1932-04-28

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) presented the sixth report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
Mr. Hanson moved that the report be referred to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.

Questions

Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I beg to lay on the table of the house three copies of order in council No. 857, dated April 16, 1932, passed under the authority of chapter 165 of the revised statutes of Canada, providing for the consolidation of the preventive service of the National Revenue lepartment with the mounted police.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	Has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police replaced, in the province of Quebec, the officers of the Customs preventive service, if so, since what date?
2.	Who has been appointed head or superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that province?
3.	What are the names of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police acting in the province of Quebec in lieu of the former Customs preventive officers?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	The Royal Canadian Mounted Police in taking over the preventive service on April
I,	1932, has absorbed most of the former members of the preventive service in that province.
2..	Superintendent Thomas Dann.
3.	All members of the force in the province of Quebec act in endeavouring to prevent infractions of the Customs and Excise Acts. The following members of the former preventive service have been taken over in the province of Quebec and are now members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
1.	J. A. L. Arsenault; 2. J. T. E. R. Allard; 3. J. R. Bourassa; 4. L. B. Brault; 5. A. W. Anderson; 6. W. Mack. Brady; 7. P. A. Chapados; 8. L. C. Cahill; 9. J. C. E. C. Delorme; 10. H. A. Dawson; 11. J. B. Ducharme; 12. C. J. Desaulniers; 13. C. L. Dale; 14. A. A. Denonville; 15. M. J. P. 0. Frejeau; 16. J. F. F. Gagnon; 17. A. G. Gobeil; 18. J. R. Huet; 19. J. D. Keiller; 20. G. A. Kelly; 21. J. E. LeMay; 22. O. Lessard; 23. G. E. Lapointe; 24. J. I. R. Lavoie; 25. M. T. Laberge; 26. D. Mack Lindsay; 27.
J.	R. Lemieux; 28. M. Lapierre; 29. J. N. Menard; 30. T. A. Menard; 31. L. R. McLean; 32. L. C. P. McLean; 33. J. A. Minard; 34. P. A. Martineau; 35. J. R. Pelletier; 36. J. A. Plourde; 37. J. E. Pinet; 38. J. 0. Racine; 39. A. B. Riepert; 40. A. H. Robert; 41. P. E.
Rioux; 42. A. Roy; 43. D. A. Racicot; 44. J. J. C. A. St. Pierre; 45. P. A. Therriault; 46. E. E. Therriault; 47. J. A. Turgeon; 48. M. D. Tracey; 49. J. C. R. Verdon.


SHUBENACADIE, N.S., POST OFFICE BUILDING
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ILSLEY':
1.	What is the total cost to date of the post office building recently constructed by the government at Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the contract price for this building?
3.	(a) How much did the government pay the contractor for extras; (b) of what did such extras consist?
4.	(a) What was the contract price of the heating apparatus in this building; (b) how much did the government pay for extras for heating?
5.	(a) From whom did the government obtain the sewerage rights for this building; (b) what amount did the government pay for these rights?
6.	(a) Who built the sewer; (b) how much did the sewer cost the government?
7.	(a) What was the cost to the government of the water supply to this building; (b) where is the water obtained; (c) is the water supply satisfactory?
8.	(a) Was the inspector on the construction of this building appointed by the Civil Service Commission; (b) if not, on whose recommendation was he appointed; (c) what amount was he paid for his services?
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	820,464.61, including site.
2.	$15,124.90.
3.	(a) Nil. (b) Answered by (a).
4.	(a and b) Heating equipment included in general contract; no information as to amount..
5.	(a) Permission to connect to Municipal sewer obtained from Robert Gass, warden of the municipality of East Hants; (b) Nothing paid for rights to connect to sewer but agreement states: "The Department to contribute proportionately to the value of its property to any cost of upkeep for repairs. A right of way was obtained through the property of J. A. Kirkpatrick for this sewer for the sum of $80.
6 and 7. Sewer, well and pumping outfit constructed by J. B. Caddell for S600. Water supply is obtained from the well and no complaints have been received by Department regarding the supply.
8. (a) Yes; (b) Answered by (a); (c) $604.83.


POST OFFICE-CHANGE OF SITES
Mr. BARIBEAU:: How many postmasters in each province from September 26, 1926, to August 7, 1930, lost their positions owing to change of site of post office, ordered by the Postmaster General?

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie


Mr. SAUVE:: Ontario	 5
Quebec	 24
Nova Scotia	 24
New Brunswick	 16
Prince Edward Island	 1
Manitoba	 7
Saskatchewan	 15
Alberta	 5
British Columbia	 1



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	From what companies was sand purchased through contractors for construction of the elevator at section 42, Montreal harbour?
2.	What are the names of the owners of these companies?
3.	Were any members of the harbour board or harbour board officials interested in any of these companies, either directly or indirectly?


MONTREAL HARBOUR-PIERS AND ELEVATORS
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Were contracts let to the Atlas Construction Company and to Barnard and McQueen for the construction of piers and elevators for the Montreal harbour commission from 1922 to 1930?
2.	If so, what were the contract prices?
3.	Were these prices the lowest tender?
4.	From whom did the Montreal harbour commission purchase British Columbia timber from 1922 to 1930?
5.	What prices were paid for same?
6.	Were .any contracts made with lumber companies that were owned wholly or in part by the Montreal harbour commissioners or officials?


MONTREAL HARBOUR ELEVATORS-GRAIN OVERAGES
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Were there any overages of grain accumulated in the Montreal harbour commission elevators during the years 1922 to 1930?
2.	If so, what were the overages in each of these years?
3.	To whom were such overages sold?
4.	What money was realized by the sale of overages ?
5.	What disposition was made of the proceeds?


MONTREAL HARBOUR-CANADIAN IMPORT COAL COMPANY LEASE
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	What was the rental named in the lease from the Montreal Board of Harbour Commissioners to the Canadian Import Coal Company?
2.	Were any special privileges allowed in this lease that did not apply to the leases granted to the other coal dealers?

3.	Was the entire Biekerdike pier leased?
4.	If not, what portion was leased?
5.	Were there any other tenants on this pier?
6.	Was lease approved by order in council?
7.	If not, why?
8.	If lease was for an annual rental that was not adequate and not approved by order in council, will lessee be called upon to pay a further amount to make up the deficiency?
9.	What coal was purchased from the Canadian Import Company by the Montreal harbour commission ?
10.	Was a proper check made to see that full weight was received?
11.	What were the prices paid by the Montreal harbour commission to the Canadian Import Coal Company for the different grades and varieties of coal?
PRIVILEGE - Mr. MACKENZIE - (VANCOUVER CENTRE)
On the orders of the day:


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of an article in the Ottawa Journal of to-day dealing with a debate which took place in another place yesterday, and in which the following words are used:
The committee-[DOT]
It is referring to the Beauharnois committee of last year:
-representing three political persuasions, heard the evidence and adjudicated thereon. It was a fact beyond controversy that the report was adopted unanimously by the committee.
I wish, sir, to state again as I stated last year on the thirtieth day of July, 1931, as will be seen by page 4373 of Hansard of that dhte, that that statement is entirely incorrect. I so. informed the chairman of the committee at the final sitting of the committee on July 28, 1931. I so informed my right hon. leader and my colleagues on this side of the house, and my right hon. leader so informed the Prime Minister last year before the debate of July 30, 1931.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with all or any of the provinces respecting relief measures in such province or provinces; and to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as in his discretion may be required to meet the obligations created by such agreements; to provide for special requirements in the national parks and in the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan; to assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of products of field, farm, sea,

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
river and mine; to loan money to any province on such terms as may be agreed upon and to guarantee the repayment of moneys borrowed by such province and to assist any province in any way that may be deemed necessary or advisable to provide for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance, and to loan money to and guarantee the payment of money by any public corporation or undertaking.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that this resolution is very similar to the resolution that preceded the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act which was introduced last session, and the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act which was introduced at an earlier stage of the present session. There is, however, one feature of the present resolution which makes it markedly different from the previous ones. The previous resolutions proposed to give to the governor in council power to pass orders in council with respect to peace, order and good government. That particular power is fortunately conspicuous by its absence from the present resolution, and I would like to say to the government how glad I am that they have seen the force of the objections which have been made from this side of the house to the governor in council taking to himself the power to legislate with respect to peace, order and good govemnment. With that objectionable feature removed, the resolution in its present form is infinitely less objectionable than the previous resolution.
However, the present resolution still contains the objectionable feature of allowing the governor in council at his discretion to take moneys from the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes which are stated, and only in a general way, in the terms of the resolution. I do not believe it would be possible to add anything to what has already been said from this side of the house with respect to the wrongfulness of that method of proceeding. It has been asserted over and over again that the supreme obligation of the House of Commons is to maintain unrestricted control over the destination of all grants, .and to that end it is essential that any grants of public money from the consolidated revenue fund should be made for specific objects designated, and the amounts required therefor should also be specifically named. I would like it to be understood that we on this side oppose as strenuously as we did, heretofore, in the last session and in the earlier part of this session, the feature of this resolution which leaves it to the discretion of the governor in council to take from the consolidated revenue fund whatever amounts of 41701-154J
money he may wish to take for the purposes named in the resolution. It is another blank cheque which the administration is asking for itself, notwithstanding the obvious objections to that course which have been made only too plain in the course of debate in this house.
There is a feature of the present resolution that I would like to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister. It seems to me that in its terms the resolution is ambiguous, the extent to which criticism may be directed against the resolution and the bill itself will depend upon its exact terms when that ambiguity is removed. As the resolution reads, it would appear at first sight that it had relation to agreements to be made between the dominion and the provinces, and that all the moneys that were to be taken from the consolidated revenue fund would be taken solely in connection with those agreements under the terms thereof. On the other hand, the resolution read in a different way would appear to give the governor in council power to take money from the consolidated revenue fund not only for the purposes named in the agreements with the provinces but also, for other purposes which may not relate to. any agreements with the provinces at all.
Moreover, there is a further ambiguity in that it does not appear whether this resolution relates exclusively to what may be required for the purposes of unemployment and farm relief. I should like the Prime Minister to indicate before we go into committee whether the resolution is intended to be restricted to unemployment and farm relief or whether it goes further than that. Let me make clear by illustration the meaning of what I have just said. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with all or any of the provinces respecting relief measures in such province or provinces; and to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as in his discretion may be required to meet the obligations created by such agreements.
The first sentence, that is to say that comprised in the five lines from " that it is expedient " down to " agreements," is quite complete in itself. It makes it apparent that the governor in council is asking for powers to make agreements with the provinces and to take from the consolidated revenue fund moneys for the purpose set out. The resolution goes on, however, to name other purposes, and it is not clear from the resolution whether these purposes are such as must in some way be related to the agree-
2444	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements. with Provinces *
ments made with the provinces. The resolution reads:
To provide for special requirements in the national parks and in the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan;
That one provision is ambiguous in itself. It is not clear from the reading of it whether it relates to special requirements for national parks, generally-parks in British Columbia and Manitoba, as well as in Saskatchewan- or whether it relates solely to national parks in Saskatchewan. As I read it, the English would relate exclusively to parks in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. BENNETT:: I think there is only
one park in Saskatchewan.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The plural form is used in this instance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then it is
intended to go beyond the one province, although the terms used do not make that clear. It reads:
To provide for special requirements in the national parks and in the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan;
The Prime Minister has cleared up that point, and has indicated that there are two separate purposes, namely, to provide for special requirements in the national parks, and for special requirements in the drought-stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan. Then another purpose is:
To assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of products of field, farm, sea, river and mine;
That may be an entirely separate matter from anything relating to unemployment relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in the bill of
last session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the bill of last session that power was given, but it was given only for unemployment relief purposes. The bill of last session was designated as one dealing with unemployment and farm relief, and I should like to know whether this particular provision is intended to be restricted in the same manner. If it were given another interpretation it would of course permit the government to bonus the products of field, farm, sea, river and mine for any purpose and in any connection. If such is the case it ought to have its place among some of the resolutions which have been brought down by the Minister of Finance in connection with the budget, rather than to form part of a

resolution concerning unemployment and farm relief.
The next group of subjects mentioned relates more specifically to the loaning of money. There again it is not apparent whether the loans must appear first in some agreement, or whether this is a separate power which the administration is seeking to take to itself. The resolution reads:
To loan money to any province on such terms as may be agreed upon and to guarantee the repayment of moneys borrowed by such province and to assist any province in any way that may be deemed necessary or advisable to provide for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance,
Then, finally-
And to loan money to and guarantee the payment of money by any public corporation or undertaking.
That last clause is very wide, indeed. If it has no relation to the agreements that will be drawn between the federal government and the provinces, it is simply a request for authority from this house to enable the government to loan money to and guarantee the payment of money by any corporation or undertaking. Whether or not that has to do with the emergent condition existing at the present time, and is a part of unemployment and farm relief legislation, is not made clear. From the wording no one can say whether or not it is simply a provision to help any particular corporation or undertaking the administration may wish to help.
I do not desire to be critical of the resolution until I understand its terms perfectly, and see the bill that is based upon it. There will then be time to bring its features further to the attention of the house and the country. I ask the Prime Minister first to make clear whether or not the resolution is intended as an unemployment relief resolution, and whether all that is in it is to be construed as relating to the problem of unemployment and farm relief, or whether it is in the nature of a series of separate measures, one relating to unemployment and farm relief, and another relating to the powers of the government to loan moneys and to guarantee moneys loaned to provinces and corporations, and to make grants of public moneys to public corporations and undertakings. Further, is it also a measure to give the government power to assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of products of the field, farm, sea, river and mine, wholly independent of the degree to which the actions of the government in that regard may be related to unemployment and farm relief.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
When the bill is introduced hon. members on this side of the house will wish to discuss the matter at greater length. At the present time, however, so far as the principle of discretionary power is concerned, I should like to emphasize again that we protest as strongly as ever against the government being granted powers to take at its discretion from the consolidated revenue fund of the country, without limitation and with but little in the way of designation of the uses to which they are to be put, whatever moneys are required for the several purposes herein mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the resolution stands in
the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) who will be prepared to answer the questions asked when the resolution is in committee. However in the light of the statements just made by the leader of the opposition it seems fitting that I should make a few observations.
At the meeting of the representatives of all the provinces of Canada held in this city a few days ago we discussed fully the question as to how they considered it would be best to deal with the future. They were most emphatic in their expression of the opinion that no good purpose would be served by stating an amount in any bill of this character. One premier said that he objected strenuously to that being done, because it would place him in the embarrassing position of endeavouring always to have it said that he had obtained his full share of the money. Other representatives expressed similar opinions.
As to the soundness of the view of the leader of the opposition to the effect that a blank cheque is undesirable I have nothing to add to what I have said on previous occasions. It is not the general principle upon which parliaments or legislatures proceed. However in the cases to which I referred some time ago, without going over them again, parliament has found it necessary at times to do 3o. That is, the limitation must be one which in times of emergency is imposed by reason of the financial condition of the country itself. No government will undertake financial obligations that it cannot for the moment meet, and the experience we have had during the past year makes it abundantly clear that the powers sought must in some way be provided to enable the situation which has developed in some of the provinces to be met. The provinces in the west believe they will be able to meet their ordinary expenditures during the present year. They have endeavoured to adjust their budgets to meet
their necessities, and have done that by increasing taxation and reducing appropriations.
The considered opinion expressed the other day at the conference was that while in some instances they might fall short of the full realization of their hopes, they expected they would balance their budgets. In the meantime, however, for reasons I shall not again state, it is desirable that the credit of the dominion should be sustained and protected by protecting and sustaining the credit of the provinces. During the progress of the discussion on this measure, when it becomes a bill in committee, full information will be given as to the amount of money we have had to advance to the provinces.
I am not unmindful that the leader of the opposition has suggested that a conference might have been held between the dominion and the provinces dealing with these financial problems. But the provinces affected have at the moment expressed the view that they are not in a position to readjust their whole field of taxation, and we certainly are not in a position to contemplate the changes that some of them would like us to make. But one fact is apparent, that the financial burden of most of the provincial legislatures has become well-nigh intolerable on their respective populations. For instance, you have now in some parts of this country two income taxes, provincial and federal; you have two income taxes in some provinces by reason of cities imposing income tax. It is not calculated to improve our position abroad by having such a burden of taxation. imposed upon the people of the country. Protests, of course, have been made on the theory that the income tax should be a tax collected by only one government in the state-whether it be federal or provincial is a matter that has not yet been determined. For instance, on one occasion at a conference here it was urged by the provinces that they should be left free to collect taxes from individuals, and that the dominion should collect taxes from corporations. As the greater part of the income tax is paid by corporations and the portion of it paid by individuals is relatively small, these provinces thought that they might adjust the burden against individuals in such a way as to enable it to be more equitably borne than if there were an income tax against individuals by the dominion and also another by the provinces.
These are questions which I do not think any member of the house will conclude that We are in a very good position carefully to discuss and determine at this time. The provinces have had a very, very difficult ex-
2446	COMMONS
bnemployment-Agreements with Provinces
perience, especially the newer provinces with a scattered population and large areas, and they felt that it was undesirable to place in a measure of this kind a sum of money that might be available for the purposes indicated in the resolution. I was not averse to it on general principles, but I do believe that they are sound in the objections which they take, and it is for that reason that this measure appears in the form in which it is.
The minister himself will explain to the committee the view of the provinces as to the undesirability of making contracts for public works on a large scale, or by municipalities rather than by the provinces themselves. Their financial situation that showed some sign of improvement, as I have indicated already, has not responded as was expected by reason of events in 1931, to which I have already referred. And so we are asking for power to advance money, if need be, to the provinces, by loans or guarantees, and it is not to be limited to purely unemployment purposes. It was not intended, at least in the bill, so to limit it. Some of the provinces expressed the view that while they do not expect to call upon us to any great extent, they may be compelled to do so. For instance, since we extended the operations of last year's act we have had to make substantial advances to some of the provinces to meet the difficulties of their financial situation. The minister will explain that when the house is considering the details of the bill.
With respect to the two matters mentioned by the leader of the opposition, namely, work in the national parks and relief in the province of Saskatchewan, I have only to observe that several of the western provinces are of the opinion that within the national parks there are opportunities for work to be done that might take from the cities and towns a substantial number of single men who would do some work for subsistence, plus an allowance that the provinces propose to make to them, and that that being a work which under our constitutional division of power devolves upon the federal government, we should be in a position to make a somewhat different agreement with respect to that than we would with respect to ordinary matters within provincial jurisdiction. I may illustrate it by pointing out that a highway is under construction from Jasper through to Banff. It is a purely scenic or tourist undertaking. Doubtless it will attract when it is finished within four or five years hence large numbers of people to this country, and will assist very materially, I believe, in adjusting the adverse 
balance of trade. The experience has been that the tourist trade is the largest invisible item that we have. To that extent we are doing some productive work when we undertake such a construction program. But in that matter the provinces would feel that their contribution is somewhat different from what it would be under normal conditions.
The question of assisting to defray the cost of the sale and distribution of the products of field, farm, sea, river and mine was in last year's legislation. It might or might not technically be regarded as a relief provision. I say frankly to the right hon. gentleman that last year I had not so regarded it. Primarily it was intended to enable us to deal with financial difficulties that might be experienced with the pools in obtaining from the banks adequate credit if they had the large crop that they expected, and inasmuch as their physical assets of elevators and terminals had been mortgaged, we took that power last session ; we exercised it also because the crop was somewhat larger than expected. Had that power not been there we would have been placed in a difficulty by reason of the circumstances which I have already explained to the house. When the provision was made last session, we made it large enough to meet a situation that might conceivably develop in respect to matters other than those covered by the operations of the pools.
The next items, particularly the last two, deal with the question generally of providing credit facilities if they become necessary. I can only say this to the house at the moment. It is perhaps known to every one that in the United States it became necessary to create a credit corporation for the purpose of meeting a situation which happily has not reached anything like the proportions in this country that it has there. I endeavoured the other evening to point out to this house-I am afraid I did not succeed as I should have liked-the seriousness of the situation that immediately confronts the people of the North American continent, arising not from lack of wealth, but from conditions to which I alluded, because there has been such a tremendous shrinkage in values-the assets of the financial institutions having been to no inconsiderable extent, especially in the great republic, loaned on securities that are no longer active, but are now of the category, of what might be called frozen assets-that any government seized with a sense of responsibility must, I think, anticipate the possibility of having to deal with a situation in which the same attitude of mind may be taken as was taken in the United States. The min-

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
ister has in his hand a report foT the first three months of this year, January, February and March, of the operations of that corporation, and it is rather an illuminating document. He will make reference to it as the discussion in committee proceeds, if the questions necessitate it being done. I thought-at least, it is the view that the government has-that it would best conduce to the satisfactory disposition of the situation, having regard to the immediate demands of the moment and what we conceive may be the possible demands of the future-and which we hope will not be made upon us-if we place upon the statute books legislation that will enable the government to meet the difficulties which may arise. That is the purpose at least of the provisions at the end of the resolution.
The minister is precluded by the rules from speaking again at the moment, but what he had in his mind-if I might so state from what he said to me before we came into the chamber-was that if the house went into committee of the whole on this resolution a very frank and full discussion in the way of constructive suggestions on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite might take place, and that the resolution would not be moved out of committee to-day, but after discussion had taken place for some little time the minister would move that the committee rise, and the bill will be predicated upon what is believed to be the general view of the house as to the measure that will meet the exceptional and emergent conditions under which we are gathered together at this moment.
While I do not desire to be regarded as an alarmist in any sense, I am one who tries to measure as best I may the play of forces that have to do with conditions in a country-such as this, and the influence of the conditions prevailing over one-half of this continent is unhappily too frequently reflected in our own country. If conditions which now exist should work in a way which is conceivable a very great strain would be placed upon our whole financial structure, and we only seek -from the house authority to meet that emergent condition. If on the other hand conditions operate as we hope, and as many of us believe that they will, then we do not desire to exercise that -power. But we believe it would not be the wish of any member of this house, or of the people of Canada, that if these -conditions should arise, in the interval of time before the house could be called to meet that emergency we should not be able to take some measures to alleviate conditions and support the financial structure of the country.
I am not going to -dwell upon the difficulties. I only say again to the members of this house that if they had had the experience that unhappily has been mine from September, 1930, to the present moment in connection with the whole financial operations of this country, with falling revenues-perhaps attributable to the fact that the customs revenues are lower, though there is a difference of opinion as to that-I know they would realize that the gravity of the situation is not wholly reflected by the figures, but that conditions are now operating in this -country the ultimate direction of which we are not able to control. Subject as we are to the currents and influences of -world conditions, we can only ask that the house should frankly express its opinion when this measure is in committee of the whole, and if I might venture to do so I would suggest that this be done in no narrow party sense -but rather in the larger sense of doing what is purely an emergency act. We do not ask this in order to have powers conferred upon the executive, but merely to enable your country and mine, at a moment of stress and strain, to function if that stress and strain becomes so exceptional as to demand the exercise of these powers. If, without prejudice to any rights, the house might go into committee, the minister could deal with every phase of this matter as freely as possible, as I have said it is not the intention to submit the bill to the house until after the discussion has taken place on the resolution standing in the name of the minister.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister one question. What is meant by the words "public corporation" in this resolution?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They mean just what the words "public corporation" mean in law, a corporation in which the public is interested, as distinguished from a private corporation.


Edward Joseph Garland: Such as an insurance company?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose there are some insurance companies which are family corporations; I do not know, but the use of the word "public" broadly and generally with respect to a corporation means one whose shares and ownership are in the hands of the public, as distinguished from private individuals.


Mr. POWER:: Consisting of more than thirty-five persons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I am sure the procedure which
2448	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
the Prime Minister has outlined to be followed in connection with this measure is very satisfactory to many of us in this house. However, there are one or two matters of general importance which I think might be considered at this stage. We have not been informed whether or not this is the only measure dealing with relief that is to be brought down this session, but I presume it is. If that is so it seems to me right that at this stage we should consider the whole question of the method of relief.
We have been given no report as to what took place at the conference between the Dominion and -provincial governments, but some of the representatives of provincial governments have given indications, as they have gone back home, that there is to be a radical change in the whole method of relief and that public works are to be given up, with direct relief to be adopted as a principle. If that is so it seems a very serious matter indeed, and one that should be dealt with by this house. I can understand very well that when it comes to details the administration will have to arrange matters with the various provinces;
I -can understand that there is something to be said for leaving the amount to be expended rather indefinite, so there will not be rivalry on the part of the provinces. But as to method I do think it would be disastrous if we were to give up the idea of anything in the nature of unemployment insurance or anything in the nature of extensive public works and settle upon what is after all the very worst type of dole, the mere giving of relief. The Prime Minister will agree that the dole is bad; he has so expressed himself, yet I think that is what is involved.
I can quite understand that the provinces and the municipalities themselves are not in a position to carry on extensive public works.
I know that is true of the western provinces, but that does not altogether settle the matter' because if necessary the Dominion itself still has the resources with which to carry on public works, even though these are located within the bounds of the different provinces. When we consider the welfare of the men, women and children involved in this problem of unemployment it does seem that we should not let our relief scheme degenerate into mere assistance in the form of doles.
Now let me give one or two examples. The other day in the west we had the suggestion that some assistance should be given the municipalities and provinces that were attempting to establish people on the land. Personally I do not think that such a scheme is a solution of the economic problem in-

volved, but I do think it might be considered a better relief scheme than simply the handing out of doles. It ought to be made clear to us whether or not the policy of this government contemplates entering into arrangements with the provincial governments with regard to a relief scheme of that kind. The Prime Minister has indicated that possibly some special arrangement might be entered into with regard to unemployed single men who might be sent out into our parks or highways. I was very glad indeed to hear him make that statement, but it seems to me that kind of policy might be very considerably extended. For example, recently in the city of Ottawa a plan has been proposed by the Canadian Red Cross to place a number of these men on a farm, where they might at least earn their own subsistence and thus be saved from the demoralizing tendencies that we all know exist in connection with our relief agencies. I should hope that it might be possible to extend this principle of providing work for men, other than the large groups of single men who are now congregated in a few of the large western cities.
Just one other matter. The resolution gives authority to loan money to any province on such terms as may be agreed upon. One province at least has expressed one way in which it would like to arrange this matter of loans, and I think this is particularly significant as following the episode in connection with the provincial savings office of Manitoba.
I quote from the votes and proceedings of the legislative assembly of Manitoba of Thursday, April 14, 1932, the following resolution:
That whereas, under the existing federal legislation, the provinces have not the right to establish banks;
Whereas, the payment of interest on money borrowed from the banks, and elsewhere, has reached such proportions as to absorb a heavy percentage of provincial revenue;
Whereas financial policy is closely related with the wellbeing of the people as a whole; and.
Whereas the creation of a bank under provincial control would, to some extent, facilitate the financial transactions of the government of the province;
Therefore be it resolved, that this legislature urge the federal government, at the present session of parliament, to amend The Finance Act and The Bank Act so as to enable any province so desiring, the right to establish a provincial bank, and to enable the Minister of Finance of the federal government to make advances of currency to the provinces of Canada upon, pledges of security, in a manner similar to existing power to make advances to existing banks.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has received this resolution passed by the legislature of Manitoba, and whether or not his government has in contemplation any revision of the Bank Act or of the Finance Act along the lines requested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. gentleman's question at once. First, banks and banking under our constitution, section 91, are solely within the jurisdiction of this parliament, to the exclusion of provincial power; secondly, if the province of Manitoba desires to establish a bank it can, under the provisions of the Bank Act, incorporate a bank in this parliament, or direct that to be done, and establish such bank in the manner prescribed by the Bank Act; and, thirdly, this parliament could not confer the power sought except by an amendment to the constitution itself, if by the resolution in question it is intended that we should confer upon a province power which the British North America Act declares belongs exclusively to the dominion and which the dominion cannot by mere legislation pass on to a province. I had received a copy of the resolution, transmitted through official sources, and the answer which I have roughly drafted and will forward is the answer which I have now given. But it does seem idle that a legislature should waste its time passing resolutions that this parliament should exercise an unconstitutional power for the purpose of endeavouring to confer an unconstitutional authority upon a body which, under our constitution, cannot exercise it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether it would not be possible, without any violation of the constitution, that the provinces should be given the same right under the Finance Act that is now possessed by the banks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because they are not capable of supplying the security under which that power is exercised. I will give the hon. gentleman a concrete case. The banks are now overloaded with the securities of the province to which he refers, and under the provisions of the Finance Act they could only grant the banks a limited amount on the deposit of these securities; and the treasury board has to fix the extent to which the advances could be made from time to time, having regard to the solvency and credit conditions that obtain in the province in question. I think the hon. gentleman will realize that if the power he mentions were exercised, the whole financial structure would be destroyed over night. I may add that the question of the appointment of commissions was discussed
with the representatives of the provinces, and the minister will give to the committee the information in that regard which he mentioned the other day.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Arthurs in the chair.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not see anywhere, in the authority which it is proposed to confer upon the governor in council, the right taken by the government to carry on with purely federal public works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not there.


Charles Gavan Power: Am I to understand that that is done because it is not the policy of the government to carry on with purely federal public works other than those which have been voted in the estimates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Mr. HEAPS:: Will the Minister of Labour inform the committee whether there are likely to be any changes in the attitude of the government towards the cost of relief as between the federal and the provincial governments?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Perhaps at this stage I might make some general observations with respect to this resolution, in order to convey to the committee shortly what the present situation is, as I believe it to be with the information I have at hand. I trust the committee will bear with me while I briefly review the work with respect to unemployment and farm relief since the first legislation of 1930. The first legislation became effective in 1930, and the total amount that has been spent up to date through the agency of the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities, is approximately S150,000,000. This, of course, is the combined expenditure of the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities.
' The total amount contributed by the Dominion government in respect to this sum is a little over $48,000,000. The separation of the figures pertaining to the provinces and the municipalities is not at the moment complete. In some cases the division between the provinces and the municipalities is based on the cost of labour only, and until accounts are received it is not possible to arrive at the exact figure. However, the total contribution of the municipalities and the provinces to the total expenditure of approximately $150,000,000, is slightly over $100,000,000.
In connection with the work carried out up to March 31, I may say that in a measure this is reflected in the report of the director of unemployment relief tabled some weeks
2450	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
ago. In bringing this report up to date, it is shown that employment has been given to 741,465 different individuals. Of course, this is for varying periods of time. Of that number, 404,S23 have been given employment since September, 1931, and 336,642 were given employment under the legislation of 1930. Under the 1930 act 7,500,000 man-days of work were provided, and to March 31, under the 1931-32 act, approximately 10,000,000 man-days, a total of about 17,500,000. The average wage paid would not be very informative as the rates vary from those paid to labourers in remote rural districts to those paid to skilled mechanics in the industrial centres.
In addition to the expenditures made for public works, as previously referred to, the Dominion government has contributed to direct relief under the 1930 and 1931-32 legislation. The basis of contribution has been that the Dominion government pays one-third of the municipal expenditures, the provinces also paying one-third. In connection with unorganized districts where the provinces had to bear the full load, the Dominion government pays 50 per cent and the provinces the balance. This statement may be qualified with respect to those areas commonly known as the dried out or drought areas in southern Saskatchewan, which were dealt with on a different basis. The contribution of the federal government for direct relief under the 1930 act was $3,475,972; the total expenditure by the municipalities and provinces was in the neighbourhood-this figure is only approximate, but I believe it is fairly correct-of $10,000,000. Under the 1931-32 act the dominion has paid out in direct relief a total of $3,146,738. This is the dominion's contribution to date in respect of direct relief to a total expenditure which probably amounts to- again this figure is approximate, but I believe it is fairly accurate-$12,000,000. This does not include the amounts advanced to the Saskatchewan relief commission.
The accounts do not reach the federal government immediately after the expenditures have been incurred, and the total expenditure for direct relief made by the provinces and the municipalities can only be estimated at the moment. Accounts are being received daily and it can be readily understood that each succeeding day shows a change in the total. The setup of the relief commission in Saskatchewan is purely a provincial one and to enable the commission to carry on funds have been supplied to the province by way of loans from the Dominion government. In those areas that have suffered a three year successive crop failure and representing over 76 municipalities, the Dominion government
lMr. Gordon.]
has disbursed 100 per cent of the relief. In those areas where the conditions were not so acute and the situation not so difficult, the Dominion government has contributed 50 per cent. The accounts of the Saskatchewan relief commission are being audited, but the report for the month ending March 31 indicates that the total expenditures by the relief commission to that date totalled approximately $8,745,822.80. Relief has been given to 55,374 heads of families who had 249,183 dependents. Glancing at these figures hon. members can readily understand the magnitude of the work and the task which confronted those charged with the administration of relief in those areas. In addition there were individual cases numbering 278, so that the total number given relief through the Saskatchewan relief commission was 304,835. Up to March 31, the expenditures of the commission include approximately $500,000 for seed grain, but the April accounts will presumably indicate a further and larger expenditure in this connection. I believe the advances for seed grain

I can readily confirm this through the Department of Finance-have been $4,000,000.
The matter has been fairly well discussed in this chamber and I feel sure that hon. members are aware of the difficulties which confronted the provinces with respect to discharging their external obligations. Without assistance from the federal government, the provinces were unable to take care of loans falling due. In addition to loans made to the provinces in respect of their external obligations, further loans were made to enable them to pay their share of the relief contributions, above referred to, and in addition the Dominion government also advanced its agreed-upon contribution, crediting to these loans and advances the accounts as they were received and audited.
When a province-this refers to the western provinces-found itself unable, under the terms of the agreement entered into, to contribute its share of the moneys for relief and employment, the Dominion government advanced to such province not only the percentage which we had contracted with the province to pay, but also the province's portion of the contribution, taking as security provincial treasury bills which bore a rate of interest which equated the interest the dominion had to pay. I believe the rate was 4J per cent. Loans and advances were thus made to five provinces-British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. The Ontario advance was really not an advance for any considerable duration, covering only a few days while accounts were being adjusted. The standing of the loans

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
and advances at the present time is as follows:
The total loans and advances made to the provinces aggregate $43,418,499.87. To Ontario there was advanced $2,500,000. This total sum has been retired by accounts credited to the advance. The advance stood for only a few days, and was made pending federal payments which were then under way and pending the auditing of the accounts.
To Manitoba there was advanced $5,594,314.67, against which there has been credited $1,198,064.48, leaving the present outstanding balance of Manitoba's loan $4,396,250.19.
The total advance for Saskatchewan was $12,534,934.12, against which accounts credited amount to $1,100,592.66, leaving a balance of $11,434,341.46. In addition to this 812,534,934.12 there has been advanced to the Saskatchewan Relief Commission, including the $4,000,000 which was advanced recently for seed grain, $9,250,000.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Approximately so. That
includes the amount which the Dominion government is committed to advance to the province under the agreement.
The total advances to Alberta were $6,142,586.39, against which accounts have been credited amounting to $1,044,845.95, leaving a balance of $5,097,740.44.
The total advances to British Columbia were $7,396,664.69, against which accounts have been credited to date amounting to $1,971,040.81, leaving a balance of $5,425,623.88.
From day to day, as hon. members know, as the accounts come in for payment and are approved in the office of the director of unemployment relief, the appropriate recommendation to council is made and I have endeavoured to lay on the table of the house daily the orders in council subsequently passed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As of what date are the
figures which have just been given by the minister to the committee?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They are as nearly as
possible up to date.
I am not going to burden the members of the committee with any discussion following the remarks made by the right hon. leader of the opposition with respect to whether or not by following the course which this government is presently adopting we are torturing the constitution or straining the sections of the British North America Act. I listened
with a great deal of interest to the discussions which took place on this question when a similar resolution was before the house some time ago. I listened with interest because, as hon. members know, I have been for many years engaged in the practice of the legal profession, and I will not say by any means that the observations made by many members of this chamber on that question were not helpful and interesting; but I think we are beyond and past that at the moment. Whether or not the government was right then or whether or not the government is right now in connection with the constitutional aspect of the case, we have committed ourselves to this course, and by the success or failure of the efforts that we make we shall have to be judged.
I am not going into any laboured argument with respect to the method that should or should or should not be employed in order that on the one hand the greatest opportunity to work may be afforded to those who hove an earnest desire to go to work, or on the other hand as to what this government in conjunction with the provinces and municipalities should do in order to afford relief to those who by reason of misadventure caused through present conditions find themselves in want and lacking the necessities of life. Under the agreements which were entered into with the provinces last year we approved the suggestions of the provinces with respect to supplying work throughout Canada through the medium of building necessary public buildings, to the extent sometimes of probably anticipating future needs, and in some cases, I will have to admit, future needs for some years to come. That was a huge undertaking, as hon. members will readily understand. Many of the municipalities, hundreds and thousands of them, although I have not the exact number at the moment, availed themselves of the opportunity to participate under those dominion-provincial agreements, and very large undertakings were started, jointly financed by the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion, pursuant to the terms of the agreements which are set out in the report as tabled. As time went on it became apparent that many municipalities and provinces in their programs of works were very likely to imperil their financial stability by reason of the works outlined. Some months ago I was quite anxious about that situation, and from time to time I had occasion to have interviews with the representatives of the various provinces in respect to it. Then this spring, as the minister in charge, I communicated with the premiers of the various provinces ask-
2452	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
ing them to come to Ottawa to exchange views-they to give advice to this government and we to give advice to them-as to what methods should be employed in order that the greatest good could be accomplished with the least possible expenditure of money and casting the least possible burden upon the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion.
On April 8 the provincial premiers came to Ottawa, and on what remained of that day and throughout the following day the whole situation was considered with a view to checking up on the work accomplished and to formulate a course for the future. 1 think I am stating it fairly when I say the premiers and those representing the provinces were unanimous in the decision that the provinces and the municipalities within those provinces were financially unable for any length of time to carry on the program of public works projected, or to carry out the scheme formulated since the last session of parliament. Further, it was the opinion of provincial representatives and myself that there had been started public works, a portion of the cost of which would become a charge upon the municipalities and provinces, which probably should be discontinued, because the municipalities and provinces, and probably the dominion, would not be able to continue them.
Then we considered what could be done for those who would be destitute. Using the term "destitute" I refer to those who would become so if some opportunity for employment was not afforded, or if they did not find work themselves during a time when works might be discontinued. That situation was discussed at great length. At this point I should like to make an observation for the benefit of those who have the interest of labour at heart-and I believe that applies to all hon. members. Speaking to those hon. members who have given particular care and study to labour matters, I suggest that they do not harbour any feeling of anxiety with respect to the course which, with the exception of a few details, was agreed upon; I do not want them to think that the standards of living and of wage scales in this country are liable to be imperilled or endangered by reason of wages, or so-called wages-subsistence I call it-* which may be paid to those who are out of employment and must be kept from destitution. In my view there is a vast difference between standards of living and wage scales, and relief to those who are suffering. I do not think there is any man in the Labour group who will not agree with me in that distinction.

The provinces proposed that wherever possible they should set up camps where work could be done, where men would not be left idle, places where requirements of food and other necessities would be given, and some amount of cash subsistence advanced by the dominion and the provinces. The number of men who would have to take advantage of such an arrangement is not .capable of any accurate or nearly accurate determination. The provinces believe, however,-and I am not in disagreement with them,-that that is a course which might well now be followed. There are camps in the northern and near northern parts of Ontario where work is being carried on, where single men need have no fear that they will starve through lack of employment. Care can be taken of such men in those camps. Relief in the cities will be a subject of agreements to be made with the various provinces, if the legislation founded upon this resolution receives the favourable consideration of the house.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has spoken about the possibility of placing people upon the land. After listening to the conflicting viewpoints expressed in this chamber by those hon. members who know something about farming I am at a loss to know whether to-day a man should be on a farm or in a city. The majority of views as expressed would seem to indicate that no matter where a man may be, whether he be on a farm or in a city, in Canada or anywhere else in the world, he is in a very bad way.


Mr. MARCIL:: On a farm he could grow something.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. I am not persuaded that there is no opportunity on the farms of Canada for those who are experienced in farm work, probably they would not make a fortune, but they would make something. In that connection, I noticed an editorial in the Toronto Globe which dealt with fortunes-a report of a meeting in the city of Hamilton addressed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) in which he said that members of this government were all millionaires. That is a great compliment to myself. I know that in the years gone by probably it could be truthfully said that I was not a man without some wealth; at the present time I am afraid I would have to be described otherwise. But I have comfort in the thought that the only fortune worth anything to anybody is the fortune that you have spent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Wesley Ashton Gordon: A question was asked by
the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre with respect to giving persons with agricultural experience and a desire to go back upon the land an opportunity through the medium of legislation, which I trust will be favourably received by this chamber, and which has been under consideration, I think, by members of all stripes of political opinion. I can only repeat what I said a few days ago when the immigration estimates were before the house, that having reviewed the efforts of the past with respect to state-aided colonization, I am not at all persuaded that any such scheme should be entered into by the federal government. There are various reasons I could advance why I think that sort of scheme is unsound. I may be pardoned if I refer to the constitution again. Placing people upon the land within a province is peculiarly something for the province itself to attend to. I think there need be no argument about that. The reason why the Dominion government embarked upon the scheme of soldier settlement is well known to all members. I will not condemn that scheme in its entirety; no one could; but there were many cases, I am afraid, where those who went upon the land had not the agricultural experience nor any real desire to do so-if they could identify the desire by reason of their past. That in a measure spelled their ultimate misfortune, and perhaps resulted in their agreements being rescinded. Then again, as I have said before in this chamber, I believe that if a person starts in on any piece of land where the element of speculation is in large measure reduced to a minimum, and does so for the primary purpose of being able to make a livelihood, if he is saddled with any considerable debt that very debt will spell his ultimate disaster. Because I do not think, taking year in and year out, there is any very considerable number of farmers who combine the capacity to operate a farm successfully with that knowledge of finance which will enable them to discharge any considerable debt from the products of their farms. But I do think there are many people in Canada who have been brought up on the farm-and I am sure everyone recognizes this -who went to the industrial centres attracted by the high wages prevailing in recent years; and there is another class, the sons and daughters of farmers who as they grew up finding there was not room for them on one homestead drifted into the cities. I have concluded from the great number of communications I have received from all parts of Canada that there is such a class of people
to-day who would gladly go back to a farm. They have no money and are depending upon direct relief, either through the agency of the city in which they live, through provincial governments, through this government, or through all three combined, or through their church or some benevolent society. When I say "go back to a farm" that is probably a misnomer. If we think it over carefully we may conclude that the better expression would be "go forward to a farm," because I think that probably when the last analysis is made if Canada is to survive-and I am just as confident as I am standing here that Canada will survive-in large measure it will be by reason, as was said in this house some years ago, of the products of the first six inches of her soil.


Mr. NEILL:: In connection with the
minister's remarks, I notice the front page of the morning's papers carries an announcement of a scheme favoured by himself to enable families to go on the land. Is that some misunderstanding?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am just coming to it.
I have had this question up a number of times during the past year. Our efforts, such as they were, were not devoted to dangling a loan or a gratuity before people to induce them to go forward to the land, but rather to place before people who had gone to the towns and the cities-people who had formerly been on the land and still had some money, but were out of employment and saw their little fund dwindling in rent and other expenses that are associated with urban life, and in whose family circle there was a desire to preserve what they had and reestablish themselves-I say our efforts were directed to placing before those people the desirability of returning to the land. That is what the colonization branch of the department has devoted itself to up to the present time. I do not want to boast about these things, because it is only one's duty to do the best one can, but if through good luck one happens to have some measure of success perhaps he may be pardoned for mentioning it in the process of spreading upon the record the facts with regard to the question of unemployment generally. The forces at work did meet with a measure of success. I believe, at least to a large measure, we have exhausted that class of people, but there is the other class who know how to farm, who want to go back to the farm and who are on direct relief. The government have concluded that instead of devoting our
2454	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
share of direct relief to that class of people we will meet the proposals of such of the provinces as care to enter into that scheme, and we are ready to enter into an agreement with those provinces on terms such as may be agreed upon. I trust that this legislation will not be too long delayed, though I do not say that for the purpose of trying to restrict discussion, because I would like very much to have the views of hon. members on all angles of this subject. If the provinces still think this a sound proposal, the government is read3;' to devote what would be its share of direct relief to a fund to be set up by the municipality affected-and this has been the proposal from some of the provinces -and contributed to by the province and any other agency that cares to take an interest in solving this problem of unemployment. I think in doing this we will not be embarking upon any unsound principle.


Charles Gavan Power: Before the minister leaves
that point I should like to ask a question. Is it the intention of the government simply to take the money which would be devoted to direct relief, we will say S3 or S4 or $5 a week, as the case may be, and instead of giving that to the man if he remains in the city, give it to him if he goes on the land? Is that what the settlement scheme amounts to?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I *was going to say that
the details and the agreements that are in contemplation have not been worked out. The western provinces have submitted varying proposals, all along the same line. My own view, whether or not the provinces agree with me-and as hon. gentlemen know conditions differ in various provinces-is that this government might well capitalize, for some period in the future, the sum of money which we feel we will be obliged to pay for direct relief, and make that fund available together with the funds the province and municipality affected may be able to subscribe in order that the family may be placed upon some available land. Of necessity the provinces will have to undertake the administration of such a scheme, and I believe they are very willing to do so, but great care will have to be observed to see that wherever possible the lands upon which those people go are crown lands, so that the fund available will not be exhausted by having to purchase land from someone else. I can well imagine that if we start out with a plan under which these funds would be hung up, then there would be 
at least one class in Canada who would not be ranked among the unemployed; they would be the real estate agents. That will have to be avoided.


Charles Gavan Power: If I correctly understand the suggestion of the minister it is this, that to those who wish to go on the land there will be given a lump sum, we will say the relief for ten, twelve, fifteen or twenty weeks capitalized, with which it is proposed they shall buy whatever may be necessary in the way of implements or live stock, or perhaps that they shall pay their transportation expenses to the land, but in addition I suppose the minister believes that he will have to continue paying relief to these families after they get on the land until such time as they obtain a crop, so those who go on the land will receive a good deal more than those who stay in the cities. Is that the proposal?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would scarcely subscribe to that; the provincial premiers with whom I have had occasion to discuss the matter did not think so. Eor instance, in the province of Manitoba they believe that with a fund of $600, contributed from the three sources, a family can get along. Of course the lump sum would not be given to a man going out on the farm; that would be absurd. The proposal is that each province should administer such funds under commissions set up by the separate governments. I may say that in discussing the question of administering relief by commissions the premiers of the provinces concluded, with great unanimity, that under the provincial machinery already at hand they could administer the funds perhaps better than by a commission set up for the purpose, because the advice of such men as might be appointed to these commissions is always available. So far as this government is concerned I have heard-and I presume other members have heard also-that these relief funds are being used in this or that province, which may be under a Liberal or Conservative or Progressive government, for the benefit of the supporters of that government and to the exclusion of those who are not of the same political faith. I may tell hon. members of this chamber that I will need a lot of convincing before I will believe that at a time like this there is a single premier of any province of this country who would turn aside a worthy, needy, destitute person because of his political persuasion, his religion or anything else. I do not believe it.


Charles Gavan Power: But what about the definite engagement entered into between the federal government as represented by the minister

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
and the government of the province of Quebec, wherein it is laid down that the work shall be divided fifty-fifty on a political basis? The minister knows that on certain road work in the province of Quebec it was understood between the representatives of the federal government and the representatives of the provincial government that where the federal government supplied fifty per cent of the funds there should be fifty per cent Conservatives employed. This is a new kind of non-partisan arrangement. I have been told, and I have every reason to believe it to be true, that in the Lake St. John district, where they were constructing a portion of the trans-Canada highway, they had to build two wings to the camp, a wing for the Conservatives and a wing for the Liberals. The inspectors appointed by the federal government were appointed to see that the Conservatives got fifty per cent of the work and supplied fifty per cent of the material. More than that, they had to have two foremen, one Liberal and one Conservative; two timekeepers, two chore boys and two cooks, for fear that the good Tory workmen would have to eat Liberal pork and beans. I think the minister knows that; I am not stating this by way of criticism, but I understand it is a fact. I have some files here to show that federal inspectors have written to certain municipalities to tell them that they understand that up to the present seventy-five per cent Liberals have been employed, and that now the municipalities will have to turn around and employ seventy-five per cent Tories in order to make up for the surplus of Liberals employed before. That seems to me to be supremely ridiculous. I think I can show official letters to that effect. It is ridiculous when we are dealing with matters of unemployment. I am not bringing this up in any offensive sense.


Mr. JACOBS:: Surely that is not in writing; it must be a gentleman's agreement.


Charles Gavan Power: It was well understood; I do not think there is any doubt about it. The minister will admit that this was one of the conditions laid down with the province of Quebec last autumn, when that province received assistance in building the transcontinental highway, that fifty per cent of the material and fifty per cent of the labour should be supplied by the Conservatives and fifty per cent by the Liberals.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was that agreed to by Mr. Taschereau? Was he a party to it?


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly; Premier Taschereau had no objection. He was getting fifty per cent from the federal government and he said, "If that is the condition under which you want us to carry on, well and good."


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it his stipulation?


Charles Gavan Power: I understood the stipulation came from the other side of the house. Up to that time these works had been carried on by the provincial government, and in that province there has not been much question about fifty per cent Tories; we were not bothered with political questions at all. It was only when the federal government decided to grant some money that they thought they were entitled to a share. I was told of a municipality in Gaspe where a $2,000 grant was made to the municipality. The federal inspector said, "How many persons are employed here?" They replied, "One hundred." He said then, "How many Tories?" and they told him there were only ten Tories unemployed in the whole village. He then said, "That is too bad, but you will have to fire the ninety Liberals and bring me ninety Tories from some other parish and we will do that until such time as the money is exhausted." Now, we hear endless stories of that kind, and I sincerely hope that under the new scheme that sort of thing will not happen again.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the
Labour party or the Farmer party?


Charles Gavan Power: That is another difficulty. I am not talking about the Farmer party. The difficulty is that the well to do farmers worked on unemployment relief while unfortunate labourers in the village did not get any jobs at all.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Have you well to do farmers down there?


Charles Gavan Power: We had up to a year or so ago.


Alan Webster Neill: If the fifty-fifty scheme could be extended to British Columbia, it would at least be better than last year's methods.


Charles Gavan Power: In the villages in our province there are a large number of rentiers; usually they take up residence in the village after they have retired from farming. They are retired farmers who have considerable money, or at least suffiicent money to live on. We also have the wealthy class of farmers immediately surrounding the villages and who to a large extent are the political leaders on one side or the other. When these unemployment relief moneys came to be dis-
2456	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
tributed, the first to benefit were the rentiers, who, it is true, are unemployed, not having worked for years, because, as I say, they are retired farmers. They were the first unemployed who got jobs; and under the system that was in vogue the second group to get employment were naturally the political leaders of both parties. If the Liberals had fifty per cent of the work, they naturally thought, knowing the generosity of their Conservative friends, that the Conservatives would look after the poor unfortunates who had no jobs, and accordingly they took their most important men and, to get political kudos, gave them jobs. Unfortunately the Conservatives, I imagine, followed the same line of action. The result was that the labourers, the poor people in the villages, got no work, while the wealthy, important people, prominent from the political standpoint, got all the work. That should be corrected, and I do not know how we are going to overcome such a situation so long as we follow what I might call the bipartisan principle. After all, political parties are made up of human beings like anyone else, and they will naturally, if they are not charged with the direct responsibility of looking after unemployment, do what they can to help themselves. I commend that thought to the minister's consideration.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
Charles Gavan Power: I do not know whether it is written or verbal.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I suppose the premier or
the government of Quebec agreed to the plan. Personally I can only reaffirm what I said before. I cannot be persuaded that the premier of any province in this country is going to deny to any needy, worthy and destitute person, the benefits which may flow from the legislation of that province or of this government. I may be quite unsophisticated, not having been in politics very long and being a newcomer to this chamber. For that reason I may not quite appreciate the refinements-and I use that word advisedly-of political life. But so long as I can, I should like to believe that those who administer the public affairs of th;s country and of the provinces, regardless of political complexion, will adopt no attitude that would be unfair, indeed cruel, to those who are entitled to help from this government, from the provinces or from the municipalities.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the committee is entitled to know whether there is an actual arrangement along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Quebec South. The minister is in charge of the department and he ought to know whether there is such an arrangement.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will give the hon. member the benefit of all I do know about it, and it is this. In the working out of the legislation in each province it was considered advisable in the opinion of the government and in the opinion of the provinces that some representative of the federal government should be appointed to survey the work going on and the method employed in connection with the funds being contributed, not only by this government but by others. Reports are made almost daily as to the conditions prevailing in different localities and as to the way the work is being carried on. I shall be glad to look up this information before this debate is closed and give detailed information to the hon. member with respect to whether or not there exists such an agreement as has been suggested.


Charles Marcil: I had the pleasure some time ago of sending to the minister a copy

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
of a resolution passed by the county council of my constituency asking for an extension of time to carry on works authorized by this and the provincial governments. These works have not been proceeded with owing to climatic conditions and it will not be possible to proceed with their completion until May or perhaps June. I should like to know what consideration has been given to this request and whether or not everything is to be dropped on May 1? I might add that the county council represents all the municipalities in the county.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I was just coming to the point raised by the hon. member. At the conference held on April 9 with the provincial premiers and where, as I have said, there was a degree of unanimity as to the course to be pursued with respect to works which were under way or to be dropped, a conclusion was reached which was reflected in a telegram despatched to the premiers of the provinces. Perhaps I should read this telegram in order that it may go upon record. It reads:
Referring to clause 13 of agreement between Dominion and province providing that all works shall be completed not later than first day of May, 1932, would inform you with regard to extensions of time beyond this date as follows:
Firstly, the time for concluding all works presently under way and not capable of being finished before first of May next may be extended to permit of such works being finished provided that such works are, in the opinion of the provincial and federal governments, of such a kind and character that the stopping of same would cause loss by reason of their non-completion, for example in the case of buildings, sewers and works of like character;
Secondly, where contractual undischarged obligations under entire contracts exist, the time for completing such works in order to fulfil such contracts and discharge such obligations may be extended;
Thirdly, works, such as roadwork, will be discontinued on the present basis and following your expression of view at recent conference between provinces and Dominion, the Dominion agrees to your proposal to contribute under agreements to be hereinafter entered into, toward direct relief and subsistence.
That statement is founded upon the assumption that this house will agree in the legislation presently to be brought down.
Would request you forward list of schedules recommended for extension soon as possible with dates to which extension is desired so that same may be considered and formal approval given such as approved.
At the time of the conference the premier of Quebec suggested that his province would grant assistance towards the carrying out of the ideas contained in the telegram I have
just read, and stated that be would have a representative from his province come to Ottawa in order that we might have the benefit of his guidance and advice. On the day before this telegram was despatched, I addressed the following letter to the premier of Quebec:
You will recall that when we had the conference with the various provincial representatives you suggested that in order to minimize as far as possible the carrying on of works under the present program passed the end of this month, you would send a representative of your government to Ottawa to cooperate with the officials of my department in order to detail what works should be completed and what works could be abandoned.
I have given this matter some thought since the conference and I am persuaded that your suggestion is a good one. I would be pleased, therefore, if you would send a representative of your government who could check over works presently in hand in the province of Quebec with the officials of my department so that we may have the benefit of your representative's advice as to what works must be concluded, and what works may be set aside.
Under date of April 23 I received the following answer both to my telegram and letter:
I duly received your telegram of the 21st and your letter of the 20th instant, and beg to confirm the telegram which I sent you this morning, and which reads as follows:
"Letter and telegram received. We approve of general plan as outlined by you. Writing."
I think that your plan, as detailed in your letter, is on the lines which were discussed at the late conference. We are having prepared a list of the works actually commenced in our province and, as soon as completed, early next week, a representative of our province will go to Ottawa to discuss that matter with your officers.
Yours sincerely,
L. A. Taschereau.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcill can see the course which has been outlined. Of course, I am not acquainted with the situation in the hon. member's constituency to which he refers, but I have no doubt that the provincial government is well acquainted with this situation and that it can be taken up with and satisfactorily disposed of by the officers of my department and the official from Quebec.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister be kind enough to bring down a copy of the list in connection with Quebec?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall be very glad to
show the hon. member the list.


Mr. YOUNG:: The minister referred to the willingness of the government to contribute to a fund which any province might be willing to raise for the purpose of restoring ex-

2458	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
farmers to the land. The resolution states that the government shall have power to loan money to any province for any purpose whatsoever. Are we to understand that the government can loan money to a province in order to establish a man on the land and then make its own contribution?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This government would
not loan money to a province in order to enable it to pay its share unless the province, like some of the western provinces, found itself to be in such a position financially, as to be unable to pay its share. If agreements can be made with the provinces, we are prepared to capitalize for a period ahead. As I said, one of the provinces has suggested that the fund should not be less than, I think, $400; another has suggested $500 and another, $600. They were very modest amounts. In the case of a family on direct relief, a family selected I trust by a body of people who understand something about farming and who will prepare a list free of poor selections, we will capitalize ahead the sum we feel we would have to pay as a contribution for direct relief, and the dominion, the province and the municipality affected will contribute in equal parts. That is the present scheme, although it has not been reduced to writing with any of the. provinces. The whole sum would not be given to the individual but advanced to him as he gets settled on the land, and everyone who is able to become self-supporting in that way will at least be off the unemployment shelf for a time and will be able to take care of himself and his family. Some of them may not stay there, but undoubtedly some will. Others, when times get better, and I hope that that will not be too long delayed, will no doubt be attracted back to industry in the cities where they formerly received good wages. That in general is what I have in mind, and that is the substance of the communications which I have made to the various western provinces particularly, in answer to the proposition put forward.


Edward James Young: That does not answer the
question. The question is, will this government be willing, in addition to advancing the three or four or five hundred dollars, as the case may be, to advance to the province its share of the undertaking?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: A loan to the province?


Edward James Young: A loan to the province to
be advanced to the settlers.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If the province enters into an agreement such as I have indicated, and finds that by reason of the paucity of money in the province it is not able to advance its share, then the question of a loan to the province-I presume the hon. member has in mind a loan on the security of treasury bills or some other satisfactory security- would have to be taken into consideration. Speaking at the moment for myself only-I cannot speak for the government-I would say that this government would loan the province its share of the contribution, but I imagine that that matter will be referred to in the bill.


Edward James Young: And would you advance to municipalities also which are unable to carry one-third of the cost?.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No. The municipalities are the creature of the province, as the hon. member knows, and we do not deal with them. It would be hopeless if we started in to do that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is one matter which the minister has not referred to, and upon which I should like some information. It is as to the amount of the responsibility which the federal government will assume in the matter of direct relief which is granted by the provinces and the municipalities to the individual. At the present time I believe that the federal government assumes one-third of the cost. I wonder if the minister could inform the house whether the government has undertaken to assume a larger share of the financial burden, thereby helping both the provinces and the municipalities.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The agreements have not been changed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it the intention of the government to assume only one-third of the cost of direct relief as they have 'been doing up to now?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps the hon. member has not noticed the memoranda drawn from the agreements already entered into, as set out in the report of the director of unemployment relief, in which is given the percentages of direct relief which the Dominion government has heretofore been bearing. I presume that the hon. member is particularly concerned with the province of Manitoba, in the unorganized parts of which the federal government has contributed fifty per cent; but no change has been made from the agreements as set out in the report of the director of unemployment relief. There has been no con-

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
elusion arrived at as between any province and the Dominion government with respect to any change in the proportion which the Dominion government will assume in the matter of direct relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This is a question of very great importance to many other parts of this dominion as well as Manitoba. The amounts given out in relief by some of the municipalities in the west have become so enormous that it is almost impossible for many of the municipalities to carry the burden. I had hoped that under present conditions this government would assume a much larger share of that cost of relief than evidently, according to the statement just made by the minister, they are willing to do. I hope that the decision of the minister is by no means final and that the government will in the very near future announce to the country at large that they are willing to assume a much larger share of the cost of direct relief than they have been doing up to the present time. According to the plans which have been communicated to the committee by the minister, it is evidently the intention of this government as well as of the provinces to discontinue completely capital expenditures on public works of any kind, and instead there is going to be resort to a policy of direct relief for those who find themselves without work and without the means of subsistence. The cost therefore of relief for the ensuing year is going to be considerably less than it has been in the past year, and if such is the case, in view of the fianacial position of many of the provinces throughout Canada, will not the federal government agree to assume a much larger share of the cost of direct relief than they have been bearing up to the present?


Mr. DUPUIS:: I rise to support the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Heaps) in asking the federal government to assume a larger share of the cost of direct relief. In my own constituency, the municipality of Delson is composed largely of working men engaged in the brick industry. At the present time owing to the fact that there is hardly any construction work being done in the large cities like Montreal, some of the brick yards in Delson and Laprairie will not open this summer. They hardly opened last year. By now from 250 to 350 heads of families are out of work in these villages. They comprise practically the majority of the people in the village of Delson. The municipality derives its revenue from taxes imposed on these working men, and at the present time the municipal council is unable to provide one-third of 41761-1551
the cost of direct relief. It will not be able to meet its obligations, and so I think it is the duty of the government, provincial or federal, to come to its rescue. I presume there are many other municipalities throughout the dominion in a similar position.
Speaking for the farmers, I would ask the minister if there will be any provision in the bill to help not simply the born farmers now living in the city, but the farmers at present on the land, many of whom are on the verge of bankruptcy. Owing to the fact that they cannot sell their products they have no revenue; many of them have mortgages on their land, and creditors are forcing payments. The result is that many farmers are facing obligations they will not be able to meet, and many are sold out by the sheriff and thrown on the street. In my view the first obligation of either the provincial or the federal government is to help the farmers now on the land and guarantee their present obligations. There has been some discussion and expression of opinion in connection with a moratorium in favour of the farmers. I do not wish to discuss the merits of that proposal, so far as obligations are concerned, but I think it is the duty of the government to help them. There are many hundreds, yes, thousands of farmers who cannot meet their obligations owing to the present crisis, and it is the first duty of the government to come to their aid. What is the use of bringing farmers from the cities if we do not help those actually engaged in farming who are in need of assistance?
I should like to revert to a remark made by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), that there had been some abuses of relief measures by those who were not in need of assistance, and that in consequence some who were really unemployed and without means had to suffer. I should like to call the attention of the minister to my remarks during the special session of 1930. At that time the matter of unemployment was under discussion, and the government was asked to define the word "unemployed." If the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) were in the house he would recall that before I spoke he begged the government to define that word. My remarks on that occasion were as follows:
It will soon be found that some of the unemployed have other resources and that a certain proportion of them will not be needy, and then it will not be necessary for this government or any other body to help. Consequently I think the hon. member for Bow River was right in suggesting that there should be a clause defining the word "unemployed," . . .
2460	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
I continued as follows:
As one hon. member remarked this afternoon, surely the agricultural class contains some who are badly in need of help and are just as
deserving as . . .
-any other class in the community. The Minister of Labour admitted, after the remark by the hon. member for Quebec South, that there had been some abuses. Due to what? Due to the fact that the word "unemployed" was not defined. I think it is the duty of the government to define that word and to come to the rescue of only those who are in actual need, not only among the workingmen but among the farmers.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Remarks of hon. gentlemen have dealt particularly with the provision of food for the unemployed. In connection with relief, however, there is another problem of great importance, namely that of rent. In the municipality from which I come relief is costing $10,000 per week. That applies only to married men and their families, and does not include single men. The provision of work carries with it also a psychological factor, namely that the unemployed have something to look forward to. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for North Winnipeg that it will be necessary to increase the proportion paid by the federal government to the provinces and municipalities. If unemployment conditions are not improved the government will have a very serious situation on its hands. People cannot be turned out on the street; they have to be taken care of. From my own practical experience I would say that the fact that roofs have been put over the heads of the unemployed, and that they have been given some work to do has gone far to keep the situation in hand.
Some comments have been made in connection with sending men into the camps of northern Ontario. If in the present year no more are sent than were sent last winter, the government will be touching only the fringe of the problem.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: How many were sent?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know, but I know the effect.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am told over 40,000 were sent.


Humphrey Mitchell: There were only 200 or 300 from Hamilton. I was in the council at the time, and very close to the situation, although I cannot give the exact figures. The matter of unemployment overshadows every other problem confronting this government and parliament.

As I explained a few days ago, some credit should be given to the mayors and councillors of municipalities for the able manner in which they have handled the situation. Whether we like it or not we have to assume the responsibility of taking care of the unemployed and keeping them housed. I could say a great deal more, but I shall not take further time.


John Campbell Elliott: Is it the minister's intention to depart from the policy adopted last year of having part of the public works done under the heading of unemployment relief? I take it from the remarks of the minister he is not aware at the present time whether or not the same policy is to be followed. I find in the report of the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief certain expenditures under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 on behalf of the Department of Public Works. Is it the intention of the government to extend relief under similar circumstances in the coming year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: At the moment no program of public works has been agreed upon with the Department of Public Works. I assume-I do not want this to be taken as the last word because I have not heard it discussed so far as the government is concerned 

that the normal program of public works will be carried on. But the policy with respect to the closing out and finishing of works under legislation which becomes inoperative at the end of the month is disclosed in the telegram which I sent to each of the premiers of the various provinces following their own request at the conference on April 9.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I can make it
simpler for the minister. He no doubt has before him the report of the director of unemployment relief. At page 66 he will see there are a number of items which are clearly public works. They appeared last year under the heading of unemployment and farm relief. Is it the intention to follow a similar policy this year, or has the minister reached the point where he is able to say what will be done?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am sorry I cannot give
any direct answer to the question, but certainly before the legislation comes down I shall be in a position to do so.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps the minister will
be able to answer this question, although he was not minister at the time these estimates were put in. Did these estimates originate with the department of public works, or with

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
the Department of Labour under which comes unemployment and farm relief?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can give the hon. gentleman the desired information. After the act was passed a very careful and complete survey of conditions throughout the dominion was made, and the Public Works department was asked to suggest a program of works which it might undertake, calculated to relieve unemployment. In pursuance of that request the chief architect, the chief engineer and the district engineers made reports. Following these reports a schedule was prepared and submitted to council, and an order in council was passed approving the program. Then the works were undertaken so far as circumstances permitted and so far as it appeared necessary to grant relief in particular localities. The _ scheme had to be looked at as a whole; for instance, in some cities the municipal authorities themselves and the province were carrying on work that very substantially, and in certain instances entirely, took care of relief. In those cases some of the works set out in the schedule for the Public Works department were not proceeded with.


John Campbell Elliott: Then I take it that what appears on this page 66 under the heading of unemployment and farm relief covers public works originated by the Public Works department after the public works estimates had been submitted to and passed by the house. Is that correct?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They were particularly referred to in the discussion of the bill. It was pointed out at the time that one of the methods by which unemployment could be relieved, was by undertaking purely federal works.


John Campbell Elliott: That is exactly the thing against which I protest. These are public works pure and simple which might very well have been put in the department's estimates. When the minister says this afternoon that at a time like this nobody would want to be favouring one political party rather than the other, I take it he believes these works should not be confined to ridings that are represented almost entirely by Conservatives, but that there should be something like a fair distribution. If not that, what does he mean? As I have said before, you will find on an average that these items for harbours and rivers in Ontario-items which this house had no opportunity of passing on-have been allotted to Conservative ridings to an extent six times greater than to Liberal ridings. I feel very jealous of my friend from the province of Quebec who speaks of a fiftymfty division. If my hon. friend will run his eye down the column on page 66 he will see that of items totalling $216,442 only about $12,000 represent public works in Ontario Liberal ridings. My hon.	friend	contradicted	mewhen I made that statement before; I have since checked it up. I shall be very glad if he can convince me that a greater amount has been allotted	to	Liberal ridings. If	theminister has	not	his	mind made	upnow to alter that policy, I would very strongly urge	him	to	alter it for	the
coming year. These are public works which the members of this house have a right to pass upon, they should not be undertaken in this way, and nobody can justify such a policy, particularly in view of the fact that the report says that relief will be granted without any attention to political affiliations, race or religious views. Nobody can tell me it is purely an accident that the appropriations in ridings represented by government members are six times as great as those in ridings represented by opposition members.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When my hon. friend spoke the other evning on this subject he was endeavouring to leave on this house the impression that the Public Works department had started out deliberately to discriminate between expenditures in Liberal and in Conservative constituencies. I told him he was all wrong in that assumption, and I repeat it now. The greatest care was exercised-
Mr. ELLIOTT r If my hon. friend will allow me: On reference to Hansard he will find that I said that in figuring out the relative relief granted, apparently Conservative ridings needed about six times as much relief as ridings represented by Liberals. He said that that was not right. If he goes over these figures I am sure he will be satisfied that I am right.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am endeavouring to combat the impression and the inference to be drawn from my hon. friend's statement, and I want to point out to him that while his figures may be accurate the inference he is seeking to have drawn from them is not sound. Let us consider the province of Ontario, of which my hon. friend is speaking. There are very few constituencies on the waterfront, represented by Liberals, where anything could be done. If my hon. friend starts at the east of the province he will go to Trenton before he finds a constituency represented by a Liberal. Then he will have to go past Toronto and along lake Erie until he gets down to the southwestern part of
2462	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
the province before he finds another such constituency. In making a survey of the harbours and rivers where works could be done it just happened that the larger number of constituencies where works could be undertaken and were needed were represented by Conservatives. It was not a question of political patronage at all; it was a case of carrying on works that were necessary. I am glad to say that the greater number of constituencies where the work could be done were represented by Conservatives.


John Campbell Elliott: Just a word in answer
to my hon. friend. 1 am glad this discussion has taken place, because my hon. friend now states that on checking up the figures-I take this to be the effect of his remarks-he finds that he was labouring under a misapprehension when he contradicted me before.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I still contradict the general impression my hon. friend was trying to leave. His general figures may be correct.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend forgets
that the contradiction was with regard to the figures, and of course a general inference can be arrived at only from the figures. That is the best test. After all, the ridings on lake Erie still are on that lake. Take Elgin, for instance; my hon. friend will not find it in the list.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend will look it up he will see that it was very well cared for under the former administration.


John Campbell Elliott: I may say that was the
fact with practically all ridings in this country under the former administration. The point is this, and I hope the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works will be able to get it: This is not the way to bring down public works estimates. The address by the minister this afternoon is the best evidence I can find that he does not believe these works should be done in this way. Public works should come under the Department of Public Works, and the Minister of Public Works should take responsibility for the estimates and for the manner in which they come down. Here is an item to which we might as well refer while we are on this subject:
Haileybury breakwater and harbour for seaplanes, $67,000.
That was the amount authorized, and $17,809 was the amount expended. I submit that this is not the sort of estimate that should be brought down a month or so after 
the house rises; I submit this properly should be considered by the house when public works estimates are up for discussion. I do not want to introduce a political element into the discussion, because I quite agree with the minister that this is not a time when matters of that kind should influence the manner in which public moneys are expended, but I do say that you cannot avoid it if you follow the course which was followed last year. I hope we will have from the minister an assurance that he intends to adopt a different course for the coming year.
In regard to unemployment relief, the need for this relief in Canada is not limited to ridings which are on the water. There is not a riding in this country that does not require assistance by way of unemployment relief. At the close of last session hon. members representing the different ridings were told that the government would be glad to receive representations as to what works might be carried on. At that time I directed the attention of the minister to the fact that in a great many inland ridings such as those to which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has referred, where you do not have harbours and rivers, one of the things that could be very well done by way of unemployment relief-and I urge this upon the minister now-was the elimination as far as possible of those level crossings which are such a menace to the travelling public in many parts of this country. It is altogether beside the point to say that those ridings which do not happen to be on the water do not require the expenditure of money on public works of some kind at a time like this. No people are going through harder times than the people in many of these inland ridings, and I want to urge strongly upon the minister that something of that kind should be done during the coming year. It will give employment to workmen and teams generally, and if a great many of these sections of the country are to carry on during the coming year work of that kind must be carried on in addition to the usual farm work.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: I want
to take this opportunity to congratulate' the minister and the government on their forwardlooking ideas designed to help people in the cities of Saskatchewan to get out on the land and maintain themselves. I know that representatives of the cities of Regina, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon met during the winter and formulated a plan similar to that outlined by the minister to-day. They went to the provincial government with their scheme; the provincial government lent a hand in that

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
direction, and I know that the people in my constituency, and I think I can say the same thing for the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw, certainly will greatly appreciate this announcement.


Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: May I direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a slight political inaccuracy? Trenton happens to be represented in this house by a Conservative and not by a Liberal. The port of Oshawa, however, happens to be represented by a Liberal. On behalf of my constituency may I express my appreciation of the treatment we received last session in connection with public works, but may I also point out that last year again the harbour was congested, as I think the records of the department will show. There is urgent need for further work this year at the port of Oshawa.
I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to a telegram I have just received from the Oshawa Property Owners' Association, which I may say is headed by some of the most prominent men of the city. The telegram reads as follows:
Large proportion of home holders of Oshawa unable to pay rent, interest or taxes. Situation serious. Something must be done.
Am I correct in advising my constituents that their immediate problem must be dealt with by the provincial and not by the federal government?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I must assure the hon.
member that the Dominion government cannot embark on any program which would take care of landlords or municipal taxes generally. I do not think I need assure the hon. member of that.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the
minister would be kind enough to elaborate a little on the latter part of his statement. I understood him to say that as regards commitments already entered into between the municipal and provincial authorities the time for these works was going to be extended either by common agreement or by order in council, I do not know which. In view of numerous requests I am receiving from my part of the country, I should like to know whether the tripartite agreement between the municipal authorities, the provincial governments and the federal government has absolutely ceased and whether no commitments with respect to the municipalities will be entertained for the future. I am receiving a good many requests from different municipalities at the present time, and if I understand the minister correctly there is no question of entering into any further agreement for future commitments between the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Any agreement entered into with the municipalities in the future will, of necessity, be entered into with the province concerned. So far as this government is concerned, after the provincial conference held in the middle of April, it was made apparent by the provincial premiers themselves that the cost of carrying on works such as had been carried on in the past was entirely too great a burden for the municipalities and for the provinces as well, and I think I can safely say that the cost to this dominion was also a burden. When the legislation is approved, agreements will be entered into with the provinces whereby, I trust, a contribution will be made-the basis has not yet been determined because the agreements have not yet been entered into-by means of which loans or advances will be made by this government to the provinces for the purpose of taking care of the destitute people for whom the provinces have primary responsibility.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the word contribution used by the minister now refer to contribution for direct relief as well?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It refers to direct relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In other words, the amount the federal government will assume in the cost of direct relief is not yet a definite factor so far as this government is concerned.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It has not yet been
definitely determined, but I hope it will be immediately on this legislation receiving the approval of the house, if it does receive approval.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand the minister's words, they are to the effect that as regards seeking to meet the unemployment problem by providing work, which I think was the intention at the outset, that has been abandoned as a policy, and that hereafter whatever may be given will be given for the purpose of relief. Whether at the instance of the provinces or the municipalities is a secondary matter;- but as to the policy of the government, as I understand it- now, and as the minister now enunciates it, it is that hereafter the policy will be to grant relief by contribution but not to establish public works.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think the right
hon. gentleman has quite correctly interpreted my observations. The work as carried on in the past under that plan or program will not be carried on in the same way in the future because, as was plainly indicated by the premiers of the various provinces, they had reached the point where they could no longer finance it. The question now arises, if this

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
legislation receives approval, of entering into agreements with the various provinces in regard to the loaning of money by the dominion to the provinces for the purpose of taking care of their unemployed who are without subsistence. As to the details of these agreements, I can only say that they have not yet been determined, and, of course, they cannot be determined until this legislation passes the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That bears
out what I have said. The minister's last words were, that from now on loans would be made to the provinces to enable them to meet cases of need. So far as the federal government's policy is concerned it will be one of contributions or loans to the provinces for relief purposes, but as regards a policy of any direct provision of work by the federal government, that policy, if it ever existed-and I understand that it was the original intention *-has been abandoned. That is correct, is it not, except in regard to works which at present are being brought to completion?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is substantially correct, yes.


Mr. DONNELLY:: There is only one thing to which I wish to direct the attention of the government in connection with this resolution. During the past three years a certain portion of Saskatchewan has had no crop, although I am pleased to say that as a result of the rains this spring it seems likely that there will be a crop in that dried out area. The great problem which the people in that portion of the country have on their hands is to get the land again under cultivation, to get stubble on the land to hold it down from drifting and blowing. I would urge on the government the absolute necessity of not being too penurious in handing out seed grain. They should be generous and should give to the people enough seed to enable them to get all the land they possibly can under cultivation. In most of this, land there has been no crop for three years and it is drifting and blowing about from place to place. The farmers are endeavouring to get stubble on the land to hold it down and if sufficient seed is not handed out, as some farmers are complaining, they will not be able to get their land under cultivation. If they cannot hold it from drifting we are liable to have the same thing repeated another year. I urge upon the government the importance of being generous, having regard to the conditions. If it is wet, give the farmers plenty of seed so they can get all their land under crop.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Under this legislation
will farmers in need of seed grain in the province of Quebec be able to obtain it by applying to the department? I have received numerous requests from farmers in my constituency who a-re in need of seed grain this spring. Will there be ample provision in this legislation to enable them to obtain it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Am I right in assuming
that the hon. member has taken the matter up with the premier of his province?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have not taken it up immediately because I thought that under this resolution, which is quite wide in its scope, it might be possible to cover this situation. Before I shall be in a position to answer adequately those who have communicated with me, I think it will be necessary for me to have an expression from the minister, not necessarily now, but after recess.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Up to date, so far as my
information goes, and I think I am fairly well informed on the subject, no representations have come to the dominion from the province concerned. I am subject to correction in this, but I do not think that the premier of Quebec has made any representations with respect to the matter.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: My information is that the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec last year made application to the Department of Agriculture for seed grain and was told that there was nothing for him.


Mr. REID:: Can the minister give any information in regard to British Columbia? I understand that they were making representations to carry on works. They have large camps and road projects which were started and left uncompleted. Many of the municipalities appealed to the provincial government some two or three months back to carry on municipal projects. The minister stated that all the provinces had agreed at the conference to go on with direct relief, but my information is that British Columbia wanted to carry on unemployment works.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have no desire to appear to be disrespectful to the hon. member, but if he will turn to my remarks as they will appear in Hansard and will follow the terms of the message sent to the premiers, he will see just what was arrived at. Certainly, we will not shut down works which have been approved of and started and where the shutting down would cause a loss. For instance, where a building is without a roof we will go on and complete it. There are entire contracts-I

Supply-Post Office
use the term in a legal sense-which have been entered into and which of necessity must be fulfilled. It was the unanimous opinion of the premiers that any works in the nature of buildings which would not have been gone on with in the ordinary course should not be started for the time being, because it was thought to be beyond the capacity of the provinces and the municipalities to pay for works of that character. It was felt that all work hereafter should be in the nature of direct relief wherever possible.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Post Office-Outside Service, salaries and allowances, $15,620,000.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $14,690,000.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service or in protecting His Majesty's mails, or to the dependents of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged, payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,000,000.
Yukon territory, $141,100.-Total, $31,451,100.
Alan Webster Neill: I -wish to briDg before the minister a matter about which I have had some correspondence with him from a different angle. It is a matter to which I think Canada owes some consideration. I refer to the case of those men who took pensions from the Pacific cable board, or rather from their successors, entitled International Communications Company, Limited. The situation is this. As the house may remember, the Pacific cable board was jointly owned by Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada in certain proportions, and the board operated a cable to Australia. For reasons which I need not go into they decided to sell out, which they did some years ago to the International Communications Company, Limited. I would refer to the debate on the subject in this house when the matter came up on May 14, 1929. I then stated that the Canadian terminal of the cable was in the constituency I represented at a place called Bamfield,
and I wanted to know if the employees of the board who entered its service somewhat as one would enter the government service here, with an understanding as to continuity of service, pension and so forth, would in the transfer have their rights as to continuity of service, pension and so forth safeguarded. The Postmaster General said that that provision was to be found in the agreement signed by the contracting parties. There was some debate about it, in which the member for Acadia took part, and further on the Postmaster General said:
The agreement provides that the company shall take over the existing staff of the board subject to and in accordance with the provisions set out in the second schedule thereof.
The Postmaster General went on to say that the rights of these employees were fully protected by the agreement to which I have referred. Following that up, the Postmaster General sent me a letter dated May 15, enclosing the second schedule of the agreement, and I want to comment on one or two of its clauses. Subsection 1 of section 2 thereof says that the company would employ the old employees of the Pacific cable board on at least as favourable terms as those they had been enjoying. Then it came to the question of those who, owing to the changed conditions, did not wish to continue with the new company but decided to take their rights of pension and so forth under the old board; there was a period of five years allowed during which they could exercise that right, and this is what was to happen if they did so exercise it. I quote:
The company

I differentiate between the board and the company, the board being the old organization and the company the new one. It provides that the company will pay to any man quitting under those conditions,-
-compensation of such amount by way of pension, gratuity or otherwise, as he would have received from any pension or provident fund of the board or from the board itself in accordance with its usual practice if he had retired on grounds of ill health from the service of the board.
Section 4 provided that any dispute between any employee of the company should be referred to the decision of a single arbitrator to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England. That was the old provision.
To put the matter shortly, the trouble arose because faith was not kept with these employees in the matter of their pensions. I quote now from one of these employees' letters:
Supply-Post Office

The following rule was made by the board (the old board) on March 22, 1922, prior to the payment of the first pension in Canada on March 31, 1922.
This is the rule:
It has been decided that as the pension fund is not a trust fund payments made in Canada on account of pensions or death gratuities will be at the standard rate of $4.87 to the pound and not at current rate.
This letter continues:
This rule was displayed for our information at the time we notified the company that we did not wish to transfer to it, and was not rescinded at the time we retired; this definite assurance influenced our decision to retire.
As indeed it well might. It goes on:
The company now states that this ruling is obsolete as the pension fund was constituted a trust fund on December 17, 1923, and that the regulations date from that time.


Mr. STEVENS:: The company changed it?


Alan Webster Neill: 
Arthur Sauvé: The remarks of the hon. member are very interesting, but I must say the matter does not come under my department; it concerns a private British company.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has not appreciated my point; I suggest it does come under his jurisdiction. These men were in his employ-or in our employ, if you like. We
traded them off without their knowledge or consent to a British corporation. We stipulated that in so doing that corporation must take care of those men under the terms at the time of their enlistment. They acquired a very valuable franchise and property from us.


Ernest Lapointe: That was under the Postmaster General.


Alan Webster Neill: It was the Postmaster General who made the contract. Hansard reveals where I asked the question, "Are those men going to be protected?" And the Postmaster General replied, "Yes, I have protected them. They come under the second schedule to this agreement." Although the Prime Minister is not in his seat he could support me in my statement that I had urged that the agreement be made part of the act. I foresaw the day might come when the bargain would be under consideration. The present Prime Minister supported me in my view, and arrangement was made by the then Minister of Justice to insert it. It is certainly our business to see that Canadian subjects are treated properly, especially when we have traded them off in that way. We should follow them up and see that the deal we made on their behalf is fulfilled.


Mr. VENIOT:: Perhaps I can make an
explanation which would help to clear matters. I think it was in 1929 that Canada relinquished her claims or rights to the cable system in which she was then interested. In that was included the cable to Cuba.


Ernest Lapointe: We were owners of part of it.


Peter John Veniot: We were paid so much, in the end. In relinquishing her claim, however, Canada entered into an agreement with this corporation by which they were to protect the men then employed so far as pensions were concerned. I take it the Postmaster General has jurisdiction to see that that agreement is being carried out.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: That is as far ias he can go. I would ask the Postmaster General to have the matter looked into carefully toy the Justice department to see wherein this corporation has failed in carrying out the agreement which was scheduled to the act at the time.


Arthur Sauvé: The question is under consideration.


Peter John Veniot: In order to simplify matters, Mr. Chairman, if the committee will look at page 61 they will find only two main items
Supply-Post Office


Ernest Lapointe: The whole item has been called.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Mr.   SAIJVE@: Mr. Chairman, 'before entering into discussion of post office estimates in their details, perhaps the committee will allow me to give a summary of the main operations of the department. I do not intend at this moment to take up the time of the committee with an explanation of details, but in the course of discussion I shall be glad to give any information which may be called for by the committee.
The Post Office estimates show a decrease of 84,688,875 from those of the preceding year. This has been effected by reducing every one of the four main items, and indicates a real endeavour to balance revenue and expenditure during the fiscal year 1932-33. The important point in connection with these estimates is that the total is lower than for any year since 1925-28 as the result of drastic cuts. In fact the total reduction in post office estimates during the past two years is more than six millions of dollars.
Turning for a moment to the question of revenue and expenditure, I might say for the information of the committee that an encouraging factor in connection with the financial position of the Post Office Department is a marked reduction in expenditure. According to the latest figures available, the expenditure for the fiscal year which closed on the 31st March, 1932, will not exceed $34,315,000, a decrease of over $1,975,000 as compared with the fiscal year 1930-31. Another factor is that the revenue for the fiscal year which closed on the 31st March last is estimated to be over $31,900,000, an increase of nearly $1,500,000 over the fiscal year 1930-31. In the latter year the deficit in postal operations was $5,876,496, but for the fiscal year which has just closed it is estimated that the deficit will not exceed $2,368,000, a reduction of over $3,500,000 in one year.
If the revenue remains at present levels during the fiscal year 1932-33 it will equal, if not exceed, the department's expenditures as provided for in the estimates now before the com-

mit'tee, and the deficit which has existed for several years past will have been wiped out in a period of two years.
In view of the policy that the post office operates for service and not profit, I do not consider it necessary that the postal service should show any marked surplus, 'but a deficit is undesirable, and I wish to assure the committee that every endeavour is being made in the administration of the department to render the best possible service at the lowest possible cost.
The reduction in revenue, caused by business depression, forced me to reduce the cost of the air mail service to $225,000 from $1,300,000, which was the figure for 1931-32, a reduction of $1,075,000. This reduction was not effected for pleasure but from necessity. It is usually much more agreeable to grant than to refuse. In these times of depression the task of reducing expenses, salaries and the number of employees, is extremely painful and presents a problem which, not being entirely solved, demands prudence and the greatest foresight. A great portion of these reductions are but temporary. It will be necessaty, however, to limit expenses in future, taking into account not only the government's finances, but the real needs of the country, as well as the various other means of transportation which have absorbed huge amounts of public funds due to previous lack of forethought.


Peter John Veniot: Before going into any
questions with the minister, may I be permitted to refer briefly to the remarks he has just made. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is quite right when he states that the Post Office Department should not be run with a view to showing a marked surplus. Let me add that in 1927 when the reduction in the cost of postage from three cents to two cents showed that for some time there would be a considerable deficit each year, I as Postmaster General brought the matter before the house. It was fully discussed, and the opinion was then expressed that, no matter what that deficit might be, while it would be well to balance our accounts as soon as possible, yet the mail service should not be allowed to depreciate in any way.
With that object in view I proceeded to lay out a program for the development of greater service in Canada, and without boasting at all I think I can say I was successful to a considerable extent in giving Canada, from 1927 to 1929 and 1930, one of the best mail services of any country in the world. I

Supply-Post Office
feel proud of that. I do not take the credit to myself personally as minister; I freely give it to the energetic, efficient and industrious staff who assisted me. They considered public service the very first thing that should be attended to. The extension of mail routes by train to sections of the three prairie provinces and British Columbia entailed a heavy expenditure, but both sides of the house were unanimous in authorizing the then Postmaster General to proceed with the work, after the program was laid out and it was shown that there would be deficits.
In addition we inaugurated an air mail service, and on that point permit me to say that I am indeed disappointed that the government has seen fit almost completely to destroy the foundation then laid for air mail service in Canada. It is true that the service was costly, but when I spoke on this subject last year I had facts and figures which I laid before the committee and by which I showed that if the services were continued the deficit would become less each year. At that time it appeared that the services would be continued, because the estimate for 1931-32 was no less than $1,500,000 or a little more than the estimate for 1930-31. It was believed all over the country that these services would be carried on, but we have seen what has happened. I am not blaming the Postmaster General for this, nor am I blaming any official of his department; the government as a whole must take the responsibility and the blame for what has been done.
What has been the result? At that time I pointed out that if the services were carried on over the routes then established, the worst that could happen would be a deficit for all the routes of about $390,000. It must not be forgotten that week by week, month by month and year by year the volume of business carried by the air mail was increasing. In 1930 it increased by more than 25 per cent, and it had not fallen off at the end of the fiscal year, 1931, when the then government brought in an estimate of $1,500,000 as the amount necessary to carry on the sendee. If it had been carried on this year as fully as was anticipated when that estimate was brought down, with the increase to three cents on what was known as the two cent air mail services there would have been an increase in revenue of about $190,000. The increase from five cents to six cents on what was known as the five cent routes also would have brought in a large increase. Let the department take the figures, and what will they find? They will find that every two cent route, such as the Magdalen islands
route, the north shore route to Anticosti and the Mackenzie river route to the Arctic circle, as well as the routes to isolated mining districts, showed a surplus for the year. There was a deficit of $650,000 on the five cent routes, but as I said a moment ago the traffic was increasing, and there was every reason to hope that this year the deficit would not have been more than from $350,000 to $390,000.
Now let me put this point: The United States, with a deficit of over two billion dollars, and a deficit of $60,000,000 on postal service, is not cutting down the air mail service. Great Britain, with millions of a deficit, is not cutting down either. Why is that? It is because Great Britain sees in the air mail service, just as we in the former government saw in the Canadian air mail service, a connecting link of empire, a connecting link with Europe, and ultimately a transatlantic service of which Canada would be the pivotal point on this continent. We saw that; we had the information in our possession, but that program has been dropped, though these other two countries are spending large sums of money on their air mail service in spite of their deficit. An immense amount of work was done and large sums of money were invested in order to carry out this program in Canada. There was a great forward movement in civil aviation of which postal aviation was the groundwork and foundation, because without it commercial aviation cannot be carried on in Canada. All that has gone by the board. Companies invested millions of dollars in equipping themselves to carry air mail, with the encouragement of the government, but to-day they see the capital they invested going to waste. The machines that they bought for that service cannot last until the government decides, two or three years hence, that an improvement in conditions will allow them once more to go on with the service. If any service in the country is essential to the progress of Canada it is the mail service of the Post Office Department; there is no question about that. Take, for instance, its effect with regard to other countries. When we lowered the rate to the Argentine Republic in 1929-we not only lowered the rate on first class matter but we raised the poundage of parcel post, extended it and reduced the rate-an additional revenue of nearly $200,000 was brought to the department. And when Canada was placed on the penny postage rate with England the department secured additional revenue. Now the rate has been raised to three cents and that advantage has been lost. If any account could be obtained with regard to mail com-
Supply-Post Office

munication between Canada and foreign countries, you would find that the service has been going down since the increase in postage. I predicted, when the increase in postage was put on, that the value of postage going through the mails would be affected, not so much by the depression as by the fact that we were imposing an additional tax upon those who could write; for people who can post eight letters for sixteen cents are not going to write four letters on which they will have to pay twelve cents. When the rate was raised on newspapers from one to one and a half cents per pound, the department lost revenue, and this revenue was lost by the shortsightedness not of the officials of the department nor of the minister but of those who undertook governmental retrenchment in a department of which they had no real knowledge or experience. The revenue from newspaper postage has declined notwithstanding the increase of one half cent per pound. The Montreal Star circulates three thousand papers in this city alone, but these papers are not being sent through the post as formerly, because the increase would cost the Star $80,000. To-day they are sending packages to distribution stations in Ottawa and elsewhere, not by the mail, as they did under the one cent rate, but by express; and within a radius of fifty miles of the great cities of Canada all the large newspapers are making more use of trucks and express, sending their papers to district news agents. They are using these conveyances more than they did under the one cent rate. We have lost revenue there by want of foresight, of judgment and of a proper discussion and understanding of the situation. I predict that the revenue lost by the mail service on newspapers alone will amount to over $225,000 a year.
It was in 1928, I think, that, as Postmaster General, I introduced a bill in this house reducing the rate on newspapers from a cent and a half to one cent. What was the result? In the next year there was an additional revenue of $250,000 from newspapers alone, and we are losing that now since we have raised the rate to a cent and a half. So that it is not always wise to increase rates; it does not always bring the expected volume of business. Very often it has the opposite effect, lowering the volume of business done by the department.
The minister tells us that the decreases amount to $4,600,000. How does he arrive at that figure? He lops off $1,000,000 from the air mail service and he is going to lose revenue by so doing. We are going to lose

a revenue, which we shall never get through the ordinary mail service, of over $600,000, by lopping off that $1,000,000 and discontinuing that service. That is another want of foresight.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did that cost
us?


Peter John Veniot: That cost $1,500,000, and
last year about $253,000 was spent of the amount voted, which was $1,500,000. The minister will save $4,000,000 by lopping off $1,000,000 on the air service, but that is not the worst feature. What about the reduction in the frequency of service in a great many places in Canada-a reduction due to the taking off of trains which heretofore carried mail to isolated places in the dominion? The lopping off of train service has not been followed by a corresponding addition to the mail service, because in many instances where the train ran daily and carried daily mail, now that the train service has been curtailed and, instead of reaching these people daily, reaches them only three times a week, there is no corresponding service to take the place of the service given by the trains on the * other three days of the week. True, the service is given in some places, but I know places where it is not; the service has been lopped off.
I have here the number of renewed mail contracts last year in the maritime provinces. And what do I find? I find that $32,370 less has been paid under these renewals than was being paid under the contracts as they existed before the renewals were asked for. What does that mean? Every hon. member who occupies a seat in this house to-night and who was here in 1929, will recall the onslaught made on the Postmaster General of that day because he was not increasing the contracts or would not put mail carriers on a monthly basis. I have here a circular issued to the public. Our friends opposite will recognize it, for every one of them used it. It called upon the people to vote against the then Liberal government because of the stubbornness and hardness of heart of the Postmaster General of that day, who would not increase the remuneration mail carriers were receiving under a system that gave them seventy dollars a month. At that time Mr. McKinnon referred to the other night by an hon. member from Quebec, was on the stump in every county to which he could get. He was canvassing on that very issue, and he did .more than canvass, he gave the mail contractors with whom he came in contact the promise which he had from the

Supply-Post Office
present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), who was then in opposition, that the program and policy laid down in 1929 by myself would be changed. My genial friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) said it was a disgrace for me as Postmaster General to pay such meagre pittances to our mail contractors. Mr. McKinnon said that he would get this contract system changed. The Postmaster General, bolstered up and advised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) and even the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) promised that if his party got into power the law would be changed. When I asked how this was going to ibe done, I think it iwas the Minister of Trade and Commerce who said: Put us there and we will show you how we will do it. We put them there-at least we did not, but the people did-and how did they do it? They reduced by $32,370 the renewals of former contracts. When we claimed that we had to abide by the tender system, hon. members opposite contended that we did not have to take the tenders as they came in; if they were not reasonable we could adopt a new system. What do I find under the present administration? Not only were they dissatisfied with the tenders that came in, but orders have gone forth to the district postal inspectors to get in touch with so and so and advise him that the department considers his tender too high and wishes to receive a reduced tender. I have reports before me which cannot be denied. This is how our friends opposite, who were so solicitous for the welfare of the poorly paid mail contractor, have acted. They said that their hearts were Weeding; they have bled so much they have no more consideration for the poor mail carrier.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: Is the
hon. member opposed to the tender system?


Peter John Veniot: I will be like Paddy; I will answer my hon. friend's question by asking a similar one-what is your view?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I think
it is only fair that the hon. member should answer my question.


Peter John Veniot: I have answered it.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I do not
think so.


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend reads Hansard, and I know he does, he must know that I am on record in 1929 as having refused to depart from the tender system. That is the reason why my Conservative friends, then in opposition, were so bitter in their attack upon
the department of which I was the head. I believe in the tender system; I am for it today, I always was for it and I hope it will never be changed.
Speaking about the tender system brings another question to my mind. I have in my possession somewhat of a revelation in connection with the tender system. The record shows that for the Hatfield Point mail contract, the old contractor was the lowest tenderer. There were six or seven tenders and the third or fourth highest tenderer was a young man of eighteen years of age.


An hon. MEMBER:: Eighty years?


Peter John Veniot: No, although I know of one mail contractor who is eighty-six years of age and does not miss a trip. The district postal inspector reported that this young man was not fit for the position; he was not of an age to enter into a contract, he had no vehicle or horses, but notwithstanding this report, word was sent to this man to lower his tender. He lowered his tender by ten dollars, which brought him below the lowest tenderer, the old contractor, and he was given the contract in spite of the report of the inspector.


An hon. MEMBER:: What government was that?


Peter John Veniot: The present government.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Did not
the hon. gentleman, while he was Postmaster General, dismiss men who- had made ithe lowest tenders and who were really responsible?


Peter John Veniot: Did I which?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Did you not dismiss them?


Peter John Veniot: No, I did not.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I can name a case right now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: All right, go on.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I refer to the case of Mr. Robert Reynold, of West Glassville. He was a reputable gentleman, well qualified to carry out the work, but was dismissed by the hon. member simply because of his political affiliations.


Peter John Veniot: I know the hon. gentleman does not deal in politics.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Neither do you.


Peter John Veniot: I know he does not deal in politics, but let me read one of his letters. This letter is dated July 24, 1931, and is
Sup-ply-Post Office

in connection with a post office in the hon. member's constituency. He writes to the Postmaster General as follows:
The time surely has come when this post office should no longer be a plaything for the few Liberals who are trying to use it as such in that locality. Mr. Barter has never given his personal attention to it. It is not his intention if he were appointed to do so, but to farm it out to somebody else.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Hear, hear.


Mr. YENIOT:: My hon. friend does not
know what he is saying "hear, hear" about, because he wrote the department in connection with Mr. Barter, and Mr. Barter has produced sufficient evidence to the department to prove that my hon. friend's statement was not well founded.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman-


Peter John Veniot: Take your medicine now,
My hon. friend wrote:
I have learned only yesterday that he does not even live at Lakeville himself but at Avondale.
Now what do we find? The hon. gentleman made that statement when he knows that that man lives within the rural route district.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: How far away?


Peter John Veniot: Not over two miles from
the post office.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: That is not correct, Mr. Chairman.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend himself
writes:
[DOT]-some few miles away from this place.
He admits it himself.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: It is more than two miles.


Peter John Veniot: A few miles cannot be
very much more than two miles, if I understand the meaning of the English word "few". Instead of my not telling the truth, as the hon. gentleman has stated, I produce his own letter before this committee which shows that he did not tell the truth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: It is all right for him to
make such a statement about me without being called to order, and you are delighted to hear him make such a statement. You do not call him to order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I did not make a statement that was not correct.


Peter John Veniot: You did. I have your letter here in which you say:
Under the circumstances I desire to protest very strongly against his having anything to do with the office again.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: I did not intend on rising,
Mr. Chairman, to go into this matter at the present time. To discuss the minister's statement was all that I intended to do, and later on to come back to these things. But I know the tendency of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton so well. I have been acquainted with him for a long number of years and I have seen him when he is cornered; I have seen the corns on his political toes trampled on so hard that he could not keep quiet, and therefore I prepared myself in advance.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: Order. The hon. member for Gloucester has a right to make his speech.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Please
state the question of privilege.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: The hon. member for Gloucester has made a statement from his place in the house that is not correct, and I think it is only right that he should be asked to qualify it.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the hon. member quote the statement to which he refers.


Peter John Veniot: That is not a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member says that I made a statement that is not correct and he does not specify the statement. Surely it cannot be the letter I read.
What are the circumstances connected with this very nice letter, this charitable, friendly letter, not political in any sense of the word? This man Barter was a returned soldier. He himself and three or four of his brothers went overseas. He came back and became assistant postmaster at Lakeville. When the postmaster retired-he had been appointed by the Civil Service Commission-this man applied for the position of postmaster, and he was appointed to that position in 1930, if I mistake not. However, Hansard will show, because I put the whole record on Hansard last session. Then the office was moved to a store known, I believe, as Miss Wilson's store. At all events there was a young lady in charge and she was put temporarily in charge of the post office. The reason for the change as

Supply-Post Office
stated in the department records was that the post office was not centrally located, but the postmaster was never notified of that. and never was asked if he could furnish a more centrally located site for the office. He was summarily dismissed for that reason, which was no reason at all for dismissal unless it was a case of a postmaster refusing to obey the orders of the department and finding a proper site, which does not apply here. The vacancy was advertised. There were several applicants, among them the young lady temporarily in charge of the post office, and this man Barter. Not having been dismissed for any valid reason he was entitled under the Civil Service Act to apply again, and the Civil Service Commission issued a certificate in his favour some time in the month of January, but from that time down to the present no permanent appointment has been made by the department. One of the reasons why it has not been made is this letter from the hon. member for Vietoria-Carleton-and the hon. gentleman says that he does not interfere in public matters politically. I say that the reason there has been no permanent appointment is found in that letter; and according to the investigation, according to the reports, according to the record of this man when he was postmaster up to 1931, every statement made in that letter is disproved as to residence, as to his being a political partisan during the time he was engaged as postmaster. They put forth evfery effort to discover something against this man in order to dismiss him. They could not dismiss him for political partisanship, and so overnight somebody thought of this other ground for dismissal, and he was dismissed on the ground that the post office was not centrally located. Let me go on.


Mr. SMITH (Vietoria-Carleton):: You are labouring pretty hard.


Peter John Veniot: Not labouring as much as you will have to labour to answer for your political sins in the county of Vietoria-Carleton.
Let me now point out another step that was taken to bring about this reduction in expenditure of $4,600,000. Up until last fall regulations had been in force in the department for a number of years governing the working hours of the men in the large cities, the postal clerks, the postal messengers, the distributors, the mail delivery men in the cities. Under those regulations the men had to work so many hours on a Sunday and so many hours at night before they could be paid overt'me for additional work. We find that that regulation has been changed and that the hours
which the men have now to work before they can begin to earn overtime pay have been extended one and even two hours. In addition this took place just about the time that the ten per cent cut in the salaries of these men was decided upon. Not satisfied with a reduction of ten per cent they added to the working hours, which is equivalent to a reduction in salary. They did not, however, consider the effect of the new regulation, because the circular sent out claims the right to bring the men back to work in order to complete a certain number of hours, even if they have to go two, three or four times, if necessary, to the office. What does that mean? To the men living in large cities it means extra expenses in carfare, and so on. Here again they are taking away from the men in an effort to meet the reduction in expenditure of $4,600,000.
The Postmaster General refers to the revenue of the department. He has said that with the curtailment of expenditures, the cutting of salaries, the lessening of the frequency of mails between certain points in Canada, the savings of a million dollars per year in air mail service, he hopes within the next two years to wipe out the deficit. I hope so, too. If I were in his place, however, I would not boast about wiping out a deficit in two years, if in so doing the mail service in Canada is in part destroyed. If within the next two years the Postmaster General wipes out the deficit at such a cost in service to Canada, then I claim he is not doing justice to himself or to the Canadian people.
I do not intend to go any further into the remarks made by the minister. I have several cases to place before him, not with the intention of advancing any personal criticism. When in office I was accused of allowing outside political influence to affect my judgment in the administration of the Post Office Department to the extent of causing injury to others. If such injustices have taken place since he has been in office I do not place the entire blame upon him. He came into office as a new man; he began working in a department where it had taken me a long time to learn the ropes and how to handle this, that or the other case. I do not place the entire blame upon the minister. He may not have had the courage to resist- I am not referring particularly to outside influence, but the influence of those sitting around him, the members of the government who advise him and discuss matters with him. In the government of to-day there are five or six ministers who on every occasion condemned the former Postmaster General for

Supply-Post Office

doing the .very things the present Postmaster General is doing to-day. He is not acting in his own name, but in the names of his colleagues who place matters before him for his attention. In some cases the law is violated, in others there is an abuse of power, -all to carry out the will of and promises made by members of the cabinet sitting with him in council. Those same gentlemen sat in opposition and at every move made by the former Postmaster General they would suggest that political influence had been used. Those same gentlemen to-day are to blame for the injustices done to employees of the Post Office Department throughout Canada, injustices done to mail contractors, and in connection with the dismissals of postmasters.
Accusations were made against me to such an extent that one might have thought I deserved to be locked behind the bars. During my four years in office I dismissed 164 postmasters for political reasons. What is the record of hon. gentlemen opposite who condemned so severely the former Postmaster General? They uphold and applaud the present head of the department because after only eighteen months in office he has dismissed 454 for political reasons. With those remarks Mr. Chairman. I shall take my seat, but may speak to other matters which come up later.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman, without attempting to be boisterous along the same lines as has the hon. member for Gloucester-


Peter John Veniot: You could not if you
would.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: -I dare to say just a few words in refutation of what the hon. member has said concerning the postmaster at Lakeville, and the dismissal of postmasters in my constituency. Last session the hon. member made. a laboured attempt to make it appear that the postmaster at Lakeville, Carleton county, New Brunswick, who had been dismissed, was a returned soldier with five or six dependent children. That statement was not correct. The postmaster at Lakeville to whom he referred was Mr. Barter. He has not one dependent child. His children are able to take care of themselves; and he does not live in the vicinity of the Lakeville post office, but at a distance of three or four miles from that place. When my hon. friend tries to make it appear that the Civil Service Commission has not dealt fairly in this instance he is certainly making a laboured attempt which cannot be justified by the facts.


Peter John Veniot: I never said a word about the Civil Service Commission not dealing fairly with this matter.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Mr. Chairman, I did hear the hon. gentleman say-


Peter John Veniot: You did not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I did hear the hon. gentleman say certain representations had been made to the Civil Service Commission, and they had taken no action.


Peter John Veniot: I made no such statement, and Hansard will show that I did not. I said representations were made to the Post Office Department, and no action had been taken.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Peter John Veniot: I have a perfect right to
get up and correct a statement made by an hon. gentleman when he places words in my mouth that I never uttered.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I am perfectly willing that hon. members to-morrow should read Hansard to see what the hon. gentleman did say.


Ernest Lapointe: We will do it.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: The facts are that in this particular case Mr. Barter was appointed because of political partisanship, the post office was removed from a central point in that locality, and in the new location the revenues decreased by at least forty per cent. Just to please my hon. friend and some of his supporters in that particular locality the post office was removed. It remained there until this party came into power, when I asked for it to be placed back at the old central point where it would best serve the public interest. Mr. Barter does not live in that locality at all. The lady who has the post office at the present time does live in the locality, the post office is now centrally located, and it is giving the people full satisfaction; but my hon. friend wants to have it moved away again. These are the facts so far as this post office is concerned.
Now, if my hon. friend wants to be sincere I would ask him to explain just why it was that without cause he dismissed Mr. Robert Reynold from the postmastership of West Glassville and took from him the mail contract which he had tendered for and rightly got. Was not the reason simply that Mr. Reynold was opposed politically to the hon. gentleman, and the latter's friends asked for his dismissal? Mr. Reynold is one of the most reputable gentlemen in that particular section

Supply-Post Office
of the country. I would ask him also why he dismissed the old postmaster at Centreville, Mr. Clark, who had been giving the public good service for over fifty years. His son was acting as his assistant. The ex-Postmaster General dismissed that old man, and broke his heart. I would ask him these questions- questions that are really pertinent to this discussion. I want my hon. friend, if he can, to explain to this committee why he took those steps under the circumstances. I think the hon. gentleman's record so far as dismissals are concerned is too well known for him to attempt to make himself appear as one who will do something to-day in order to rectify matters of this kind. We all know there are certain cases through the country districts where postmasters perhaps ought to be dismissed, and there are other cases where postmasters ought not to be dismissed; but my hon. friend while he was head of the department sought on every possible occasion to dismiss w'ithout cause postmasters who were really qualified to perform their work in the best interests of the public, and to put in their place men who were not qualified in any way whatever.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I may bring the discussion back from New Brunswick politics, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the committee to another aspect of the economy program. It is rather interesting to note that the post office is one of the very few revenue-bearing departments. The Minister of Finance told us the other day in his presentation of the budget:
Collections from the various public services, it is estimated will total $54,000,000. Post office, which is the major contributor under this head, will show an increase of $1,500,000 due to the raise in postage rates and because postage stamps may now be used for certain excise stamp taxes. The post office revenues are estimated at $31,748,000 as against expenditures estimated at $34,550,000. This does not include disbursements made by other departments on account of post office, nor does it. on the other hand, give any credit for handling the mail of the various branches of the public service free of charge.
Now. with a department of this character which has been revenue bearing, and in fact profit producing, in the past, and has only recently fallen behind because of the general depression, it does seem as if we ought not to carry such ruthless economy into that department. The Postmaster General told us a few minutes ago that the post office was run for service and not for profit. But he went on to say he believed the best possible service should be given at the lowest possible cost. I think in a general way of course we would 41761-156J
agree with that statement, but it does seem to me the cuts which are being made to-day in the salaries of postmasters and in the amounts granted in some cases to rural postmasters are altogether beyond reason.
There is no class of public servants which have greater sympathy from the public at large than the postmen who bring our letters daily to our doors, and I want to refer to them particularly to-night. We in this corner have had a rather interesting experience. A few years ago we were cooperating very closely with the Conservatives, who then sat at my right, in pleading for higher salaries for postal employees.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The trouble is there has been a reversal of roles, and to-day it is the former Postmaster General, whom we attacked very bitterly at that time, who is appealing for better treatment of postal employees.


Peter John Veniot: I am merely asking hon.
gentlemen opposite to keep their promises.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Tories never keep their promises.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope in this case they will keep their promises. I pleaded then for higher salaries for postal employees; my position is the same to-day. I think the lower paid employees are not given enough remuneration. But unfortunately instead of salaries being raised they are now being cut. I desire to call the attention of the house to a circular recently issued by the Post Office Department, P.S.B. 196, dated April 11, addressed to postmasters throughout the country. These are the first two paragraphs:
The postmaster is advised that the item which for some years appeared in the estimates to cover overtime and statutory holiday pay, has been deleted from the estimates for 1932-33. Moveover, the amount provided for salaries for 1932-33, even outside of the ten per cent deduction. has been greatly reduced.
These facts leave the department no alternative but to modify the regulations governing overtime, hours of duty and compensation for work performed on statutory holidays.
That is, we have this situation: The expenditures of a department that has been revenue bearing, that has been so well managed that in the past it has brought some profits, and which this year may suffer a slight decrease, is being cut down in part by the reduction of the salaries of the ordinary postmen. They with other civil servants are asked to lose ten per cent, and in addition are to suffer still further reductions and losses. The next three or four paragraphs of the
Supply-Post Office

circular show what economy means in the case of the postmen. It must be remembered also that this circular was issued without any consultation whatever with the postal employees. It has been the custom in the past, when alterations were to be made in working arrangements, to call the postal employees into consultation. Certainly when the postmen asked for increases there were always conferences between the employees and the department. Nothing of that kind has been done in this ease. Concessions which have been gradually won through years of steady effort are taken away at one stroke of the pen. I continue reading from the circular:
The regulation weekly period of duty will continue to be forty-four hours, and the departments wishes, if possible to so arrange the staffs that it will not be necessary to call upon any employees to work more than that period.
On the very face of it that takes away the regulation week. It still exists as a kind of pious ideal, but in practice the employees cannot depend upon their regular weekly work. Undoubtedly an effort will be made to increase this period whenever any emergency arises. I read further:
In order to perform the work with the money available, however, it will be absolutely essential to arrange the staffs so that the number of employees on duty at any particular time of the day will not exceed the number actually required to perform the work in hand at that time.
Again, on the face of it that may not sound very serious, but in practice it means that there is to be such rearrangement, as is indicated in the succeeding paragraphs, as will materially increase the time worked by each employee. It means that the most rigorous efficiency methods are to be applied and that in their application there will be a cutting down of wages and an increase in the time worked. I read further:
It follows that the eight hour daily period of duty cannot, in all cases, be subject to a minimum spread of hours, or even to two attendances. Moreover, the concession granted by the department whereby seven hours night work and six hours Sunday work have been considered as a full day, can be no longer operative.
As I understand the situation, this means that the postal employee may be called out two or three or four or five or six times during the day. Formerly his work was spread over a certain period of time, so that he would not be called more than twice in the one day. This meant that he knew what hours he would be free, and could employ those free hours. It meant that he could go home and spend the evening with his family. Only the other 
day I had a letter from the wife of a postman who said very bitterly that she supposed that from now on she would never know whether her husband would be home regularly to spend the evening. He might ibe called out and his period of work extended in a most arbitrary fashion. Further than that, the period of night work is to be increased and the six hours when worked on Sunday will no longer constitute a day's work. I read further:
The department desires, however, to maintain the forty-four hour week wherever possible-
I do not know how much that may mean; it depends very largely, I take it, on the local postmaster.
-and to keep Sunday work to the minimum.
Again, the effect of these words "to the minimum" depends very largely upon the local postmaster and upon the amount of work at hand at any particular time.
The fact that no money is provided in the estimates for the fiscal year 1932-33 makes it impossible to continue the granting of compensation to employees at the rate of time and a half for time worked in excess of the weekly period and extra remuneration for work performed on statutory holidays.
In the past, if men worked beyond their regular time they were paid time and a half, which meant that the department, wishing to be as economical as possible, would not very often overwork these men, and the men could count on that. In rush times, however, the men were willing to go back and work because they received added compensation. The same applied to working on statutory holidays, but now those concessions are to be swept away.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Is it suggested that this is merely a temporary arrangement?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, there is nothing to indicate that. In brief, as I understand it, this circular means first that there is to be a decrease of staff. That is a very serious thing at this time of great unemployment. I need not labour the matter in this committee, Mr. Chairman, but it does seem to me that at a time when there are hundreds of thousands of men out of work and not knowing what to do, the government departments ought not to be cutting down in this fashion. It is not that there is not enough work to do; there is work enough, but the reduction is being made only by working the men longer hours. It would seem to me that during a period of unemployment the reasonable thing would be to cut down hours, say from the eight hour day to the six hour day, but

Supply-Post Office
instead of that according to this circular the working day is being lengthened at this time when so many are unemployed and need work.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No extra pay.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Further, it not
only means no extra pay, as has been suggested, but it means an actual decrease in pay. It means that the postal employee is being cut down by his ten per cent reduction; it means that he is being cut down to the extent of his statutory increase, and in the third place he is being cut down in the amount that he hitherto has received for overtime and for working during statutory holidays. This involves a very serious reduction in the remuneration of those who are already underpaid. It also means a general worsening of conditions because of the irregularity which henceforth must characterize the work of the postal employee.
I should like the Postmaster General to explain very definitely the reason why the department has taken this action. I should like him to justify it. A week or so ago I directed that question to him, and his only reply was to hand me a copy of the circular and say that at some other time he would be willing to make whatever answers I required.


Arthur Sauvé: I gave you a statement also.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, just a brief
statement, but does the minister think this statement is good enough? I feel quite certain it is not good enough for this house, and I would like to have some real justification for this action, the results of which I have been trying to outline. I think the public expressions of opinion already have had an influence with regard to this matter. I do not know whether or not the circular has been put into force. If it is not already in force I hope it will be cancelled, and in the meantime if there is any justification whatever for it I hope the Postmaster General will proceed to give that justification in as great detail as possible.


Arthur Sauvé: In view of the economic
situation due to practically world-wide conditions, and in view also of the government's policy to effect economies wherever possible, it was necessary to make a careful study of the postal service from an administrative standpoint and to reduce the estimates to an amount which would be more in accordance with the postal revenue. With very few exceptions, post office expenditures have shown an increase each year over the preceding year since confederation, and while there
has been an enormous growth in the revenue of the department during this period, there has been considerable variation in the receipts from year to year, with the result that during the past ten years there have been only three in which there has been a surplus. For the five-year period ended March 31, 1931, there has been a steadily growing deficit, which for the year 1930-31 amounted to nearly *6,000,000. In the interests of good administration, this unfavourable balance could not be allowed to become larger, inasmuch as the Post Office Department was functioning only at the expense of other revenue producing departments of government. This is the reason why last year we reduced the estimates for 1931-32 by nearly $1,375,000. That reduction, together with the increase in revenue since the introduction of the three cent postage on July 1, 1931, which I mentioned in my introductory statement, has brought an increase of $1,500,000, and this will result in reducing the deficit for the year just closed to about $2,368,000 as compared with a deficit of $5,876,000 for the fiscal year 1930-31. While this million and a half dollars is an improvement, it does not represent a normal increase in postal revenue, being the result of an increased postage rate; and unless business improves to a considerable extent in the very near future, the revenue of the department for the fiscal year 1932-33 will show very little improvement over that of the fiscal year ended March 31 last.
From the above it will be as readily apparent to the committee as it was to the department that if any real effort were to be made towards improving the financial position of the department it was necessary to reduce the estimates and at the same time retain the three-cent letter rate.


Mr. DUFF:: What is the difference in
revenue between the two years?


Arthur Sauvé: The deficit in 1930-31 was
$5,876,000 and the deficit in 1931-32, estimated, was $2,367,000, an estimated decrease in deficit, in 1931-32, of $3,508,749.


William Duff: The minister did not understand my question; I did not ask what the deficit was. What I want to know is what the revenue for 1931 was, as compared with 1930.


Arthur Sauvé: We have a million more this year.


William Duff: What was the gross amount
each year?
Supply-Post Office


Mr.   SAIJVE@: If the hon. member will allow me to finish my statement in answer to the ex-Postmaster General I will give him the figures he asks for.


William Duff: The minister was speaking a
moment ago about revenue, and I should like to know what the revenue was last year and what it is this year up to the end of March.


Mr. POULIOT:: The minister is not working now; he is labouring.


Arthur Sauvé: The revenue in 1931-32 was
531,947,750, and in 1930-31, $30,416,106, an increase of $1,531,644.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister please
give the figures again for 1932?


Arthur Sauvé: In 1931-32 the estimate is $31,947,750.


William Duff: That is the estimate for this
year. I want to know the amoimt collected last year and the amount collected the year before-the actual figures; that is only an estimate.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member will find
the answer at page 10 of the report of the Postmaster General.


William Duff: A moment ago the minister
gave the estimated revenue for 1932 as $31,947,000; in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance gave the estimated revenue as $31,748,000. There is a difference of $200,000. Who is right, the Minister of Finance or the Postmaster General?


Ernest Lapointe: Both are wrong.


Arthur Sauvé: I thank the hon. member for Quebec East for his answer.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, the honourable Postmaster General


Arthur Sauvé: In all fairness
for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who .just asked me a question, would my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville allow' me to give the former a few explanations?


Vincent Dupuis: At all times
I have dealt fairly with the hon. Postmaster General and I am quite willing tu go on doing so for another few minutes.


Arthur Sauvé: I would ask
the hon. member to supplement his statement with the words: "In order to enable the minister to act courteously towards the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre."


Jean-François Pouliot: In the meantime we are acquiring knowledge.
[Mr Duff.]


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What information may be secured is so much more added to one's knowledge.


Arthur Sauvé: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: That is not correct.


Arthur Sauvé: That is my information.
It should be borne in mind that while postal employees have all the benefits which accrue to them as civil servants, they have also been granted privileges usually given, only to employees who are paid an hourly rate. While some of these privileges previously granted are now being refused, no hardship will be caused to the postal workers. I might add [DOT]that these conditions are only temporary and are made necessary by the present economic situation and decrease in business.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman-


Vincent Dupuis: I have the floor.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, I have no
objection to your saying who has the floor, but I do object to another hon. member saying it. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?

Supply-Post Office


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: The hon.
member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis).


Vincent Dupuis: A few moments ago I was
courteous enough to yield the floor to the Postmaster General, and I should like to keep it now. I have very great esteem for hon. members in the far corner, but I think they get a large share of the floor.
For a few minutes I shall continue the argument raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Having been a civil employee in the railway mail service, I know something about what these employees have to do at the present time as compared with what they had to do when I was a member of the staff. The information I have received from friends who are still in the service is to the effect that under the present regime they have to do twice as much as they had to do under previous regimes, either Liberal or Conservative, and in spite of this they receive less money. For instance, these men used to have to work only three or four days a week, but now they are forced to work every day and sometimes on Sundays. The question as to who has the floor being put aside, I am completely in accord with the argument raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think the postal employees should receive the same consideration as employees in other branches. Eight hours a day may be the rule for other branches in the postal service, but that is not the regulation in the case of the railway mail clerks. If the suggestion put forth by the hon. member is adopted by the department it would mean that more citizens would be given work and a chance to care for their families, and fewer would require direct relief.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I will speak in my own language because, like the Postmaster General, I am more familiar with that than with English.
(Translation):	Mr. Chairman, I regret
having to bring before the house a matter that should never have been raised but I feel it my duty to do so as a matter of public interest. On several occasions, the present government boasted of the high plane of their politics. I still recollect how, during the first session it was my privilege to attend, the then Prime Minister, in his spurts of high flown eloquence, would enthuse over the great principles of freedom and statesmanship. And indeed, my admiration would then go to the hon. leader of the opposition at the time, not only on account of his glibness, but also because he soared above petty politics


Ernest Lapointe: Do you
mean the leader of the opposition at Ottawa or at Quebec?


Vincent Dupuis: I also remember, as stated by my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the former leader of the opposition at Quebec; I remember his characteristic eloquence, his poise, and the dignified tone of his remarks; I remember how, in his accustomed flights of oratory, he used to advocate those great principles in the days when he was honoured with the leadership of that wonderful opposition in the Quebec legislature-


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, how
touching are these words!


Arthur Sauvé: Inspiration is
lacking.


Vincent Dupuis: You will get all the inspiration you want from the people at the next election.


Mr. GO BEIL (Translation):: It is starting.


Vincent Dupuis: Unless the
political life of the hon. minister should end in the Senate.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That would be worth while.


Vincent Dupuis: I remember-


Ernest Lapointe: He is sly.


Vincent Dupuis: I remember how he strongly stood for ideal principles; but what a change has occurred since, and that to my great sorrow, when the very same men- the former leader of the opposition in this house and the former leader of the opposition at Quebec-came into power, after the 30th of October, and assumed the responsibility of government. What a change has taken place, and how startling that change was! What did we find? As far as I am concerned, I found a condition for which I must express my appreciation to the hon. Postmaster General. During the first days of the session, after the good people, who at one time had taken stock in the promises made by our hon. friends on the other side of the house, and realized that they could not expect anything, they made a rush to secure the jobs under the control of the powers that be. And then, the hon. Postmaster General was deluged with such a large number of applications that he knew not which way to turn. I still remember his first replies-as they may be found in the public records. For instance, to those asking for the dismissal of a rural mail contractor he would reply-
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: What item is my honourable friend speaking on?


Vincent Dupuis: I will give it in French and should the hon. Postmaster General so desire-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is in order to discuss any matter.


Vincent Dupuis: I will quote it in the English language.


Arthur Sauvé: I simply wish to take note of it.


Vincent Dupuis: I refer to item 281, on page 63, which also includes: "Mail service by ordinary land conveyance comprising rural mail delivery". Is the hon. ministers wish gratified?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes; it is so that I may better catch the meaning of the statement.


Vincent Dupuis: If that be practically the only power left to you; catch it. To revert to my argument, I remember the Postmaster General saying at the time: "We cannot dismiss rural mail contractors so long as such employees are doing their duty, because they are not under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. They are just contractors and, consequently, we cannot dismiss them unless it be established that they are guilty of political partisanship while discharging their duties and have been remiss therein as a result of such activities."
To make my point clear, may I quote from Sessional Paper No. 381, 1931, respecting rural mail delivery' routes No. 1 and 2, at Sherrington, county of 'Napierville. The minister received from his political friends in that district, numerous letters informing him that a man by the name of Roch Lussier, who, may I say incidentally, is a farmer, the father of thirteen children and the supporter of his aged parents, respectively 80 and 84 years old and both living with him-


Jean-François Pouliot: That is of no account to them.


Vincent Dupuis: 
Ernest Lapointe: He is weak


Vincent Dupuis: I hold him to be a good citizen, a good Canadian; I admired him when he was in Quebec and I dislike those who maliciously say of him: "A man may shine as a subordinate officer and be a failure as leader". I do not agree with them; I admire the Postmaster General; the only weakness I find with him is that he is too easily caught. A few minutes ago, he stated how fond he was of apprehending; personally, I rather think he enjoys being apprehended1-I mean in his disquisitions, of course.


Arthur Sauvé: Do not attempt it.


Vincent Dupuis: Then, after
pressure had been exerted upon the hon. minister, an investigation was granted in the case of Roch Lussier. What came out of that inquiry? A horrid crime, in the eyes of the Conservatives. On the 28th of July, 1930-the hon. minister still remembers the unexpected victory achieved by his party-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Unexpected and fortuitous.


Vincent Dupuis: The Conservative party had come into power, but the member for Laprairie-Napierville, a Liberal, has been elected. So, on election night, the citizens of Laprairie-Napierville celebrated my success; they "wetted" it, may I say, and I am sure, the honourable minister will not blame them.


Arthur Sauvé: It was raining heavily.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: A storm
was raging.


Vincent Dupuis: To such an
extent that the fire department had to be called upon. I beg your pardon, that was the following day. On the night I refer to they were celebrating the election of the Liberal candidate.

Supply-Post Office


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Vincent Dupuis: Poor Roch
Lussier happened to be there. Such was the outcome of the inquiry. The next day, the news came that throughout the country, the Conservative party had won the election, and then it was that, the friends of the Conservatives, of Mr. Bennett and the Postmaster General, in order to keep up with the Liberals of Sherrington, also held a celebration, but with much more bluster. At any rate, they only acted as my hon. friends opposite always do: At the least thing that happens to them they smash their desks-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	They
lose their heads.


Vincent Dupuis: -In their noisy enthusiasm.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: When the
price of butter goes up.


Vincent Dupuis: When the price of butter is increased a cent-


Jean-François Pouliot: They rejoice with drums beating.


Vincent Dupuis: -they beat the drums, and when the price of butter goes down, they may be seen scurrying away through the lobbies, with long drawn faces and as mute as fish. But, on that particular night the enthusiasm of the hon. Postmaster General's friends rose to such a pitch that a scrap seemed impending. And so some of our friends, the parish authorities themselves, decided to put an end to the celebration and, were it to become too noisy, to call out the fire department,-and, as it appears, poor Roch Lussier was one of the crowd. Such was the crime discovered against that employee.


Ernest Lapointe: A fire hose crime.


Vincent Dupuis: And notwithstanding the letter, a really touching letter, written by Roch Lussier to the Postmaster General, on the 15th of May, 1931, in the hope of enlisting his sympathy, and part of which read as follows:
I am just in receipt, from Mr. Taylor, district superintendent at Montreal, of a letter advising me that my contracts for rural mail delivery shall expire three months from to-day.
Note that to an inquiry previously made by him, the hon. Postmaster General had replied that Lussier's contract would not expire until 1934.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He forgot all about it.


Vincent Dupuis: And Mr. Lussier goes on:
I imagine you are not aware of the fact that I am the father of eleven children and that I also support, in these hard times, an old man of 84 years of age. You are reducing my family to absolute want; and I sincerely hope, hon. sir, that you will take pity on the poor man I am, who besides being crippled, must provide for a large family.
And because of his having joined others who were celebrating the victory of the 28th July, that unfortunate employee was dismissed-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He shall pay for that.


Vincent Dupuis: -in spite of the statement repeatedly made by the Postmaster General that these employees could take part in politics provided they did not do so while discharging their duties.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He shall
pay for that.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, there is another case to which I would like to call the attention of the hon. Postmaster General; I refer to the case of the postmaster at Laprairie. The case is familiar to him. I see him shaking his head and laughing at the same time; but I know that inwardly he does not feel like laughing.


Arthur Sauvé: I am not laughing at the case.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. minister is familiar with the case. I may point out, Mr. Chairman, that my intention in referring to these matters is merely to show how we in the province of Quebec have cause to be ashamed of the position taken by the Postmaster General in connection with these dismissals since he is in charge of the department. I wish to bring this before the committee because the case is typical of the practice generally followed in every constituency of the province of Quebec. Indeed, it is humiliating.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.


Vincent Dupuis: When we see the conditions obtaining in other provinces, when the other members of the government as well as the former members of the cabinet, are real statesmen and are above petty politics; when we see the hon. Postmaster General stooping down to such pettiness, we are ashamed of our own province, of our race. Such policies should cease and the Postmaster
24S2
Supply-Post Office

General should try to vindicate his position before the committee. That is the only reason why I rose in this committee.
Reverting to the case of the postmaster-


Arthur Sauvé: You are hurting your own party.


Vincent Dupuis: No, I am not hurting my own party; the hon. minister is wrong in saying that. I know beforehand the argument he will resort to; he will try to claim that his predecessor in office followed the same course. Yesterday, when he intimated having made two dismissals, I protested, saying: "More unemployed", and I heard him reply: "We have precedents." I fancy that in his own opinion-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. gentleman has spoken twenty minutes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He may speak forty minutes.


Vincent Dupuis: I once made a speech of twenty minutes, and was cut off at the wrong point. I should not like a similar occurrence on this occasion.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I was saying that yesterday the Postmaster General was invoking precedents. Without admitting his argument, which is a specious one, I am wondering how such a responsible man as the Postmsater General could avail himself of a precedent in itself unacceptable. When his friends were sitting on this side of the house, it was considered by them a poor policy to dismiss employees at random, with or without sufficient grounds. But, I revert to the hon. minister's argument who claims I should not appeal to their own precedents. When my friends were in office and made dismissals, they only did so after being satisfied beyond doubt that the man was guilty of actual partisanship, and that the offence had been of frequent occurrence, day in and day out, year in and year out. Personally, I know of requests made to us, as well as to the late Roch Lanctot, during the many years he sat in this house; I also am aware that for a period of five or six years, Mr. Lanctot repeatedly declined to have anything to do with dismissals.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Vincent Dupuis: And the simple reason was that as a rule, the granting of such requests for the dismissal of an employee results in an injustice being committed, and from a political standpoint, the procedure is also unsound inasmuch as for every vacancy chere are as many as 20, 30, 40 applicants, and

only one can be appointed. The hon. Postmaster General did not know that, but he will realize it at the next election.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He shall pay for it.


Vincent Dupuis: I now come to' the case of Cesaire Gagne, a venerable old man whose only fault was that of being a Conservative. I refer to one of those requests for dismissals with which Mr. Lanctot would have nothing to do. For a period of for four or five years, Mr. Lanctot had disregarded the pressure brought to bear upon him, but finally as result of repeated demands from the majority of the electors in the parish of Sherrington, an inquiry was granted. I was present at the hearing, and what was the reresult? When Mr. Patenaude would visit the constituency, Mr. Gagne would rush to the hall where the meeting was held and act as chairman. And, it was also established that in election time the committee rooms at Sherrington were located on Mr. Gagne's premises in his own garage. Such were the political aetivi-tivities that were brought to light.
Is Mr. Noel Fontaine's case similar? Fontaine had been, during fifteen years, one of the principal Liberal organizers of Laprairie-Napierville. He was a carriage maker by trade; when automobiles made their appearance in this country, Noel Fontaine, like all other carriage makers, had to give up his trade. When the position of postmaster became vacant, Mr. Roch Lanctot, who was of a generous disposition, deemed it his duty to help this citizen, he had him appointed postmaster. Then, quite content with his new post, Mr. Noel Fontaine notified us, previous to the election of 1930, that he was entirely through with politics, because of his age, he did not wish to jeopardize his position, the only means he had of earning a livelihood. The hon. Postmaster General is aware of these facts. Mr. Fontaine notified me of his decision. I approved of it. He did not leave the premises of the post office neither before, nor during the election, nor after, except to fulfil his duties as a citizen.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	And,
to go to church.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Fontaine did not even vote. It was proved at the inquiry held that Mr. Fontaine was not present at any meeting, neither liberal nor conservative; he did not even vote. What happened? An inquiry was held-the petty system of holding investigations, which I call the paltry system of third class politicians of

Supply-Post Office
instituting investigations simply with the idea and determination of creating vacancies to appoint friends. That is the attitude taken by the hon. Postmaster General.


Arthur Sauvé: This system of holding inquiries was introduced by the Liberal party, in 1923.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, that is
a fact, but to hold serious inquiries, not the German way of investigating, but inquiries according to the principles of liberalism, to do justice to whom justice is due; not inquiries held with the well set determination of dismissing those charged with political partisanship. Not inquiries simply to cover up one's failings or simply to throw dust in the people's eyes, but real inquiries.
The inquiry held in connection with the case of Noel Fontaine constitutes the greatest injustice ever committed. Had it only been an exceptional case in the administration of the Post Office Department, I would not have mentioned it, but this is a general practice. I can say without fear of being contradicted, that in all ridings of the country, but especial!}' in Quebec, similar cases have happened.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: The victim.


Vincent Dupuis: What happened? You will find in the Sessional Paper No. 198 with reference to the case of Noel Fontaine, postmaster of Laprairie, at page 44, a letter from the Rev. Mr. Picotte, parish priest, addressed to the Deputy Minister, Mr. Gaboury, The hon. Postmaster General knows about this letter, for I must acknowledge that his deputy minister is very competent and keeps him well posted on matters concerning his department. I feel certain, without asking him, that his deputy minister drew his attention to this letter. What has the parish priest of Laprairie to say?
Mr. Noel Fontaine, the present postmaster feels anxious over certain charges lodged against him. At the request of this gentleman, who is a parishoner of mine, I am pleased to inform you that the post office is well managed and that I know of no complaint in that respect.
As to his supposed active political partisanship, I believe this charge is entirely unfounded-
This is from the parish priest himself.
-and I am led to believe that he kept entirely out of politics, not even casting his vote, which, however, is an undeniable right.
I have nothing else in mind than to protect a parishoner against charges which I believe to be unfounded.
Does the hon. Postmaster attach any importance to the letter of the parish priest of Laprairie? Not in the least!
I .shall read to the hon. Postmaster General another letter, one from a friend of his, who took an active part against me in the election, he used his influence and time in an effort to elect my opponent; I am speaking of the letter of Mr. Emilien Lamarre, residing at Laprairie, an honourable citizen. He is one of my best friends during 365 days in the year, the only exception, is election day.
What has Mr. Emilien Lamarre stated in his letter addressed to the deputy minister- who must again have referred it to the hon. Postmaster General:
Sir,-[DOT]
As a Conservative having taken an active part on behalf of Mr. Gustave Monet, at the last election, I take the freedom of submitting to you the following facts:
"Mr. Noel Fontaine, the postmaster of Laprairie has been charged with active political partisanship at the last election.
It is, however, acknowledged here in Laprairie that Mr. Noel Fontaine took no active part in the election and that he even did not cast his vote."
This is a Conservative who speaks; did the Postmaster General again put no faith in him? He disbelieves parish priests and even his own friends.


Lucien Dubois: It is a foregone conclusion.


Vincent Dupuis: In making this statement, I do so for justice's sake.
These are the words of Mr. Lamarre.
I trust that an old man, the father of a family, who fulfils his duty well, will not be thrown on the street, through false representations.
What did the hon. Postmaster General do? Notwithstanding these facts, Mr. Noel Fontaine was dismissed, he was thrown on the street and, to-day, this man is without work and entirely unable to work.
What were the findings of the investigations? I shall quote them. It was not shown that Mr. Noel Fontaine took an active part in politics, but the statements of the parish priest of Laprairie and Mr. Lamarre, to the effect that the postmaster bad taken no active part in politics were corroborated. The evidence showed that two sons of Mr. Noel Fontaine had driven voters on election day. What is the law in this respect? The hon. Postmaster General referred me to the provisions of the act in answer to a letter I wrote him. My letter was as follows: Sir. In my interview with you last session, you assured me that Mr. Noel Fontaine would not be dismissed. W'hy did you dismiss him? The hon. Postmaster General in his answer stated: "I am obliged to conform myself to
24t*4
Supply-Post Office

the provisions of the act, with reference to the findings of the commissioners holding an inquiry." By virtue of what act? Pursuant to article 55 of the Civil Service Act, which I shall quote to the house-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	The
minister is supreme in such matters.


Vincent Dupuis: The minister
is supreme in such matters? He had not the right to act as he did, under the circumstances, because the only reason given by the commissioner holding the inquiry was that two sons of the postmaster had actively participated in the election. Who is the postmaster? The sons? I shall quote the words of the hon. Postmaster General himself when he said to me: "Those boys are not the postmaster, but Mr. Noel Fontaine is." Article 55 of the Civil Service Act reads as follows:
No deputy head, officer, clerk or employee in the civil service shall be debarred from voting at . . .
The same article continues:
. . . but no such deputy head, officer, clerk or employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with any such election or contribute, receive or in any way deal with any money for any party funds.
Was Mr. Noel Fontaine guilty of this? Was this proved at the inquiry? Not a word, in this respect, was mentioned in the findings of the commission.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): who was the commissioner?


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Bruno Nantel,

a fair-minded man otherwise, but who probably had received instructions from the Postmaster General. He had instructions to dismiss Mr. Noel Fontaine, and he performed his task.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That was done everywhere, in all counties.


Vincent Dupuis: I shall read the findings of the commissioner:
After hearing the evidence of witnesses, I find:
That the postmaster of Laprairie, Mr. Noel Fontaine, did nothing to prevent his sons, Fernand and Gerard, from participating in the contest, at the last Dominion election, the^ latter living under his roof and being under his control, also in preventing his wife from attending meetings, etc. . . .


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: What a crime I


Vincent Dupuis: That is the crime that Mr. Noel Fontaine is guilty of.

Where is it stated in the act that the sons or the wife of a postmaster have not right to fulfill their duty as citizens?
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is a Tory statute.


Vincent Dupuis: That the postmaster sought to influence the vote of the Alfred Beaulieu family or at least that of Mrs. Alf Beaulieu, by pointing out the fact thwt the Beaulieu family were much more in the obligations of Roch Lanctot, deceased, and former Liberal member, than in those of Hon. Mr. Patenaude, former federal minister, and this, on the eve of the election.
I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that, we Liberals, seek qualifications rather than party affiliations. I might state on my behalf that-in the findings of the inquiry the name of Mr. Beaulieu, a Conservative is mentioned-if the Deputy Postmaster was allowed to speak he would state that I, Vincent Dupuis, after being returned for the riding of Laprairie-Napierville, did all in my power to obtain a promotion for this Conservative. Why? Because he was a competent man, and that I wished to follow the example of other provinces by giving preference to competent people rather than to those with only a political record to their credit. The son of Mr. Alfred Beaulieu, who is mentioned in the findings of the inquiry was appointed to a position with a salary of $3,000 to $4,000 per year.
In contrast with this we have the stand taken by our friends opposite throughout the country but especially so in Quebec, by the hon. Postmaster General.
I, therefore, beg the hon. Postmaster General on behalf of his province, which is also mine, to amend his shabby ways, cease dismissing people for the sake of dismissing, and to rise to the level of the great political questions of the day, as he must have noted that there are, in Ottawa, questions which are worthy of his attention.
For instance, the interest which he should take in the welfare of the farming class. When the government of which the hon. Postmaster General is a member, granted a five cents premium per bushel of wheat exported by the western farmers, what did the Postmaster General do? Did he ask for the same grant for Quebec and the eastern provinces? Did he request a grant of a single cent as a premium on butter; he who talked so much of butter during the last election; he who bewailed the sad fate of farmers who were paid, at that time, only 30 to 40 cents per dozen eggs and 40 cents per pound of butter? Did he bestir himself?

Supply-Post Office
The hon. Postmaster General is partly responsible for the new trade treaty with New Zealand. A five cents entry duty is levied on butter; New Zealand, on the other hand, allows a premium of 5 cents, which makes up for the entry duty levied here.


Arthur Sauvé: Is the hon.
member, at present, discussing the estimates?


Vincent Dupuis: I am referring to that subject. I state that the hon. Postmaster General has no right-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): That is a fact, sir.


Vincent Dupuis: -to lower himself by meddling with such petty matters.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall willingly answer questions with reference to the administration of the Post Office Department.


Vincent Dupuis: I did not catch the hon. Postmaster General's statement.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member may criticize the Postmaster General on the administration of his department when the house is in committee, but he is not entitled to express all the grievances he may have against the government, he -must restrict himself to the discussion on the estimates.


Vincent Dupuis: It does not behoove the Postmaster to teach me a lesson. As he avails himself of precedents, he has but to cast his eyes around him, and he will find numerous precedents, it is not necessary for him to look across the floor, he will find more evidence of this fact on his own side. The hon. Postmaster General is not only responsible for his department but also for the other departments. I have always understood that, according to the constitution and public law, a member-the hon. Postmaster General is a member also-is not only the representative of his riding but of the whole country.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon.
gentleman has spoken forty minutes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But, Mr. Chairman, since the hon. Postmaster 'General put a question to him, the hon. member for Laprairie-Napier-ville has a right to proceed.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Interruptions are not counted in the forty minutes; necessarily they cannot be; and in any event the hon. member has had his full forty minutes.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, as your decision constitutes a precedent, I should like a ruling of the house. The rule, I think, is to the effect that when a member speaking in committee of the whole is stopped by another member, who in his turn makes a speech, the previous speaker has the right to speak again for forty minutes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We ask for a ruling.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is not what happened. The hon. Postmaster General made some remarks, not a speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He made a speech.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It was not in the nature of an interruption of the speech to the extent of giving the hon. member for Laiprairie-Napierville the right to speak for another forty minutes.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member for La-prairie-Napierville having sat down, there is no rule to prevent his getting up and speaking again now.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. ex-Postmaster General was so treated a few minutes ago. His forty minutes had expired, another member rose, and after he sat down the ex-Postmaster General spoke -again. I do not know whether there are two standards of weights and measures in this house-one for the Tories, another for the liberals; I do not think so. However, I desire to speak for only a few minutes, and I will proceed in French.
(Translation):
Mr. -Chairman, I have but a few words to add. I do not think that the Postmaster General is very convinced of the wisdom of such a policy and I hope he regrets now the way he acted under pressure from his friends.


Ernest Lapointe: He has the regret but not the firm resolve.


Vincent Dupuis: I trust that he will have the firm resolve and that-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Am I to understand the hon. member is now finishing his speech.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, I suppose the chairman is following me all right? I am making my concluding remarks. (Translation) I was saying that the hon. Postmaster General must now regret his shabby political policy.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member is now laying a charge against the former Postmaster General.
Supply-Post Office


Vincent Dupuis: I beg your pardon, I did not catch what was said.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. mem-is laying a charge-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): I am no more there.


Vincent Dupuis: I wish to find out what the Postmaster General said.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. mem-is laying a charge against the former Postmaster General.


Vincent Dupuis: He will soon again be the Postmaster General. Is that what the hon. Postmaster General wishes to know?


Arthur Sauvé: What beautiful language 1
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is prophetic.


Vincent Dupuis: I may say to the hon. Postmaster General that should he not be reelected at the next election, it will be no misfortune for the country which does not seem greatly satisfied with him.
I therefore beg the hon. Postmaster General to abandon this petty policy, I beg of him not to continue making shabby dismissals which have 'been far too numerous to date, and this, on behalf of my province. I further beg of him to follow the example set by Quebec members and be sufficiently broad-minded to take an interest in questions which concern the whole country, and as I stated, especially those relating to the farming class, in fact to all classes of society, and this, not simply by speeches on hustings, at election time. As the Postmaster General holds an important post in the Cabinet I trust that he may use his influence and that of his province, one of the oldest of confederation, to obtain for it the same advantages which are granted to the other provinces.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, on February 18, last, the hon. member for Megantic put a number of questions to the Postmaster General with reference to a Mr. MacKinnon who travels all over Quebec and Canada, for the purpose, I think, of obtaining $5 subscriptions. According to Hansard of April 14, 1932, I find that there was sent to mail contractors on July 19, 1927, a notice which ends as follows:
Mr. MacKinnon obtains money under false pretences when he threatens the mail carriers to have their contracts cancelled, while at the same time making promises to them.
S. Tanner,
Administrator of the District of Quebec.
[Mr. SauvSJ
I wish to inquire from the hon. Postmaster General what steps he intends to take in this matter. When I read in Hansard of February, 1932, the questions put by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), as well as the answers to these questions, I wrote personally to the 42 mail contractors of the county of St. Johns-Iberville, to inquire whether they had had the visit of a person named Garfield MacKinnon, requesting them to subscribe $5 to form part of a mail carriers' association. I received their answers and, out of 42, I find that 38 have paid the sum of 85 to Garfield MacKinnon. I have in my possession about thirty receipts given to mail contractors of my county.
May I ask the hon. Postmaster General what steps he intends to take with reference to Mr. Garfield MacKinnon, who for the last ten years has been travelling throughout the country exploiting mail carriers. This same question has already been put by the hon. member for Megantic. The latter's speech on April 14, last, showed that the defeated Conservative candidate in Megantic, at the last dominion election, had approved of the' mail carrier's meeting held by MacKinnon for the purpose of obtaining subscriptions. I think that, after all the information gathered, the Post Office Department should act. The hon. Postmaster has always been a champion of the farming class; he is also aware that most, if not all, of those who hold mail contracts are farmers. I have here a letter from a widow residing in my county who paid 85 to this person. He has been living at the country's expense for the last 12 years, by soliciting $5 subscriptions. He went through the county of St. Johns-Iber-ville, during the first days of December and I think, he visited the county of Megantic in the month of January. It would only be fair and reasonable that instead of dismissing employees, the Post Office Department and particularly the Postmaster General should look into the case of Garfield MacKinnon who obtains money under false representations. I heard that his case had been investigated. I wish to state that more haste was shown in holding inquiries against public officials charged with political partisanship, especially in my county. A public employee was charged with having taken an active part at a political meeting, in August last. Two days after a commissioner called on him; a mockery inquiry was held and as the commission had instructions to find him guilty, he was dismissed.
Previous to resuming my seat I wish to inquire whether the government intends to

Supply-Post Office
have MacKinnon arrested; the latter has been roaming over the country for more than twelve years robbing mail contractors.
Some Answer!	hon.	MEMBERS	(Translation)Some Carried.	hon.	MEMBERS	(Translation)Some No.	hon.	MEMBERS	(Translation)


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I wonder to whom I should first reply.


Vincent Dupuis: Laprairie is quite close to Two Mountains.


Arthur Sauvé: Will you allow me to answer? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked some questions a short while ago. He made a few remarks and intended to make others. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville made a long plea-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Which
impressed me strongly.


Arthur Sauvé: -in connection with a number of dismissals. The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume), without giving me an opportunity to reply the hon. member for Napierville, puts to me a series of questions.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is unfair.


Arthur Sauvé: Since I have but five minutes left to reply, I shall begin by answering the last speaker and I shall reply to the hon. member for Napierville tomorrow. The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville contends that this man MacKinnon has been operating in Quebec, for the last ten years.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Twelve
years, since 1920.


Arthur Sauvé: He was then at work when our hon. friends opposite were in power. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) who was Postmaster General then, is also a friend of the farming class, he however, allowed this MacKinnon to carry on as he is doing to-day. I take it for granted that the hon. member for St. Johns did not wish to charge the member for Gloucester, then Postmaster General, with sacrificing the farmers' interests or illtreating them. Why did the former Postmaster General not act then? I shall inform the hon. member: it is because he had no legal right to do so. I
cannot blame the former Postmaster General; he was right. This man MacKinnon is a former employee of the Post Office Department. He wants to organize a mail contractors' association. He is entitled to do so. He is free to carry out his plans and the Postmaster General has no right to interfere by having him arrested. If there is ground to take proceedings, it behooves the Justice department to do so, but even the latter department-such is the information I have gathered from the department's legal adviser -cannot interfere.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): What is his name?


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Mac-
Kinnon calls on mail carriers, invites them to join the association, promising them protection and requests a contribution of $5 to found and maintain the association.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This is rather high in these hard times.


Vincent Dupuis: Will the hon. Postmaster General allow me to ask him a question? Is it not a fact that this Mr. MacKinnon contends that he is acting under the authority of the Post Office department.


Arthur Sauvé: No, I am not so informed.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: Was he not accompanied by the hon. member for Rich-mond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche), so as to advertise his association in the county of Richmond Wolfe?


Arthur Sauvé: I am not aware of this.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He shot
through like an arrow (la fleche).


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to be
fair, I have no interest whatsover to shield this Mr. MacKinnon; however, the department looked into the matter, and I drew the attention of the officials in my department to the speech of the hon. member for Megantic, the latter was given the reasons why we could not act.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Yes, I have them here.


Arthur Sauvé: He cannot contend, therefore, that we acted in bad faith. I think that we supplied him with all the explanations which he required. Again, I state that if it can be shown to me that it is
Supply-Post Office

possible to take proceedings against MacKinnon, I am ready, on behalf the Post Office Department to do everything possible. In a number of cases as much as my authority permitted me, I intervened; however, I am not as imprudent as to overstep my powers.


Lucien Dubois: Did the Postmaster General notify the rural mail carriers to be on their guard against this man MacKinnon?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly. All
inspectors were notified. On March 8, 1932, we wrote to all inspectors.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It was
somewhat late.


Arthur Sauvé: It was also
late, three years ago. He had been carrying on this business for 9 years.


Lucien Dubois: Better late [DOT]
than never.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Does the
hon. Postmaster General, according to his argument, contend that a person is entitled to roam over the country stating: we shall found an association and you shall contribute $5 towards it? He did this for ten years. No association was ever founded. He can be of no benefit to mail contractors. I have in my possession letters in which this Mr. MacKinnon contends that he is so authorized by the Post Office Department.
The government should have this gentleman arrested, order an inquiry and summon witnesses.
The following is what one letter contains:
In answer to your letter with reference to Mr. Garfield MacKinnon, I must say that he called at my house on December 1, 1932. He stated that he was a mail carrier in Ontario, *working on behalf of mail carriers with the approval of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who had promised him a salary increase for all mail carriers.
This Mr. MacKinnon, requests a contribution of $5 from all members of the association.
Here is a gentleman, who travels through the rural districts and obtains money under false representations. He makes use of the Prime Minister's name, and contends that he is the president or secretary-sometimes he is president and at other times secretary-of an association which has no existence. A person who obtains $5 worth of goods under false representations, is arrested, and here is a person who, in the county of St. Johns-Ilberville alone, enticed 38 mail contractors out of a 42, and obtained $190-he enticed a few hundreds

in Megantic county-yet the Post Office Department has no authority to have him arrested and take proceedings against him.


Arthur Sauvé: In reply to
the hon. member-I suppose that he expects a reply-I do not think that the department ican take legal proceedings against this person simply because he wishes to found an association and charge $5 to each member. I should like to have the views of the former Postmaster General on this matter. He studied this question himself, when he was Postmaster General and must have reached the same conclusion as I have this evening.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: If the hon. Postmaster General will allow me, it is the first time that I hear a minister state that people can roam over our rural 'districts, make false representations and obtain money on the strength of it, it is the first time, I say, that I hear a minister of the crown state that the law cannot reach these people. The hon. Postmaster General stated a short -while ago that it was amazing that this man had not been arrested before. I may say to him that up to this year, it had been impossible to obtain conclusive evidence, dear proof of false representations made by this Mr. MacKinnon. This year, thanks to the activities of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), evidence has been supplied to the Postmaster General, evidence which shows that MacKinnon visited our rural districts, that on three particular occasions he obtained money by threatening the mail contractors that unless they subscribed $5.00 each they would lose their contracts. The hon. Postmaster General has three affidavits in this respect. He is therefore, to-day, in possession of sufficient evidence to have this man arrested. The hon. Postmaster General cannot contend to-day, that under the Liberal regime, we did not carry out our duty.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not contend that.


Wilfrid Girouard: The hon. Postmaster General must realize that it is always difficult to obtain the necessary proof in such cases, and it is only lately 'that the department has been able to obtain them. There is no doubt that MacKinnon obtained money under false representations. I feel certain that the Postmaster General has not given the question the attention it deserves, we shall again take up the matter to-morrow...


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He wifi think it over.

Grain Charges at Churchill
Mr. GIROUARD (Translation) ...and I shall inquire from the Postmaster General what he intends to do with reference to this
*person.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 29, 1932