have been told, perhaps, that they would receive no increase.
As to the tests, the post office employees have to undergo it yearly. Those who have 20 or 25 years service and are 50 years old, have still a better knowledge of the subject matter they are examined upon than the younger employees. As regards suggestion of the hon. member with reference to being lenient towards certain employees, I shall take note of it and communicate with those in charge of the post office at Quebec.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I was shown a letter that I have not with me. If I remember well, it was written by the postmaster, at Quebec, to an employee and was couched in the following terms or thereabouts I quote from memory: "Sir, you have neglected to present yourself for the mail assortment test. You had better conform yourself to instructions received, otherwise your salary will be reduced." I do not think that the head official of a service has the right to threaten an employee with a cut in salary, as salary classification is fixed by statute.
I wish to thank the hon. Postmaster General for his encouraging words with reference to old employees. I would request him to specially look after those who have 20 or 25 years service and have reached the age of 50. This test in connection with mail assortment is rather a memory or mechanical affair. When a man has reached a certain age such a test is of a nature to embarrass him much more so than when he was a young man.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: To follow up the few remarks which I addressed to the hon. Postmaster General in the course of this sitting, I simply wish to point out to him the fact that the visit in my county of my genial friend the hon. Solicitor General, in the course of the provincial election, coincided exactly writh the change of postmaster at St. Pascal. I am aware that representations were made to the hon Postmaster General. It was not unknown that the the Solicitor General knew how to reach the ear of the Post-

Supply-Post Office
master General. Again-it affords me pleasure to repeat it

I have a high esteem for the Postmaster General and I am quite convinced that, above all, he bears no ill feeling towards anyone. He is too much of a countryman to harbour such thoughts. I think that, coming from my lips, he will not take exception to this term. But, perhaps, he allows himself to be too much solicited by the Solicitor General.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hearl


Arthur Sauvé: Not now.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: No, not now, because the ocean intervenes.
When the Solicitor General visited my riding in the course of the provincial election, he was accompanied bjr an escort. He had taken the precaution to especially bring with him loud speakers to be well heard by a meeting numbering 230 people. His main success was exactly to have the postmaster at St. Pascal replaced.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: That is
an accomplishment.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I should like to be informed by the hon. Postmaster General why Mrs. Cote was dismissed at St. Pascal. The reason given, according to the evidence on file, was her age, I would, therefore, like to be informed whether the Postmaster General is aware of the age of the person who replaced her.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: A lady's age is never mentioned.


Arthur Sauvé: Mrs. Cote was dismissed on the report of the administrator, at Quebec, because of her age. I am informed that the person who replaced her is younger than her.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Could the hon. Postmaster General inform the house, exactly, how many years younger?


Arthur Sauvé: No, not exactly.


Onésime Gagnon: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Certainly.


Onésime Gagnon: I understand that the hon. member has the complete file before him in connection with the dismissal of the postmistress of St. Pascal?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Yes.


Onésime Gagnon: Could the
hon. member quote one single letter from the Solicitor General requesting the dismissal of Mrs. Cote?


Jean-François Pouliot: The Solicitor General does not write himself, his secretaries do the writing. That is why he has secretaries.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: In answer to the hon, member for Dorchester, I cannot state that I have a letter from the Solicitor General, however, I am aware that urgent representations were made and I base my contentions on the coincidence with the visit of the Solicitor General and the dismissal. The date of the dismissal closely coincides with that of the election.
I am putting the question to the hon. Postmaster General who is certainly better informed than I am. He can tell me whether I am wrong or right in my suppositions. Note that I have nothing to say against this dismissal. What grieves me, however, is that they have dismissed a widow who was greatly in need of the income derived from that office. I simply say that the dismissal coincides with the visit-


Jean-François Pouliot: -the visit ol a cruel man.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: -the visit of the Solicitor General.
I do not wish to protract the discussion on that matter, but I do want to ask the minister if he really thinks that there were sufficient reasons to dismiss the postmaster of ICa-mouraska, Mr. Edouard Guy. If he does, then what are these reasons? I am also wondering whether it were wise on the part of the Postmaster general to appoint a man who had previously been dismissed for other reasons than partisanship. It was not on account of partisanship that the predecessor of Mr. Guy, whom he later succeeded, was dismissed. Would the hon. Postmaster General give me some information about that?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon.
member wants to know why the postmaster of Kamouraska was dismissed?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Yes, in
the first place; then whether it is wise to appoint a former employee who has been dismissed. Mr. Langlais was dismissed after an investigation held at my request. The investigation showed clearly that, during the election of Hon. Mr. Stein, now Justice Stein, Langlais had distributed libellous pamphlets, a copy of which must be in the department's files. Langlais had sent these circulars through
Supply-Post Office

the mail, and without any stamps. He was dismissed for mismanagement, not for partisanship. The investigation showed it very clearly. Then Mr. Guy took his place. After the investigation held about Mr. Guy, the Postmaster General appointed again to that position the man who had been dismissed, five or six years previously, for the reasons that I have just mentioned.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I was unaware of the fact just mentioned by the hon. member. I am going to inquire about it. I frankly admit that no such case has ever been submitted to me, either for Kamouraska, or other counties.
As to the reasons for dismissing Mr. Edouard Guy, postmaster of Kamouraska, here they are:
The postmaster has openly expressed his political opinion-that is the report of the commissioner-has attended political meetings and mingled with groups of people carried by truck to one of these meetings.
He admits that he had discussed polities with friends and that he went to the camp of the men who *were working at a wharf, there to "preach" his political faith. At a meeting in Kamouraska. he asked a man named Danjou to throw down the Conservative paper, Le Journal, and trample over it, that nobody would touch it. When he heard a drunken man yell at the Kamouraska meeting, he remarked to those W'ho were near him: "That is the kind of men who are for the Conservatives." He stated to one Pelletier that "his people knew how to give contracts and that it would not be any better if the d . . . Conservatives came to power."
I think that postmaster was acting contrary to the law.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: He would have been better, had he been deaf and dumb.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: What
surprises me about that investigation, is the fact that one of the principal witnesses was Colonel Beaubien, who spends the summer in Kamouraska, as a tourist. I would not like to say anything that might deprive our beautiful shores of their tourists, but Colonel Beaubien, if my information is correct, works in the Customs department and spends his time talking politics. Throughout the election he was busy recruiting votes and he was one of the principal witnesses at that inquiry. Is the law that applies to the post office department the same as that which obtains in the case of the Department of National Revenue? That is the first point that I would like to clear up.


Arthur Sauvé: I have to deal with the law that rules the Post Office department.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I would ask the hon. Postmaster General to draw that matter to the attention of his colleague, the minister of National Revenue, in order that, in the future, there may only be one weight and one measure in the government and that such things do not happen again. Witnesses have asserted that the postmaster had gone to a meeting in a truck with other people who were going to the same place. I have here an affidavit quite the opposite, in which he states that he went in his own ear and attended very peacefully a political meeting at Riviere Ouelle. Some trouble occurred at that meeting, but he certainly was not responsible for the noise that was made. I could even read to the house several affidivits to that effect. And it is a man like Colonel Beaubien, who acted as a partisan, who spends his time making political propaganda, who appears as a witness. Without questioning the truth of his statement, one must however admit that he was a rather biased witness.
This is the last point that I want to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. I am asking him to go through the file and to give me a square answer. If the documents which are in his hands prove that what I have just stated is right, can he tell me whether a man who distributes, through his post office, political circulars without stamps, and who has been dismissed, can be reinstated as postmaster, however staunch Conservative he may be?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Certainly!
Mr. SAUVE Translation): The hon. member must remember the answer which I gave him a moment ago. I stated that I would study the question and that it had never been brought to my attention before.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: If the facts are as I have stated to the Postmaster General-


Arthur Sauvé: After thinking it over, I shall make a decision.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: We have just witnessed a spectacle that is not much in favour of the province of Quebec, a real family quarrel. The unfortunate statements of the Postmaster General regarding the habits of the people of the province of Quebec are rather uncomplimentary for hon. members who represent that province in the house, and specially for its people. However, as the hon. member for St. Johns-Ibervilie said, I am still under the impression that the hon. minister shows much more skill in following bad advices, than in following good ones.
TMr. Bouchard.]

Supply-Post Office
Nevertheless, this discussion has brought out the fact that the Postmaster General ordered these dismissals in a spirit of revenge, because the previous administration had committed the same wrong.


Arthur Sauvé: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants to set a good example, why impute me such bad motives? He knows that I do not share them and that I do not harbour any such thoughts.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I am glad to know it.


Arthur Sauvé: How many postmasters have I dismissed in the constituency of the hon. member?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I shall not make any comparisons, because comparisons are always odious, specially when referring to wrong-doings. However, I am ready to admit that we must not put too much weight on the statements of the Postmaster General. If I were to give him any advice to restore the good reputation of the people of the province of Quebec, I would ask him to stop these dismissals, which are more or less unfair, specially when they serve political ends. It seems to me that both parties, Liberal and Conservative, have something more important to deal with than the dismissal of good civil servants because they were of such or such a political faith.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: If their services are satisfactory, I think they should be maintained in their position.
Now, Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to ask the Postmaster General if the names of the temporary employees of the Post Office Department who were dismissed on the first of April, have been put on a new list of eligibles? Were the names of the chauffeurs who were let out, also placed on these lists? These men who paid a fee of $2 to take part in the examination to qualify for these positions, thought they were permanent. It is unfair that these employees be dismissed forever.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member will allow me to tell him that the case which he just mentioned falls under the Civil Service Commission, not the Postmaster General. I am informed that a list has been prepared and forwarded to the Civil Service Commission.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Could the hon. Postmaster General inform me if a contract was awarded lately for the carrying of mails 41761-197
by motor cars in the city of Montreal, with a view to dismissing these chauffeurs? To whom was the contract awarded and were there any tenders asked for?


Arthur Sauvé: A trial contract was awarded, not because we wanted to dismiss the garage employees, but because we have discovered, after an investigation, that dishonest methods had been resorted to, calculated: to deprive the department of certain receipts, by distributing gasoline to people outside the department. By this new trial contract, we have already saved $6,000.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Could we know the name?


Arthur Sauvé: The minister
has the right to cancel the contract whenever he wishes, for it is well understood that it was just a test, in order to know what was the most economical method; either the department carrying on the work, or a contractor, such as it is done elsewhere.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Could we know the name and title of the person to whom the contract was awarded?


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Ernest
Laurent, of Montreal.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Does he carry out the work himself, or has he let out a subcontract?


Arthur Sauvé: I do not think so. It was Mr. Ernest Laurent who accepted the contract. I think he looks after his business himself. Perhaps he has some employees, but he is the boss, according to the information I have.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I do not know myself whether I am well informed or not, but I heard that a sub-contract was awarded to one Paul Denis.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Any relative of yours?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: He may be; I do not know.


Arthur Sauvé: According to
my information, I know that Paul Denis is related to Laurent. Paul Denis has no contract, but he works for Laurent. He has more experience in this kind of work and he was employed under the administration which my hon. friend supported.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I heard a moment ago the hon. member for Dorchester ask the hon. member for Kamouraska if he had seen a letter from the
3130	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office
hon. solicitor general in the files. The Solicitor General's letters are aerial, invisible; they are personal letters that reach the minister, but laymen like you and me, Mr. Chairman cannot see them.
This reminds me of a film of Grace Cunard, a serial which was a great success some twenty years ago and that was entitled "The Crushing Hand." The reason for my protesting against the numerous lady secretaries of the hon. Solicitor General is because these secretaries are carrying on a work whose results we know, but whose machinery we cannot see. The minister acts as a medium between defeated candidates who are a little sourmouthed and each member of the government. I think we should put a stop to that, and when a defeated candidate wants to deal with a member of the government, he should send his communications directly to him and do away with such a costly and useless medium.
I revert now to the suggestion that I offered at first to the hon. Postmaster General. Before discussing each case, I want to make some preliminary remarks and state my position. If there were affidavits stating the complaints against the postmasters, sworn affidavits by responsible persons, the postmasters would then have a certain recourse either before the criminal or the civil courts, against those who gave the affidavits, should they not tell the truth.
Now I am going to give a typical case, that of Sully. The postmaster was dismissed -I shall not speak of the investigation-after the commissioner had insisted on hearing him. I think that is not fair, because a man is presumed innocent as long as he has not been found guilty. It is an elementary principle of British common law and specially of the criminal law. A man is not guilty, until it is proven otherwise. In the case of the commissioners, it is different. They want the postmaster to testify and prove his own case. They compel him to do so. In this connection, the Postmaster General has made a very timely decision and instructed the commissioners not to compel the postmasters to testify, but the commissioners told me that they would send the Postmaster General to a certain place which I cannot mention in this house. I was surprised to see that the commissioner to whom I refeT had so little respect for the bon. minister, when the latter was proclaiming a principle of law so universally recognized, specially in 'the British Empire. The postmaster was nevertheless dismissed.

Two men applied for the position. One even sent his application as soon as it was rumoured that the postmaster might be dismissed. He applied for the position long before the dismissal. I am glad to see the right honourable Prime Minister in his seat, because it was to him that the application was sent in the first place. That man, named Jean, applied first to the Prime Minister, and reminded him that he was a great war veteran and he was entitled to the position, should it become vacant. Upon instructions from the Prime Minister, his private secretary communicated with the Postmaster General to whom he forwarded Mr. Jean's letter; and, what is of the utmost importance, Mr. Chairman, is that the secretary of the right hon. Prime Minister mentions that the correspondence is being sent to the Postmaster General upon instructions from the Prime Minister.
The first letter from Jean to the right hon. Prime Minister is dated February 12, 1931. On February 17, 1931, Mr. Merriam informs Mr. Jean that he has forwarded his request to the hon. Postmaster General.
(Text)
"To be brought to the Minister's attention,
please.
(Sgd.) A. W. Merriam,
Private Secretary."
There is a letter dated October 5, 1931, addressed to Mr. Jean, and which reads as fellows:
"I am instructed by the Prime Minister to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 25."
You no doubt, know that the position of postmaster is relevant of the Civil Service Commission. Vacancies in such positions are advertised by this commission and candidates must forward their applications within the stipulated time as advertised. Veterans are always given preference over other candidates, pursuant to the act. I would therefore suggest that you address yourself directly to the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, at Ottawa, and to the Postmaster General who has entire jurisdiction over his department.
At all events, I am submitting to him your request immediately.
This letter appeared in the file which was tabled in the house. I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister for having instructed his secretary to forward such an answer to a veteran of the Great war.
Mr. Jean wrote to the hon. Postmaster General, on February 27, 1931. Mr. Gaboury, the deputy minister answered on March 4, 1931-note well this letter, sir:
"If it becomes necessary to make a change, the appointment of the new incumbent will be made by the Civil Service Commission. However, your application has been noited and will

Railways and Shipping-Report
be referred to that commission if there is
occasion."
What happened? There is some correspondence which might indicate differently, however, I attach no importance to it. On 'September 19, 1931, Mr. Jean writes again to the hon. Postmaster General-a long time after March 4, 1931. The deputy minister answers on September 28, 1931:
If it becomes necessary to make a change, the permanent appointment of the new incumbent will be made by the Civil Service Commission. The minister, however has taken your application under consideration.
Mention was made of permanent appointment. First, there was but a question of the appointment which was to be made by the Civil Service Commission. Finally, following inquiries held in the county of Temiscouata, by people with whom the minister is well acquainted, and whom I do not care to name, so as not to place them in the limelight, on February 5, 1932, a person by the name of Tardif, a blacksmith, was appointed. Was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission as the deputy minister wrote on March 4, 1931? No, he was appointed temporarily by the hon. Postmaster General who set aside the veteran.
I communicated with the commission on this matter to inquire why the vacancy was not advertised. I received the answer that the postmaster had not been dismissed after an inquiry had been held, but that he had been suspended, and that was the reason why the notice had not been posted. I wish to inquire from the hon. Postmaster General whether he intends to re-establish in his office, Jean-Baptiste Plourde, the former postmaster? I shall continue then .... Will the hon. Postmaster General inform me whether he has the intention to reinstate former postmaster?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Jean-François Pouliot: I had not much more to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a motion before the chair.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It is moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 11.45 ip.m.
41761-197J
Friday, May 20, 1932