1933-05-09

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, May 9, 1933.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) presented the first report of the special committee on Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the hon. gentleman if this report means that something has been decided. If it means nothing, I have no objection but if it means something to which my electors may object, I must oppose this concurrence.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I hope it will mean a good deal more than nothing. It is the intention to get this bill through this session. My hon. friend appeared before the committee this morning and made his representations and he was promised that they would be given consideration. All this report asks for is permission to sit while the house is in session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough) presented the third report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) moved concurrence in the second and third reports of the select standing committee on standing orders relative to the suspension of standing order No. 92.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York) presented a petition from the municipality of New Toronto, supported by resolutions of councils of fourteen other municipalities, requesting the enacting of contributory unemployment insurance.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would direct the attention of the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) to the fact that the documents he has filed do not constitute a petition.



COMPANIES AND CREDITORS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 77, to facilitate compromises and arrangements between companies and their creditors-Mr. Cahan-Mr. Cotnam in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Compromise with unsecured creditors.
Mr. BENNETT:: The marginal mote
should read "unsecured" creditors; it reads "insecured."


Mr. COOTE:: As very little explanation
has been given on this bill; in fact, as I think it was given no explanation on second reading but was simply sent to the committee, I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to explain to this committee the purpose of the bill. I do not believe any explanation has ever been given to the house.


Mr. CAHAN:: I thought the bill was quite fully explained on the first reading. Clause 3 provides for a compromise between a debtor company and its unsecured creditors. The gist of the whole bill is this, that any class

Companies and Creditors
of creditors of an insolvent or a bankrupt company may by a three-fourths vote among themselves agree to a compromise between the company and that class of its creditors. Each class of creditors who have the same interest may decide by a three-fourths majority with respect to any proposed compromise and, if approved by the court, such compromise becomes effective. It is very simple. I cannot explain it any more clearly than that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Compromises to be sanctioned iby court.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: An objection has been
raised that the wording could be made clearer by striking out the words in the tenth line:
Class of creditors, including.
And inserting in lieu thereof the words: the class of creditors as the ease may be, and on.
The suggestion is that it should be made clear that each class of creditor's having the same interest shall decide among themselves as to the terms of the compromise, and I think this proposed amendment makes the matter very much clearer.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I move that amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 6 agreed -to.
On section 7-Scope of act.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As regards clause 7, the
committee on banking and commerce reported in favour of striking out the word "force" and inserting the words "force and effect," but as we have used in another clause of the bill, clause 15, the term "full force and effect," I would suggest that this amendment should read "full force and effect."


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 8 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-In Yukon territory.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This bill was widely circulated throughout Canada and the question arose that inasmuch as it specifically provided for an appeal from a decision in the Yukon territory, that might seem to imply that there should be no appeal from any provincial court,
and it was deemed advisable to make it clear that 'there may be an appeal from a provincial court to the Supreme Court of Canada in order that the procedure under this measure may be regulated, if necessary, by the same judicial authority, throughout all the provinces. I therefore propose this amendment which will be moved by the Minister of National Revenue:
That section 14 of Bill No. 77 be struck out anti the following substituted therefor:
14. An appeal shall, by leave of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, lie to that court from the highest court of final resort in or for the province or territory in which the proceeding originated.
2.	The Supreme Court of Canada shall have jurisdiction to hear and and to decide according to its ordinary procedure any appeal so permitted and to award costs.
3.	No such appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada shall operate as a stay of proceedings unless the judge who permits such appeal shall so order, and to the extent to which he shall order, and the appellant shall not be required to provide any security for costs, hut unless he provides security for costs, in an amount to be fixed by the judge permitting the appeal, he shall not be awarded costs in the event of his success upon such appeal.
4.	The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on any such appeal shall be final and conclusive.
This same provision appears in the Bankruptcy Act in section 178 and also in the act with respect to the winding up of companies. I am introducing no new provision. The theory of the Bankruptcy Act with regard to giving security for costs was this, that, though a bankrupt who might have good grounds for an appeal might not be able to provide the security for such an appeal, his right of appeal was maintained, but, in case he gave no security for an appeal to the other party, he could not obtain costs even if the decision on the appeal were given in his favour. That is a principle which has been enacted in other statutes, but particularly in the Bankruptcy Act, and in order to make it clear I am suggesting this amendment which my colleague the Minister of National Revenue will move.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 15 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Mr. FACTOR:: I believe that the provisions of this bill are very beneficial to companies and I am wondering whether it is possible constitutionally or otherwise to extend them to individuals. The minister knows that under
Excise Act

the present provisions of the Bankruptcy Act the individual is unable to make a compromise unless he becomes insolvent or a receiving order is obtained against him. I should like to have the minister's opinion on that phase of the problem.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Such an amendment to the law as the hon. gentleman proposes would not. come within the scope of the present bill which deals with companies and is really an amendment to the Companies Act. So far as the individual is concerned, if he is declared bankrupt or insolvent under the Bankruptcy Act provisions are made there for a compromise between such bankrupt individual and his creditors. To go further than we have gone would require very considerable amendments to the Bankruptcy Act and involve very delicate questions indeed as to the right of this parliament to interfere with the legislative jurisdiction of the province, which deals with civil rights. Some of the provinces of the west, I understand, have already introduced and, if my memory is correct, have passed legislation affecting the rights of individuals and their creditors, and I think that some of them even contemplate going further. At the present time while such provincial legislation is under consideration we did not feel disposed to ask this parliament to infringe upon the legislative jurisdiction of the province.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 94, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Sections 1 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On section 12-Penalties for sale of spirits unlawfully manufactured.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: There is a typographical error in line 29. The word "two" appears instead of the word "three." I would ask my colleague the Secretary of State to substitute the word "three" for the word "two."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 73, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1933, and to authorize His Majesty to make loans and advances to the Canadian National Railway Company -Mr. Manion-Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Are the provisions of this bill similar to those of previous bills for the same purpose?


Mr. MANION:: There is some slight modification, but they are all in accord with the new legislation. The arrangements are slightly different. By the way, this bill has been before the special committee on railways and shipping.


Ernest Lapointe: And has been approved?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the third reading of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system and for other purposes.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Robert James Manion: Carried on division.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: No; there must be a vote.

C .N .R -C .P R.-Mr. Heaps


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Call the yeas and nays.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put I should like to say a few words on the third reading of the bill. My reason for speaking is to emphasize that which I stated in the committee stage of the bill, and to make a last plea for those men who are going to be vitally affected by the provisions of the bill.
During the progress of the bill in the committee stage I took the opportunity of moving an amendment providing compensation for employees who, as a result of the changes being made, would lose their positions. My amendment however was ruled out of order. Upon this occasion I should like to outline one or two of the criticisms made against proposals I submitted to ithe committee. Some bon. members claimed that in asking for compensation for railway employees who would lose their positions as a result of the operation of the legislation I was establishing a new principle. I do not agree with hon. members who take that stand. On many previous occasions this house has adopted the principle of giving compensation to those who lose their positions as a result of acts of parliament. This house has given compensation to employees who have left the service of the government. After members of the judiciary have served the country for a number of years they are entitled to a pension from the dominion. Only recently when civil service commissioners were retired from their positions the government made provision for very handsome retiring allowances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a recommendation of the committee in that regard.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, but the principle was established. I am glad that there was a recommendation of a committee which favoured the principle. Then, there are those men in the military service of the country who after giving a number of years' service are entitled to pension. I claim the people engaged in the railway service of Canada are giving as good service as are some in other services I have enumerated.
There is now before the house a resolution asking parliament to approve of a very substantial pension or retiring allowance to members of the tariff board who have given ten years of service. When at this time I ask parliament to approve the principle of giving retiring allowances or some form of compensation to those who have given service to the country, I am not in any shape or form introducing a new principle, but I am merely asking for an extension of one already established by usage and custom. I do not know
that I can add anything further at this time to what I have said on previous occasions.
I do however take this opportunity to move an amendment to the third reading of the bill. My former amendment was ruled out of order on a technicality. I now move, seconded by Mr. Maclnnis:
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"That the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole with the request that the government consider ways and means of providing compensation for such persons whose services will be dispensed with as a result of any of the provisions of this act."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think the amendment is in order. I will look into it. In the meantime the main motion is before the house.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say on this bill. I made some observations when the bill was in committee, but I have something else to say now in regard to the colonization scheme of the railways. The other day the Minister of Labour read a letter from Mr. J. E. Laforce, colonization agent of the Canadian National Railways. That gentleman lives in Montreal. He says the condition of the settlers throughout the country is very good. Sir, the only observation I have to make about this colonization scheme is that it is a mixup. Too many cooks spoil the broth. We have people engaged by the province, others employed by the railway company and others employed by the federal government. The first land grants that were made to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were mostly in the west, and after these grants were made by the Macdonald government the Canadian Pacific was interested in settling the western plains, and there we have the beginnings of immigration in this country. Afterward they had a steamship company that carried immigrants from other countries to Canada, and thus immigration came mostly to the west. Now that that field for immigration is closed to a certain extent they have a colonization scheme for the wild parts of the eastern provinces. I wonder what the real instructions are that are given to Mr. Laforce, and what is the work done by him. He writes letters that are like school-boys' exercises, published in many papers, telling people that they should go back to the land. Every time there is a complaint about the way settlers are treated in this country we have a letter from Mr. Laforce painting everything in rose-pink colours, saying these settlers are not suffering at all. The other day a paper in Montreal
C .N.R.-C .P.R .-Mr. Pouliot

said I should be more careful about securing affidavits from settlers in the north. I did not write first to these men. I did not know them. They wrote to me telling me about their troubles. And the Minister of Labour answers with a letter from Mr. Laforce saying everything is well in the best possible world. I have no petty political motive in this matter, but what I find strange is that when people are suffering and enduring hardship we have this gentleman writing to the Minister of Labour in Ottawa or to the Minister of Colonization in Quebec, saying that everything is going well. I am surprised. I wonder if that gentleman is working to keep his job. I do not see why a colonization scheme organized by the Canadian National Railways is putting people twenty miles from a main highway. Not only twenty miles from the main automobile highway, but farther than that from the railway. They are sent out as prisoners were during the war, worse off than prisoners in concentration camps-not those in this country because here they were fairly well treated, but in other countries, Germany for instance.
I would like to have the truth about the whole matter. As the Minister of Labour is interested in it, because he subscribes to it; as the Minister of Railways is interested because he has the high supervision of all business done by the Canadian National Railways; as the Minister of Colonization for Quebec is interested also, because some of his employees put these people on the land, I ask them to stand together in order to get the truth of the matter. I appeal to the kind heart of the Minister of Railways, as I did to the kind heart of the Minister of Labour, that they will together arrange to ascertain the truth of the matter at once, and, if these people need food, to supply it to them. I ask the^ Minister of Railways to see to it that, if their employees paint everything in pink in order to keep their jobs, justice shall be done to them, and if they give unreliable reports that they shall be dealt with at once.
Sir, I do not wish to insist on this point any longer. I bring it to the attention of the house for the last time this session, and I hope the good influence of the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Colonization in Quebec will be exerted to see that the right system is provided for these settlers in the north.
Then I have one more thing to say in regard to the trustees of the Canadian National Railways. I do not know who they may be, and if I have used vehement language in this house it was to prevent a bad appointment to the board. I leave it to the wisdom

of the government to appoint fairminded men, independent in character, and having experience that qualifies them to achieve success. Then I have a warning to give to the trustees. If we want to trade with other countries we need vessels and steamship lines. We have very good steamships in the Canadian National fleet, such as the Lady Nelson and other ships of that class. Now with a smaller trade moving there is an increase in unfair and cutthroat competition by private concerns. Every member of the government knows what I allude to. In the maritime provinces, especially in Halifax, there are private firms who try to discriminate against the Canadian National steamships. It is a well known fact, it is superfluous for me to give names, but I warn the government and the trustees against those private firms who want to destroy the trade of the Canadian National steamships between Canada and the [DOT] West Indies.
My last word is that I hope the trustees will give a fair hearing to complaints of employees who have been suffering injustice in the past, will see to it that they have no grievances in the future. For instance, an engine exploded on the Transcontinental railway . not far from Quebec. Why? Because no sufficient inspection was made at the shops. Those who are responsible for that lack of inspection are really guilty of manslaughter, whether they be high officials of the Canadian National railways or whoever they. are. May I tell them that it is most important for efficient and economical operation that the rolling stock of the railway be kept in good repair, instead of indulging in high capital expenditures. It will save money to the railway and supply work for the men.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may I add my word of support to the amendment that has just been moved. I do so not only because I am in favour of the principle enunciated therein, but because I realize more and more that this house and this country will have to recognize in the near future that industry, private industry, must be made more responsible for the well-being of the persons who are employed in it. I recollect that it is not long ago that the Minister of Railways himself made a very eloquent plea at a public meeting, suggesting precisely that principle, that industry could not and must not be permitted to discard its men in the callous, cold-blooded way in which men have been and are being discarded by industry. In my opinion the human element in production is more sacred than dividends or profits. The welfare of the

C.N.R ,-C.P.11.-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
men and women in industry should come before the interests of the investors. Until that principle is recognized we are not going to have either justice or safety in this country.
There is one other matter to which I desire to direct the attention of the minister and the house. That is, within the ranks of the Canadian National system at this moment there are men who are almost directly responsible for any disgrace that may have come upon the system in the last few years and who still hold remunerative positions, who have not been corrected, disciplined or dismissed. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, for over two and a half years this system has been subjected to not only an unfair but a very striking and prolonged attack, and the result has been to bring into disrepute the whole principle of public ownership and the management of the national system. The men themselves feel very hurt in regard to this matter, especially in view of the fact that the principle itself has not been successfully assailed, and because most of the criticism that has been directed against the national system should have been directed against individuals connected with the administration thereof. As for the rank and file of the men, all hon. members have been very generous in their praise, and I can only attribute to them the highest zeal, the greatest efficiency and the most praiseworthy loyalty. It is not the rank and file of the men who are to blame; there are some men on the staff who have not been as zealous in regard to the public interest and the welfare of the Canadian National system as they might have been, and it is to those few individuals that I wish to address my remarks at this time.
Within the ranks of the technical staff, Mr. Speaker, there are some men who should be brought to book. There are persons in that department upon whom much blame should rest. The engineering department of any railway system is one of the most important departments. The engineering department of the Canadian National, as is the case with some other roads, has almost complete control over construction. The operating and mechanical departments of this line, so far as I can ascertain, have nothing to do with the actual construction of branch lines, and that has been the case particularly in western Canada. The construction department of the western division is under the immediate supervision of the chief engineer of western lines at Winnipeg, and under the general control of the chief engineer at headquarters. This construction department had its origin back in the old Mackenzie and Mann days, and it
has been maintained by the chief engineer of western lines almost unchanged since that time. It was carried into the so called public ownership form of operation and was continued even during the period of little or no construction. It was used exclusively in the rehabilitation and construction of the Hudson Bay railway, and looked after the construction of branch lines in the west. It was permitted to become very much over-staffed; the organization embraced within its ambit not only engineers but engineers of various and terrible designations. We had engineering experts, supervising engineers, specialty engineers and so on. What has been the result of all this overloading of the technical staff? The Duff report definitely indicates what has been the result. I wish hon. members would turn to page 21 of that report and study paragraph 54, which discloses probably the greatest single source of waste in connection with Canadian National historj' in our time. The Duff report says:
It will be observed that the average cost per mile in the case of the Canadian National has shown a progressive increase rising from $40,214 to $51,640 over the period, while the average cost per mile of the Canadian Pacific over tile same period has declined from $35,470 to $30,229. The cost of individual branch lines varies not only as between the two systems but as between branches of the same system; nevertheless, a majority of the lines were built in similar territory for like purposes. This difference in costs represents an addition to the annual interest charge of almost $800 per mile.
It must be clear, Mr. Speaker, to any student of railway affairs that an unjustifiable overload of that kind places the Canadian National system in almost a hopeless position. I wonder what has been done; I wonder why these men remain on the staff. After all the chief engineer of the western division must have been responsible for the specifications and construction at the time these lines were built which showed the appalling increase commented upon in the Duff report. I am at a loss to understand why such men should escape while the loyal, hardworking, efficient member of the running trades or the maintenance or operating staff is fired out on his ear without thought of compensation.
It may be suggested that the character of the country through which the lines were constructed differs, but that is not the case; the Duff report so states. It may be argued that construction on the Canadian National was better than construction on the Canadian Pacific, but that argument will not bear examination either. It happens that the grade, the type of construction and everything else differs very little, and there is practically no
4728	COMMONS
C.N.R.-CJ>.R.-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
difference in regard to the specifications. If hon. members would care to go further into the matter they might examine the conditions which attended the construction of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, making allowance for the infinitely different type of construction required because of the bush and muskeg country. I believe it will be found that the Canadian Pacific cost of construction, which showed a decline over a period of years, was closer to the mark than the cost of construction on the Canadian National.
I do hope the minister will take this matter into consideration, if only from the point of view of the rank and1 file of the men, who know these facts and who know that after all the technical experts, who are supposed to know so much, have been responsible for the appalling excess cost of Canadian National construction, amounting to over 830,073,000. That sum has been thrown into the sink by an over-staffed engineering department, apparently filled with its own authority and sense of power. The men responsible for that condition of affairs are retained in their jobs, and that is the point I want the minister to appreciate. I want to ask him to use his good offices to see that the men who have been responsible for these conditions are dealt with properly, and in the meantime I propose to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps).


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When this amendment was presented I remarked that in my opinion it was not in order. I think I had better give my ruling on the amendment before any further debate takes place on the assumption that the amendment is properly before the house. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) is that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole with a request to the government, and for that reason the amendment is not in order. If it is to be sent back to committee of the whole it should be with instructions to amend it in certain particulars, not with a request to the government; or it could be referred back to the committee of the whole for further consideration. If it is desired to amend the bill, such amendments can be proposed on the motion for third reading, but an amendment referring the bill back to the committee of the whole with a request to the government to consider ways and means of providing compensation certainly is not in order. Therefore I rule the amendment out of order.
[Mr. E. J, Garland.}


Abraham Albert Heaps: I must dissent from Your Honour's ruling because just listening to it I cannot grasp its logic. The inference of the ruling is-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That may be regretted but I have given my ruling.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I want to appeal if Your Honour will allow me to give my reasons.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has a right to appeal from the ruling but he has not a right to enter into a debate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I had known that Your Honour was going to rule against my amendment., I wouild have given my reasons. The inference is that we cannot-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There were other amendments which oould have been moved and probably the 'hon. member could have accomplished his purpose by other methods. This amendment is not in order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I must appeal against Your Honour's ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) having moved an amendment to the motion that this bill be read a third time and The Speaker having ruled said amendment not to be in order, an appeal is made against the ruling.
Ruling sustained on division.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the house and especially the government would be quite dissatisfied if I did not say something more in connection with this measure. I feel that this measure is the most important piece of legislation ever considered by this parliament, that is, as far as the railway employees of Canada are concerned. This bill gives no consideration to the employees of the Canadian railways. From the very commencement of the railway controversy, the employees have received very little consideration. The Duff commission was appointed to deal with the railroad problems of Canada. The slightest recommendation made by that commission would of necessity affect the employees of the railroads, and yet there was not a representative of the employees appointed to that commission. All through the discussions on this question we find that the matter of wages and the working conditions of the men have been discussed only from the standpoint of t'he investor. When the bill was introduced in the Senate it contained practically

C.N.R .-C.P.R.-Mr. Heenan
nothing by way of protection for the employees. It is true that a couple of slight amendments were made in that chamber but I think it has transpired from the discussion in this house that in the main the employees were not protected as they should be. After a considerable controversy in this house, amounting almost to a fight, a few amendments in the interests of the employees were adopted, but in my estimation these amendments do not go nearly as far as the men expected the government would go. For instance, subsection 3 of section 16 contains a very indefinite statement. I ask the minister to follow me while I read this subsection. It reads :
The National company and the Pacific company for and on behalf as aforesaid are directed to endeavour to provide that any new company, created as in subsection two of this section referred to, shall give preference for work to employees in any services or on any works taken over by such new company.
Surely the words "to endeavour" have no place in that subsection. I have an amendment to refer this bill back to committee which I will send over for the minister's consideration. It is quite evident that at this stage any suggestion coming from this side of the house will not be considered very closely. I submit in all earnestness that the words "to endeavour" have no place in this subsection and I suggest that they be struck out before the bill finally passes. The amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) covering compensation has been ruled out of order, and the amendment which I proposed to compensate employees for property losses due to economic measures which might be adopted was refused. It is true that the minister has stated that if section 2 of the bill was found to work out unjustly to the men, an amendment would be considered at a future session, but the section as it now stands does not go nearly far enough. An amendment moved by the leader of the opposition to provide that one of the trustees shall be a representative of the employees was also refused. The board of trustees is now surrounded by all safeguards possible and it is entrenched in a position where it can do almost anything with the road and, in my opinion, almost anything with the employees. It is only fair that one of the trustees should be a representative of the employees. The minister has said that the door was not closed, and I am living in hopes that the government may yet decide to appoint a representative of the employees as a member of this board of trustees. Repre-53719-299
sentations against this measure have been made from many points by many organizations. I have under my hand a petition from Fort William which was sent to:
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Right Hon. R. J. Manion-
I think the minister ought to take note of this when they address him as the "right honourable." I know I would if I were in his place.
-Right Hon. Mackenzie King, Hon. W. A. Gordon and Joseph H. Harris, chairman of railway committee.
This comes from the joint organizations in and around the head of the lakes, as follows:
Third Mount McKay Lodge No. 298, Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America.
Shuniah Lodge No. 347, Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America.
Thunder Bay Division No. 536, Order of Railway Conductors of America.
Thunder Cape Division No. 631, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.
International Association of Machinists No. 820.
Port Arthur Lodge No. 626, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen.
Silver Islet Lodge No. 593, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers.
Port Arthur Division Order of Railway Telegraphers.
Lake Head Division No. 32, Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees.
I should have added that the petition was also addressed to:
Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
Together with those representations came a petition in the form of a photostat copy from practically seventy-three business men from the head of the lakes.


Robert James Manion: What was the gist of the petition? It was against amalgamation, was it not?


Peter Heenan: It was against amalgamation, yes, and the number of unemployed this measure would create. It is true that the petition was against amalgamation, but it added that this bill would create quite a number of unemployed, and also, in the last paragraph, it says:
It would not eliminate the tax burden of the citizens of Canada. The Canadian National Railways as shown in the Duff report, had an earning power from 1923 to 1931 inclusive, of $281,211,847 in excess of its operating expenses, but cannot take care of the interest on borrowed money. This bond indebtedness would not be taken over by the privately owned railway, but would still be chargeable to the people of Canada and paid for by them through taxation. Therefore, we maintain, it is far more desirable and businesslike to operate the Canadian National Railways in its entirety, and permit



C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Mr. Heenan
it to earn its operating expenses rather than sacrifice its most productive parts to a privately owned railway and still retain, for the taxpayers of Canada, the debt of borrowed money and the disastrous and far-reaching results of further unemployment of such gigantic proportions.


Robert James Manion: Of course that petition
has been complied with in the bill.


Peter Heenan: The minister says so. I
am sorry I have to disagree with him.
Then we have resolutions from the town of Kenora, the town of Sioux Lookout, from Hornepayne, Nakina and Port Arthur, and from many organizations. Many of these have asked that the bill be left over for at least a year, so that the government might make a survey and take into consideration what the railroad companies, or the government which in the long run is responsible, propose to do with the number of railway men who will be discharged under this measure.
I also consider that this legislation is a breach of faith with the electors of Canada, and manifestly so, because the present government, the Prime Minister and his followers, promised from one end of the country to the other that there would be amalgamation never and competition ever. The minister says that this is provided in the bill. This is, to my mind, merely a very pious wish, but in order to satisfy the opposition there was incorporated in the measure part IV, section 27:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the amalgamation of any railway company which is comprised in National railways with any company which is compromised in Pacific railways nor to authorize the unified management and control of the railway system which forms part of National railways with the railway system which forms part of the Pacific railways.
That, I think, is what the minister alluded to a few moments ago. But my contention is, that notwithstanding that, section 16 of the bill and the authority given to the trustees under it, practically amalgamates the operations of the railroads of Canada; giving the trustees power to form:
New companies controlled by stock ownership, equitably apportioned between the companies.
What is that but amalgamation? It gives them power to grant:
Leases, entrusting agreements, or licences, or agreements for the pooling and division of earnings arising from the joint operation of any part or parts of freight or passenger traffic, or express, telegraph, or other operating activities or services;
Joint trackage, running rights, joint ownership, or joint operating agreements, depending upon the nature of the property-

And so forth. What provision can be put into the law stating that there will be no amalgamation when there is right in that section a direction to the trustees that they shall amalgamate these services? I have been advised-I have not seen this-that the railroad companies are now selling joint tickets and they have their time cards arranged for consolidation of train services. What is the difference between calling it amalgamation, consolidation or cooperation? So far as the practical working out of the railways is concerned, the terms all mean the same thing. While it is true that section 27, which I read a little while ago, provides that the trustees can make no amalgamation of the finances of the companies and so on, yet the practical working out of the bill is an amalgamation of the railways. But even at that, it is a breach of faith because the present Prime Minister, when he was leader of the opposition, not only promised amalgamation never but said: Competition ever. This is just the opposite of competition; we are practically eliminating competition and in its elimination we are sacrificing, as I have said, between 20,000 and
40,000	employees. I am still of the opinion that by this measure at least 20.000 good citizens of Canada will be thrown out of employment. We are sacrificing them without any consideration as to what we propose to do for the future of those people or their families and other dependents. We are sacrificing them for what purpose? In the interests, as I have said before, of the money lenders of New York. We are throwing out from their employment between 20,000 and 40,000 Canadian citizens, men who were encouraged to enter railway service many years ago, and we are doing so to pay the money lenders of New York. When the time comes to take sides in this parliament, so long as I have a seat in this chamber I am going to take the side of and vote for the labour men of this country, our own good citizens, rather than taking the side of the money-lenders of New York and other parts of the world so that they get their last pound of flesh.


Robert James Manion: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Would he mind offering to the committee some method by which we can get rid of the obligation of paying interest to what he terms the money-lenders, whether in New York or Canada or England?


Peter Heenan: I thought I had done that before, Mr. Speaker, but now that the minister has asked the question, and in the hope that he is really desirous of getting my opinion I shall give it to him. These are days of

CJ'f.R.-C.P.R.-Mr. Woodsworth
world depression. No one will deny that now. The only people who did deny it were the Conservative party in 1930, when they said it was a Canadian depression and that if they were elected they would remedy conditions within a very short time. But not even the members of the government will deny to-day that these are days of a world depression, days when every person is called upon to make sacrifices. The Canadian railroad men through the economies to be effected by this measure are called upon to make sacrifices, and for what purpose? So that we can pay the interest on our bonded indebtedness. Now is it not feasible and is it not right that we should tell the money-lenders of New York- I would do it whether it is right or wrong if the minister wants to know-that during this time of depression and until it has rolled by they could not get their interest?


Robert James Manion: Which, of course, is repudiation of our debt.


Peter Heenan: I would not care whether you called it repudiation of our debt or not. Do we not also owe the citizens of Canada some debt? Have we not indebtedness to the workingmen of this country, to provide them with proper safeguards? When you talk of repudiation, must we always see that there is no repudiation of our indebtedness to the men who are lending the money, while at the same time we repudiate our debt to our returned soldiers who went overseas and fought for this empire and came back to their old positions on the railroads, and many of whom are going to be discharged under this bill? They have not got seniority enough to ensure them being kept on, and they are now going to be thrown off, many of them without a war pension because some of them were not injured and others did not ask for a pension. They are to be thrown into the discard so that some foreigner who loaned a million dollars to the Canadian National Railways will receive his last ounce of flesh. Yes, repudiate if you will, and when it comes to the time when I have to decide whether I am going to repudiate our debt to the man who has millions or repudiate our debt to the man who has nothing, I am going to keep faith with the workingman who has helped to build up these roads to the condition they are in to-day. When the minister talks about repudiation, why does he not think of the promise given to the railroad men in 1930? The promise to end unemployment, the promise that those engines that were standing idle on the side tracks near the roundhouse 53719-299J
would soon be belching forth smoke again and hauling commodities back and forth across this country, creating employment for Canadian railroad men at higher wages than were prevailing at that time. Are we not repudiating our word of honour to these people who voted for the government on the assurance that they would get consideration? This bill is the repudiation of everything that was promised to the electors of Canada. It means just the opposite of competition. It is amalgamation in the operation of the railroads of Canada. It will create unemployment instead of ending it. There is no provision made to take care of the men who will be thrown off, no provision for financial compensation of any kind. It is simply a case of breaking faith with the railroad men of this country, and I have no apology to make for saying that I am going to vote against the third reading of this bill, and that if I had a hundred votes they would all go against its third reading.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to have it very clearly understood that we in this comer are not opposed to public ownership of the railroads, which ultimately will involve amalgamation. We believe in public ownership, but we believe in a genuine public ownership, and not in a public ownership which gives control very largely if not entirely to the financial interests, and which permits a private road to run in competition with the public road, and very often, it seems to us, throws the advantages to the privately owned road. We think the time is coming when in this country we shall have to have complete public ownership of our roads involving amalgamation at least, and including probably under one transportation commission not only the railroads but the motor transportation services and possibly the air transportation services.
At the present time we are not opposed to all economies which may be brought forward. We think that it is inevitable that some economies should be made, but according to this bill the economies are to be made in the interests of the bondholders. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has denied that, but not very successfully; I do not think he was on good ground. It is undoubted that under the present set-up the bondholders are in danger of losing and because the Dominion government has to pay the deficits on the road the Canadian public is under the necessity of carrying a very heavy load. Economies should be effected if possible, but what we claim is that the rights of the individuals
4732	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C .P.R.-Mr. Woodsworth
who have helped to build up this system, the employees of the railways, should not be neglected. I think the position which we take is a sound one.
We would say that the care of the people who are thrown out of work by means of the economies under this bill should be a first charge on the savings effected. The minister tries to evade that by saying that there will not be a great many men thrown out of work. Well, I think everyone will recognize that the payroll of the employees is one of the largest items of railway expenditure, and if we are to have economy which will amount to anything it must be made as a result of laying off a very considerable number of men. That must be in contemplation. I quoted Mr. Beatty to that effect on one occasion, and I think his opinion still stands and is reasonable.
Further, the minister says that we ought not to make this provision ahead of time- wait until we see that men are thrown out of work, and how many will be thrown out. I do not think that is the way in which legislation should be put through the house. When the avowed purpose is to effect economies which can be made only through throwing people out of work, the time to safeguard these people is not at the next session of parliament, but now.
A good deal has been said in recent yeans with regard to the interference by government in business. I think we -may as well frankly face the fact that the whole of our railway enterprise is decidedly what might be termed an interference by government in business. The Canadian Pacific railway would not -have been built in the first instance had it not received very large subsidies from the public. Later on the Canadian Pacific railway and other roads that were constructed were able to -maintain their freight rates because of legislation passed by this house and by decisions of the Board of Railway Commissdonens. It was the failure of private ownership, as we all know, that -brought the Canadian National railway into being. There is a constant "interference" in business by the government, if you like to put it that way. The fact is that this interference has been pressed upon parliament and the public by the roads affected. I believe the evidence is clear that the present bill based on the Duff report is the result of pressure from the roads. In fact we were told by the minister that Mr. Beatty had suggested a commission should be appointed to consider the whole matter. So that if parliament is taking action at this time it is upon the request of the railways. There is no question of the government simply interfering
LMr. Woodsworth.]
in private affairs without any proper reason for so doing. In effect the railways have come and said, "You arrange matters so that we can make these savings possible; arrange -matters so that the bondholders will be protected." We now say that parliament has a perfect right to lay down the conditions under which this measure may go through.
The minister asked the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River how it would be possible for us to finance the matter if we did not continue to pay the bondholders.


Robert James Manion: No, I asked him how he would get rid of the interest payments on the bonds,

payments which we have to meet.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is taken for granted, of course, that we have to meet interest payments.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Why not?


Edward Joseph Garland: The rights of the men come first.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Our point is that the rights of the employees and the general public of Canada take priority over the rights of the bondholders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That -means a repudiation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not necessarily a repudiation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Absolutely.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, it does not necessarily mean a repudiation.


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what they are doing in Russia.


Robert James Manion: I ask this question in all good part: How would the hon. member get rid of -these interest payments that we owe to bondholders and -mortgage holders of the Canadian National Railways?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister has recently been in consultation with the President of the United States, and I suggest that he might have extended his investigations into the way the American president is proposing to deal with financial matters.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: Quite an answer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, it is an answer, lit is not the Russian method; it is the American method. I think we have to come to act more or less along the lines being followed in the United States to-day.

C.N.R .-C .P.R.-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. MULLINS:: What about the Canadian bondholders?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Canadian bondholders will have to take their loss, as most other men are doing.


Henry Alfred Mullins: And you propose giving them common stock in the railways; is that what you propose?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some of the bondholder's are tremendously concerned with what we are going to do with them. I would point out that if the bondholders are adversely affected by the present depression and the policies of the present government it is a good thing, because all the rest of the population for some years has been adversely affected. I come back to my original point, namely, that I can see no reason why the bondholders should always be given priority over those of other sections of the community? I believe I am here on solid ground. If other sections of the community have had to take losses, the time has come when the bondholders will have to take their losses. It seems to me that in a matter of this kind the needs and the rights of the employees on the roads have priority over those of the bondholders.


Mr. LENNOX:: And make a legal obligation a scrap of paper?


James Shaver Woodsworth: When it comes to
a conflict between what are termed legal obligations and what I would term moral obligations, the moral obligations take priority.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
would become of the credit of the country?


Mr GARLAND (Bow RiveT):: Where is
it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, where is it
to-day?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are
trying to sustain it, and you are trying to break it up.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Where is credit today? I would point out that as a matter of fact the bondholders to-day, as we have said in other connections, are receiving considerably more than they are entitled to receive, when we consider the purchasing power of the dollar at the time the debts were contracted in contrast with the purchasing power of the dollar to-day. Actually, bondholders are receiving an increase in wages.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Not at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is all very well
for members to shake their heads, but what I have said is so. We know that the bonds issued many years ago were issued when the dollar had not the purchasing power that it has to-day.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Prime Minister said so.


Robert James Manion: Some of the bonds of the Canadian National Railways were issued away back fifty or sixty years ago, long before present conditions existed.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Sure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, that may be
so.


Robert James Manion: I refer to some of the
Grand Trunk bonds.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And some of them were not. No doubt in absolute justice that would involve a very complicated arrangement. In the meantime we face an actual situation in which to-day, under conditions of depression which have gone on for some time, we cannot possibly pay the interest on our bonded indebtedness and at the same time give what is due to the employees of the road. I say that when that situation is faced in my judgment there is no alternative but to recognize frankly the priority of the claims of men and women of this country. If that involves repudiation, I say repudiate. By all means, if it involves repudiation, repudiate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what your friends in Russia say.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is easy to speak about Russia; that is the cheapest kind of thing to do. What is in effect repudiation has taken place in almost every country of the world. I shall give an illustration:	I happened to be in England when Great Britain went off gold. I had invested good Canadian money in sterling, and when I came to cash my sterling cheques I found they were discounted twenty-five per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Forty per cent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; at that time it was only twenty-five per cent. There was repudiation on the part of the British government to t'he extent of twenty-five per cent.


Robert James Manion: That was not repudiation; that was a loss on exchange.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right, call it a loss on exchange, if you would like it that way. Remember this, the word "repudiation" was

C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Mr. Lapointe
not introduced into this discussion by me, fout by some hon. member opposite. If hon. members wish an illustration of repudiation, I am giving them one.


Robert James Manion: But the hon. member has not given an illustration of repudiation; that Is our point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This road has been [DOT]called a government road, we have been told that this legislation would practically turn 'it over into the hands of receivers. But we *cannot escape responsibility for the conditions under which it is to be turned over. I believe that is clear. As my colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has pointed out we have recognized the principle of the rights of men in the cases of the civil service commissioners, judges, the military and so on. We have recognized the rights of people who have been doing service for the government. Although in the direct sense of the word the railways have not been a government concern, we have all regarded them as such and have taken the responsibility for their losses. At this time we cannot lightly relieve ourselves of responsibility for the people this legislation will affect. We have given instance after instance of what is happening in poolings which have already taken place, of people who because of this legislation and arrangements for economy have already lost equities in their homes, people who because of having been transferred are to-day out of jobs, people who are too old to hope under present conditions to find new jobs. I urge these men have certain claims upon the Canadian National Railways and upon the government. For that reason my colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) sought by his amendment to place this question fairly before the house. I think we have a right to do so. I have tried to alter that amendment into such form as I think brings it within the rules of order, and I would move the following, seconded by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell):
That the said bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that the following clause be inserted:
"That the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway Company shall provide compensation to those whose services will be dispensed with as a result of the operation of any of the provisions of this act.
I think that is eminently fair in principle. It is the least that we can do as representing the general public. If it involves certain heavier expenditure, and that will interfere

with payment of interest on the bonded debt, that is something that we cannot help; we regard these rights of the people as prior, and we think that they should be recognized as the legislation is being passed.
Hon. EiRNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East): I desire to say only one word. I represent a constituency in which there are many railway employees of both companies. I have received, especially during the last few days, from labour unions in my constituency, resolutions of protest against this bill and approving of the stand taken by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). I want to register my vote against the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the amendment is put I would say in reply to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that I represent a constituency in which there is a whole town of railway men. I saw some of them on Saturday, and I saw more of (them last night, and they have not one word to say against the bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: Those you sawl


Richard Burpee Hanson: The only representation they have ever made is that which I mentioned here on the second reading of this bill, namely that they are against the principle of amalgamation. As good citizens of this country they are willing to let this bill go through and see what economies may be effected in order that the railways of the country may live, otherwise there may be no railways and no jobs for any of them. I venture to suggest that all the whirlwind of talk and debate that we have heard in this house, led by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, is so much propaganda. That is what it is considered to be by the levelheaded men of this country, and I want to tell the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, through you, Mir. Speaker, that the railway men I have talked to concerning this matter repudiate the member for Kenora-Rainy River as their spokesman.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Like fun they do!


Peter Heenan: The hon. member represents forty-five railway men in his riding!


Richard Burpee Hanson: A whole
town of 1,800 people.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: On the point of
order, Mr. Speaker, I cannot think that this amendment involves expenditure of money by this government. Two companies are inw volved, the companies will have to pay the money, not this government.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The argument of the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is not sufficiently conclusive to cause me to alter my opinion that the amendment as moved by him involves the expenditure of public money which must be raised by taxation. Legislation of that sort can only be introduced by a minister with the approval of the crown. To say that it is a private company is in my opinion merely quibbling, because the money spent by the Canadian National Railways must be voted by this parliament. And money votes of that sort are preceded by resolutions to refer them to the committee of the whole where they must be considered before they can be considered by the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Under those circumstances I must appeal against the ruling of Your Honour.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia) (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie).


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. WILLIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Wright). Hal I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.

Mr. MaoLAREN: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. BELL (St Antoine) :: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation) :: I was paired with the h,on. member for St. John-Iberville. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being charged by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), as he charged the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) with speaking for propaganda purposes, I intend to make a few remarks at this time, the last opportunity of speaking on this bill before it becomes law. I have in my hand a copy of the Canadian Unionist which came to me this morning. It contains the full speech of the hon. member for Kenora taken from Hansard, upon the second reading of the railway bill I have never seen reported in any press on this continent any such full and favourably reported speech of my own since coming to this house. That is how the speech of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, with his photo attached, has been referred to in this labour paper. I have only been able hurriedly to review this speech, but I believe it speaks not only for the railway men and the people of this country but for the Liberal party a3 well. That is all I can say with regard to the rather measly accusation made by the hon. member for Sunbury and some place else.
I am going to oppose the third reading of this bill although it is a much better bill than

C.NJt.-CPJt.-Mr. Motherwell
it was when it first started on its jaunt through parliament. As we know, it was originally defined by the Duff commission. It then went through the fanning mill of the upper house. It did not receive a very thorough screening there, the screens were too large and they let a lot of objectionable stuff through. It was given another fanning in the Commons. This was a more thorough fanning machine, it got out more dross and screenings but there is Still some vicious stuff and refuse left in. I want to get after that.
There is one objection, sufficiently important as I see it to condemn the bill to perdition forever, which can be made to this legislation. I refer to the abdication by the government of any safety control over the Hudson Bay railway. After this bill becomes law, the Hudson Bay railway can be taken over by these twin railway boards. The day after that it can be dismantled by the same twin boards. No restraining hand can be held out by this government to prevent this action.


Robert James Manion: The Hudson Bay railway
does not come under this bill at all.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, no, but it can
be brought under. That is a very nice interjection but unfortunately I am on my feet yet and I can puncture it right away. The Hudson Bay railway can be taken over at any time by this trustee board which has no railway president thereon. The national railways is still headless, as far as having a president is concerned. This trustee board has even more authority than the old presidency. It can take over that railway to-day and dismantle it to-morrow. Someone may say:	even though the government has
abdicated all authority over this great national railway which is the property of the men, women and sons of Canada, it will use a restraining influence upon any possible depredations by these twin boards. If it exerts any influence at all, what kind will it be? This government decapitated the railway by retiring Sir Henry Thornton; having done that, do you think it will refrain from doing less in connection with the remaining body of this headless railway? Certainly not. We know a tree by its fruits, and the fruits of this government, as far as the national railway is concerned, have been such as will turn sour in the mouths of the people of Canada who believe in the future of this railway. How can I back up that statement? I do it by referring to the penchant this government party has had for destroying this Hudson Bay railway as well as the National. It attempted to send this
railway to Port Nelson when every engineer in Canada knew that that port was a useless and hopeless outlet or inlet for the citizens of western Canada. If the road had been sent there it would have been ruined, and I invite anyone to challenge that statement. I invite any hon. member, including the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) to challenge that statement. If I attempt to read anything by way of proof the chances are the members of the press gallery will take a hike for their other rear quarters; they do not like to hear anyone reading anything. However, I may be obliged to read something if challenged but I will be prepared for their immediate exit. Perhaps I had better keep this opportunity and proof for another day. " He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day," if no one accepts his challenge now. It will be a fine thing for a subsequent occasion, and I have the dope to prove my statement. I have more to say but they cannot bear it.
There is very little use going over the past. I made only one note for my speech, and I made that on the back of this precious bill. That was the word "Pilate," not "pilot." Our hon. friends in the government have been the modern political Pilates in their attitude towards this national railway. They have washed their hands of this fine property of ours, they have abdicated their power over this railway and have handed it over to Herod. Both the original Pilate and Herod were afraid to do what in their hearts they desired to do. They had no Duff commission or Senate to which to pass the buck in those remote days.


Mr. STEVENS:: They had the sanhedrim.


William Richard Motherwell: The action of the original Pilate and Herod finally resulted in the crucifixion which was ordained from the beginning of the world. These modern Pilates and Herods have been afraid like the originals to do what they would have liked to do. They took off the head of Sir Henry Thornton but they did not know how to mutilate the body sufficiently so that it would not be restored to life. The government have passed the buck to the national railway board and a tragedy is about to be enacted. As I see it, though parabolic this is mighty true to life.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I hear the ignorant guffaw of hon. gentlemen opposite who do not seem to see the parallel between the two.

C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Mr. Mullirus
I will stop now and give them an opportunity to let this filter through their thickened craniums into which you could not jamb a Liberal idea even with the use of a ten-pound sledge hammer.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to my hon. friend. We have campaigned together for more than forty years in western Canada and his speech to-day is the same old red country schoolhouse one that he used to deliver most effectively in the west, all the time misleading the struggling masses on the western prairies. Representing as I do the most outstanding agricultural constituency in western Canada, what do I care what is done with the railroads as regards cooperation or anything else so long as we are given cheaper freight rates so that we may get the products of the land to the markets of the world? During all the years the hon. gentleman sat on the government benches there was not a single reduction in freight rates, either by sea or land; nothing but higher and higher ocean and land rates. No man can farm in western Canada under the conditions to which he is subjected to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Henry Alfred Mullins: Yes, but this is the result of the actions of hon. gentlemen who occupied government benches during the last eight or ten years. Let me for a moment draw the attention of the house to the Petersen commission. What a fiasco it was! I was brought as a witness from western Canada to try to get a reduction in freight rates. With what result? Nothing at all, not one iota of reduction. Forty years ago in western Canada we had lower freight rates than we have to-day. When the Canadian Pacific was the only railway operating in the west, freight rates were 40 per cent less than they are today. But hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, gradually raised and raised the rates until now they are prohibitive for the farmer who wants to deliver his products to the markets of the world. How insincere hon. gentlemen opposite are! This is impressed upon me when I think of one gentleman who made a speech in Montreal in reference to the Hudson Bay railway and of my hon. friend opposite who a few minutes ago talked so kindly of that railway. What did the gentleman say in talking to an audience in Montreal? Let me read this:
The Conservatives adopt a different attitude. The finances are upside down, yet they spend
FMr. Motherwell.]
millions on projects which can wait a year or two years, or even five years, without harming the stability of the country. What is happening to-day as regards Port Churchill? We have Hon. Doctor Manion acting like a beggar in the street, begging people to ship some grain over the Hudson Bay railway to Port Churchill.
That is the kind of speech hon. gentlemen opposite make when they get down to Montreal; then when they" come into the House of Commons they talk differently for the benefit of the man out west.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the gentleman's name?


Henry Alfred Mullins: Yes, hon. gentlemen opposite use the soft pedal here, but this gentleman did not when he was making that speech in Montreal. Do hon. gentlemen opposite want his name?


William Richard Motherwell: It does not matter.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I have his name; it is Cardin.


Mr. CARDIN:: May I ask the hon. gentleman to give the date?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I will answer the hon.
member when I have finished.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What is the date of that
speech?


Henry Alfred Mullins: That is the hon. member's speech in Montreal.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When?


Henry Alfred Mullins: June 18, 1932. That shows
the insincerity of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I did not speak at that
time; that is a mistake.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) assumes to speak on behalf of labour. I have ridden the freight trains in the pioneer days of western Canada and I have associated with those railway men. Far be it from me to do anything that would be detrimental to the men who operate the road. I was travelling over the Canadian Pacific when the line was coupled up at Jackfish many years ago. I know the hardships endured by the men who pioneered in those days. To-day the answer of the railroads as to why they do not give a lower rate, is: Look at the wages. The reason is not wages at all. In those days they had five of a crew and when we asked for fourteen cars for cattle, they gave us a trainload rate of sixty and a half cents a hundred from Winnipeg to Montreal. To-day we are paying eighty-five cents a hundred and the

C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Mr. Manion
crew of a train still numbers five; they are hauling five times the tonnage, seventy-five cars of cattle, with just five of a crew. So the reason is not wages. But when I look at the head officials, I think of Winnipeg with Sir William White, who came from the track up; I think of Robert Kerr, George Shaw and William Stitt. Their entire salaries did not amount to as much as one railway official is getting to-day in western Canada. It is the head officials who are getting the high salaries. Those salaries should be withdrawn so that the farmer out west may have some chance in shipping his products.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are insincere so far as the Hudson Bay railway is concerned, and if this government had not been in power, I do not believe we would have had the Hudson Bay railway to-day. In western Canada we have great hopes as regards that outlet; it can be developed and because of its coolness it is one of the best outlets for the live stock industry of the west. At times the port of Montreal is extremely hot, but up north we have good cool weather and the cattle will ship to the British market far better than they will out of ports down east. We want, however, all the outlets we can get; we want to be able to ship out of the country and at a lower freight rate.
I say to the railroads: I do not care what you do about cooperation or amalgamation but I do not want to see you build these luxurious trains between Toronto and Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa, trains de luxe for the creme de la creme of eastern Canada, while the man out west is struggling on side lines, sitting on ribbed seats so that when he gets up his back is like a washboard. That is the condition to which we are subjected on the branch lines in my constituency, but we are putting up with that. I want these luxurious trains withdrawn so that the man out west may have a chance to get back to conditions as they were in the pioneer days out west, when, over forty years ago freight rates were 40 per cent less than they are today. Under present conditions a man cannot carry on. The salary list on the Canadian National Railways-and there are some from t'he United States amongst the officials-is terrific; no farmer in a lifetime makes as much as these men were making in a year. These conditions will be righted by this government and through this cooperation. We say and I say:	Amalgamation never, competition ever. That will be carried out and by it I hope the commodities of western 'Canada, can reach the markets for which they are destined.


Robert James Manion: I do not intend to delay the
house more than a few minutes. A number of hon. gentlemen have spoken and there are a few remarks I should like to make.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) took up the question of compensation for the men laid off. That question has already been dealt with very fully, and it has been pointed out, and I can only repeat, that when the time comes to look after all classes of men who are out of employment the railway men should be looked after at that time, but I do not believe that now is the time to pick out one particular class of men and give them compensation while other men, and even men in that same particular class, railway men who have been laid off previously, are not being taken care of.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) mentioned one item in the Duff report which so far as I know has not been mentioned before in the house, and that was the cost of branch lines. He touched upon a very important statement made by the Duff commission to the effect that the cost of branch lines in Canada on the Canadian National had been very much heavier than the cost on the Canadian Pacific, by the amount of some $30,000,000 in the last ten years. That was not overlooked by the government. I myself asked the Canadian National to give me an explanation of the difference in costs, and I hold in my hand a report which they gave to me some six or seven months ago, some time after the Duff report was tabled. They claim in that report that the branch lines went through different types of territory. It has been argued that that was Hot the case. I am not going to enter into a technical discussion of that kind, but I would point out to the hon. gentleman who stated that some of the officers now in charge of construction were the same as those who were in charge when the Duff report was made and during that construction period, that very heavy cuts have been made in the salaries of the officers higher up. For instance, a few of them who were drawing $30,000 are to-day receiving $18,000, or not much more than half of what they were getting. The engineer in charge of that construction work was not one of those getting that high salary, but he has been cut in proportion. After all it must be pointed out that the government has not the power and had not the power to dismiss any of these men, whatever officers they were. The government, through myself as minister, did draw tihe matter to the attention of the directors, and the directors and the present
C.N.R,-C.P.R.-Mr. Manion

management did bring about the economies which have been effected, and I submit that those economies were very marked and emphatically large. I pointed out in another address that I made in this 'house that apart from the wages for the men, with which we had nothing to do, the economies among the officers drawing over $3,000 amounted alone to something like $2,000,000 in 1932 as compared with 1930.
I do not think the hon. member for Bow River was quite fair in saying that there was a campaign against public ownership. Certainly there was not so far as the government was concerned. There was a campaign of education to tell the people of this country what it w'as necessary for them to know, the immense taxation which they had to pay to meet the deficits on the government roads. That is all that was done. So far as the government was concerned, there was certainly nothing at all in the Shape of a campaign against government ownership.
So far as the amendment of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) is concerned it seeks to amend the clause dealing with the creation of new companies reading as follows:
The National company and the Pacific company for and on behalf as aforesaid are directed to endeavour to provide that any new company, created as in subsection two of this section referred to, shall give preference for work to employees in any services or on any works taken over by such new company.'
The hon. gentleman proposes to wipe out the words "to endeavour." My legal officers advise me that so far as the companies can legally be forced to carry out this-shall I say-admonition to them they are forced to do so under this clause, and that to wipe out "to endeavour" would have no effect whatever. Therefore there is no reason for accepting the amendment. My hon. friend repeated not once, but many times, that no matter what we may say this bill is for the purposes of amalgamation. I can in reply only refer him to the last clause of the bill in which it is specifically stated that nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the amalgamation of the two companies. I do not wish to argue or harp upon that question any further.
I was satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) frankly came out in the open and said, particularly the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, that they believed we were looking after the moneylenders and ignoring the human element, and that we must repudiate our debts. I wish to point out in a sentence that the bonds of the

Canadian National Railways or rather the mortgages of the Canadian National Railways, because that is what the bonds of the Canadian National Railways guaranteed by the Canadian government are, are just as much the debts of this dominion as are the ordinary bonds which have been issued by the government of Canada at various times since confederation, and when the government of Canada takes the attitude that it will repudiate the payment of interest on the bonds of the government railways which it has guaranteed, then the government of Canada will have to take the position also of repudiating its ordinary debt, and I simply submit without further argument that that is the position taken by Russia, and Canada has not yet come to the position of repudiating its debts.
I would further point out to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and some other members on both sides of the house who have made a very strong argument in regard to the human element, that because we have not accepted everything they proposed, although we have accepted a great deal, does not in any way alter the fact that we are just as anxious to look after the men as is the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River or other hon. members of the house. But it is worth pointing out that the Canadian National Railways in January, February and March, and I think April of this year, has not covered its operating expenses, let alone paying interest on its debt to the public. That in itself shows the seriousness of the situation and the need for the economies which have been made. It also shows the difficulty of complying with every request that is made by some hon. member of the house.
I have two other points to make and then I will sit down. May I point out that the pooling arrangements which have taken place in connection with the services between Ottawa and Toronto, and Montreal and Toronto, were not brought about under this bill at all. Both the railways to-day, without this bill at all, have the right to go ahead and make the pooling arrangements which they have made, and those pooling arrangements had nothing whatever to do with this bill.
One last word about the speech of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), who said that we were in a position and implied that we would likely take advantage of it, to dismantle the Hudson Bay railway. I cannot quite understand why he should say that except for the obvious reason that he thinks it is pretty good political propaganda.

C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Mr. Donnelly


William Richard Motherwell: That is what the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) said.


Robert James Manion: And he said the truth. Why would this government for the last three years have been spending millions on the Hudson Bay railway to complete it and get it ready for operation and for opening this year if we were going to dismantle it? The statement is too foolish to waste time on.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the government is going to stand by the bill as it is submitted.
Mr. THOMAS F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this bill will in any way be a solution for the present difficulties in which our railways find themselves. I believe, and have done so for some months past, that if the railways were left alone to themselves they would be compelled by the present hard times to cut down their expenses and a great curtailment in expenditures would take place. I would not have spoken at any length on the third reading of this bill but for some remarks that were made in this house recently. One was made just a few moments ago by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). He pointed out how low the freight rates had been in this country forty years ago, and compared them with the rates to-day. I hardly agree with his comparison, and would point out that any low freight rates which we had we obtained under a Liberal government, and those rates continued up until 1910.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Yes, ho, ho. When a Conservative government came into power in 1911 the freight rates were raised, and they were raised higher than they are now. That was done under a Conservative government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose you remember there was a war on.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, I know there was a war, but I am telling the hon. member that it was under a Conservative government that the rates were raised, and it was a Conservative government that was in power during the time of the war. Is that not so?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James J. Donnelly: After the war, when
tihe Liberal government were in power and we tried to have a reduction of freight rates under what is known as the Crowsnest pass agreement, where did my hon. friends stand?
Where did the Conservative party stand in those days? They stood for raising the rates; it was a Liberal government that endeavoured to bring them down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker-


James J. Donnelly: If you wish to speak,
speak after.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot
do it; you are asking for it. Take your medicine.


James J. Donnelly: The same contention
arose with regard to the Hudson Bay railway. We have heard the Minister of Railways and Canals tell how much the government has done for that railway. I say to him that the Hudson Bay railway was about completed when this government came into office; it was practically completed by a Liberal government. Yes, and why was it sent to Churchill instead of to Nelson? When the hon. member for Melville said that the railway should be built to Churchill instead of to Nelson he was condemned not only in the House of Commons but in the western provinces. The railway has been completed to Churchill, and is in operation, but many of us in western Canada believe the same interests which condemned the Hudson Bay railway, and which attempted to send it to Nelson, are beginning to condemn it again. When the measure before us becomes law we do not want the board of trustees to have control over that railway. With that in mind I move the following amendment:
That this bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of including the following amendment:
That the Hudson Bay railway as now administered by the Department of Railways be not permitted to pass under the jurisdiction of the railway trustees as in this bill constituted, or under any oLher authority than that of the government of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will have to take the amendments one at a time. There is one amendment before the house now, is there not? On third reading one amendment must be disposed of before another may be taken up.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there is any amendment before the house.


Robert James Manion: Did not the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River move an amendment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was ruled
out of order.

C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Division


Peter Heenan: I sent it over merely as a suggestion.


Robert James Manion: Then it was my fault that the Prime Minister was wrong in his assumption. I thought the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had moved an amendment.
Amendment negatived.


John Franklin White: I was paired with tihe hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Eraser). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GARDINER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon. membeT for West Peterborough (Mr. Peck). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I was paired with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


George Hamilton Pettit: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. WEIR (Macdonald). I was paired with the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I was paired with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. AHEARN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Beaubier). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Edward James Young: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


George Gibson Coote: I was paired with the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Boyes). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND (Translation) :: I was
paired with the hon. member for Toronto-North-East (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Statute oj Westminster


Joseph Arthur Barrette: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). Had I voted I woidd have voted against the motion.



STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 74, respecting extraterritorial operation of acts of the parliament of Canada.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
Mr. DUPRE:: This question of extraterritoriality is of primary importance, and was dealt with by the Imperial conference of 1926. The problem was afterwards referred to the committee of experts, which later became merged in the conference on the operation of dominion legislation which met in 1929. That conference, after very careful examination of the whole question, recognized that in view of the state of uncertainty, and the differences in the dominion constitutions themselves, which were reflected in the legal opinion in these dominions, it was desirable that legislation should be passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom to make it very clear that the constitutional limitation did not exist. Accordingly a clause was recommended for inclusion in the statute of Westminster, and that action was approved by the Imperial conference of 1930. That clause is section 3 of the statute of Westminster, which is printed in the explanatory note to this bill, and reads as follows:
It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of a dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.
As a result of this enactment, there can be no doubt that all legislation enacted by the parliament of Canada since December 11, 1931, which is the date on which the statute of Westminster came into force, has extraterritorial operation in all cases in which that intention of parliament has been clearly indicated. The statute however has no effect upon Canadian enactments prior to that date. There undoubtedly are on the statute books laws concerning which the question might be raised, giving rise to unnecessary litigation. The question arose with regard to the case of Dunphy v. Croft, which was based on

a seizure under chapter 16 of the statutes of 1928, which authorized the seizure of Canadian registered vessels hovering within the twelve mile limit. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the legislation not coming within the provision of the statute of Westminster, by reason of having been enacted prior to the coming into force of that statute, was ultra vires of the parliament of Canada. This position was reversed by decision of the privy council in the same case, and the legislation was upheld in terms that justified the views expressed by the successive governments in this country throughout the period covering this controversy. Accordingly the enactment might fairly be regarded as a sort of declaratory enactment, and can be justified as placing beyond controversy the validity of Canadian legislation. Its object is to settle definitely this controversial question and prevent unnecessary litigation.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to support this bill. I have always been of the opinion that this parliament had the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction in its legislation, but the decisions of the courts in the matter have varied in such a way that possibly it is better to have this bill made law in order to remove any doubt. As the language of the statute of Westminster indicates, it is declaratory:
It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of a dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.
It was not a statute giving power but rather to declare that parliament has that power. However it is better, as my hon. friend has said, that there should be no doubt as to past legislation, and this bill should be made law.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 71, 'to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
Sections 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On the title:
Ernest Lapointe: I introduced a bill to reenact part of section 1024 of the criminal code, and it was stated at the time that the government would take charge of the bill and include
it in the amendments to the code.

Criminal Code-Protection oj Children


Maurice Dupré: The amendment reads as follows:
Subsection (4) of section 1024 of the said act is repealed and is hereby reenacted as follows:
4. Notwithstanding any royal prerogative, or anything contained in the Interpretation Act or in the Supreme Court Act, no appeal shall be brought in any criminal case from any judgment or order of any court in Canada to any court of appeal or authority, by which, in the United Kingdom appeals or petitions to His Majesty in council may be heard.


Ernest Lapointe: That is satisfactory.


Maurice Dupré: Then I move this amendment as section 11.
*


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: Some amendments have been made in the province of Quebec with regard to the grand jury, and we have been requested to amend our criminal code accordingly. The amendments I am about to suggest were drafted this morning by the deputy minister of justice, acting with the respresentative of the attorney general of the province of Quebec, Mr. Amyot, K.C. I have the amendments agreed upon by these two gentlemen. The first is as follows:
Subsection (5) of section 873 of the said act, as enacted by chapter VII of the statutes of 1932, is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:
(5)	In the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, it shall not be necessary to prefer any bill of indictment before a grand jury, but it shall be sufficient that the trial of any person charged with a criminal offence be commenced by a formal charge in writing setting forth as an indictment the offence with which he is charged.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand that this has been suggested by the attorney general's department of Quebec?


Maurice Dupré: A bill has been passed by
the legislature, and we have been asked to make our criminal code consistent, so far as Quebec is concerned, with the new provincial law. The amendments I am reading have been suggested by the attorney general of Quebec. I move the amendment I just read.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: The next amendment, which I move, is as follows:
Subsection (6) of section 873 of the said act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:
(6)	Such charge in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta may be preferred by the attorney-general or an agent of the attorney-general, or by any person with the written consent of the judge of the court or of the attorney-general, or by order of the court.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: The next amendment, which I move, and which will be section 13 of the bill, is as follows:
Section 873 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection:
(7)	Such charge in the province of Quebec may be preferred by the attorney-general, or the deputy attorney-general, or by any person with the written consent of the judge of the court or of the attorney-general.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: Then I move the next
amendment:
(1)	Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 10, 11 and 12 of this act, if in any proceeding or prosecution under the criminal code begun in the province of Quebec before the coming into force of the present act, a true bill has been rendered by a grand jury against a person charged with a criminal offence, such true bill shall continue to have full force and effect, and the trial of the person against whom such true bill has been rendered may be commenced or recommenced, as the ease may be, as if the present act was not in force.
(2)	If, in the province of Quebec, a person against whom a true bill has been rendered by a grand jury before the coming into force of this act is convicted and upon appeal is granted a new trial by any court of appeal having jurisdiction, or if such person is granted a new trial by the Minister of Justice under section 1022 of the criminal code, such new trial will be commenced in the manner enacted by subsections (5) and (7) of section 873 of the criminal code, as respectively amended and enacted by this act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: There are further amendments to be offered. In order to make these sections consistent with the amendment proposed to section 8, the following amendment is moved:
By inserting immediately after section 9, the following as section 10:
Subsection 1 of section seven hundred and seventy-six of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
776. When any person is charged before a magistrate, other than one of those mentioned in section seven hundred and seventy-four, with theft or with having obtained property by false pretences, or with having unlawfully received stolen property, and the value of the property stolen, obtained or received exceeds twenty-five dollars, and the evidence in support of the prosecution is, in the opinion of the magistrate, sufficient to put the person on his trial for the offence charged, such magistrate, if the case appears to him to be one which may properly be disposed of in a summary way, shall after the charge has been reduced to writing, read it to the said person, and shall explain to him that he is not obliged to plead or answer before such magistrate, and that if he does not plead or answer before him, he will be committed for trial in the usual course.
This amendment simply changes the amount from ten dollars to twenty-five dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
4746	COMMONS
Canada-New Zealand Trade Agreement
Maurice Dupré: I have another amendment, which will be section 11 of the bill. It is:
That paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 777 of the act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(c) In the provinces of British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory and the cities of Saint John, Fredericton and Moncton in the province of New Brunswick where any person is charged with an offence mentioned in any of the paragraphs of section seven hundred and seventy-three, except paragraph (h);


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: I move that the last section be repealed, and the following be substituted therefor:
This act. except sections ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen, shall come into force on the first day of July, 1933. Sections ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen shall come into force on such date subsequent to the first day of July, 1933, as may be fixed by proclamation.


Ernest Lapointe: Why?


Maurice Dupré: This is necessary because
of the changes made in the bill. It has been indicated that the provincial laws will come into force at a time fixed by the lieutenant governor in council by proclamation, and our proclamation will be issued at the same time.


Ernest Lapointe: I think there is some
mistake in the numbering of the sections.


Maurice Dupré: We will have that straightened out.


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

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 97, to authorize the governor in council to agree to extend by proclamation the duration of the trade agreement made between Canada and New Zealand, dated the twenty-third day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, as approved by chapter 34 of the statutes, of 1932, entitled an act respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Power to extend duration of agreement.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be remembered that this treaty was for a year whioh expires on May 24. It has been arranged that it will be
[Mr. Dupre.l
extended for a period of time to be agreed upon and this bill will authorize the governor in council to make the necessary proclamation.


Mr. MARCIL:: Could we be advised of the quantity of butter which has been imported into Canada from New Zealand sinoe 1930, when this treaty came into effect?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is not present, and I have not that information before me. It has been placed upon the records of this house at least twice during this session in answers to questions asked. The last importations of butter arrived at Vancouver but under the provisions of the treaty they were held until such time as the necessities of our market required them for our consumption, when they were disposed of.


Charles Marcil: I was rather anxious to have these figures. This matter was used as an argument during the last elections. The farmers were fooled on that occasion and they want to know why this New Zealand butter is still coming into the country when the consumer has to pay five or six cents per pound more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will endeavour to obtain the information and put it on Hansard.


Charles Marcil: Could we have also the amount of customs duties paid?


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved -the third reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
.POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to provide that the advertising portion of newspapers and periodicals transmitted for a greater distance than forty miles from their place of publication, or of which the publication is of greater frequency than once a week, shall be subject to postage of two cents a pound where the space devoted to advertisements exceeds 20 per cent but does not exceed 30 per cent of the total space; of 3 cents a pound where such space exceeds 30 per cent but does not exceed 50 per cent; and of 4 cents a pound where such space exceeds 50 per cent.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bury in the chair.

Post Office Act-Newspaper Postage
Richard Bedford Bennett: This resolution was
placed on the order paper in my name by accident and so I am proceeding with it.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Not by accident.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was an accident. There was no name on it and I initialed it. I am going to say something about it in a moment and make it very simple.


Paul Mercier: The Postmaster General should be in charge of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he should.


Ernest Lapointe: I suggest that the Postmaster General should be here to listen at least to his chief's argument on the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This resolution is very
simple. After the representations that .were made on behalf of those who where interested were heard, it was decided that only the latter part of the resolution would be proceeded with, so that it will read:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to provide that the advertising portion of newspapers and periodicals transmitted for a greater distance than forty miles from their place of publication, or of which the publication is of greater frequency than once a week, shall be subject to postage of four cents a pound where the space devoted to advertisements exceeds 50 per cent.
That is all; it is to meet a situation in which the Post Office Department has been cumbered and bothered with handling newspapers containing sixteen to eighteen pages of purely advertising matter, taking the place, in many instances, of catalogues. The Post Office authorities advise that the loss in handling newspapers in this country last year through the post was somewhere between $5,090,000 and $6,000,000. It would be impossible under existing conditions to correct the Whole of that loss, but in so far as it may be possible to dispense with the handling by the Post Office Department of very heavy papers containing from sixteen to eighteen pages of advertising, it is proposed to do so by charging four cents a pound for such handling. The matter really resolves itself into the handling of catalogues through sixteen to eighteen page issues of newspapers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister explain the representations which led to the dropping of the other portions of the resolution?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was established beyond question that under existing economic conditions the newspapers were operating at a loss unless their advertising content was equal to 50 per cent. Newspaper representatives
53719-300 j
waited on the government and made a very clear statement showing the facts in connection with existing conditions. The really determining factor was the placing of the sales tax upon newsprint, a tax which had not been previously imposed. The result is that the revenue derived from that source will be equal to, if not exceeded by the revenue that might be derived from this.


Paul Mercier: What is the estimated additional revenue under this postage?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The officials of the
department say that it will be difficult to estimate what the additional revenue will be, because it is believed that the probable result will be that people will resort again to the use of catalogues rather than the utilization of newspapers, but if the same quantity were carried, the additional revenue would be in the vicinity of $100,000.


Paul Mercier: What would it have been under the first part of the resolution which is dropped?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not ask for the
figure, after the representations that were made, and after it was decided to impose a sales tax on newsprint.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will this
afford protection to Canadian newspapers as against papers coming from the United States?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is already in that regard a tax which is not changed. The bill has not yet been distributed, but the explanatory note says that there is no change with respect to that. It says:
The effect of the proviso will be as follows:
(A)	Free circulation, no change.
(B)	Newspapers and periodicals when the space devoted to advertisements does not exceed 20 per centum, no change.
And so on up to 50 per cent, there is no change. After that the rate is four cents. Up to 50 per cent the existing rates, which were increased, as it will be remembered two years ago will still be continued; that is, they will be one cent or one and one-half cent as heretofore, but after 50 per cent, the rate will be four cents.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Many United States newspapers contain a large number of pages of advertising. I was wondering whether the effect of this particular legislation would be to prevent to any extent the importation of United States publications.

Postage
Post Office Act-Newspaper


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should not think there are any United States newspapers with over 50 per cent advertising content coming into this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Magazines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As will be recalled, that
is all covered by existing legislation. This does not change that.


Mr. NEILL:: Can the Prime Minister
indicate from the representations that the delegation made to him what the advertising content of the average country newspaper would be?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This, as will be observed, does not touch the ordinary country newspaper; it touches only the daily newspaper. The daily newspapers have an association and its representatives produced figures to show that under present abnormal conditions a newspaper could not be said to be profitable until its advertising content approximated 50 per cent. But under existing conditions it will be remembered that the newspapers, except in a few instances, do not carry such advertisements daily; they sometimes carry them once or twice a week for a page or two and then for the remaining days a smaller portion of space is taken. The old rule, I was told, used to be-and I asked that question-that 40 per cent advertising and 60 per cent news was profitable. Under present conditions, with the taxes such as they are, this rate had risen to practically fifty-fifty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would this affect, for example, the Saturday Evening Post from Philadelphia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was covered by the legislation passed two years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not affected by this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My understanding was that none of that class of papers was affected. The section as it reads is section one as amended in 1931 and, as I say, there was no change made in that except the one I have just indicated. I shall, however, make inquiry and ascertain between now and to-morrow whether it makes any difference in the postage payable by that paper.


Edward James Young: It seems to me that if this legislation goes through, the newspapers will sit down and figure whether it will be cheaper to pay four cents extra postage or to increase the reading matter so as to bring the paper

under the lower postage rate. In this way the department may find itself in the position of carrying an increased weight without an increased remuneration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that difficulty will arise.


Charles Marcil: Is any change made in regard to the printed matter coming by express into Canada? If you go down street on Sunday morning in Montreal or anywhere else, you will see truck loads piled with United States papers that formerly would have gone through the mails.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They pay some contribution to the revenues of the country, although the exact basis I do not carry in my mind. It was discussed in 1931. There is no method at the present moment by which we can prevent Canadian newspapers from circulating their issues by trucks; in fact in the country in which I live, in western Canada, and I suppose it is so in many other parts of the country, newspapers are now distributed by motor trucks where the postal service is not quite convenient in view of the hour of publication. I believe that the magazines and newspapers that come into this country pay customs duties at the border, and distribution is a matter which is arranged between them and their distributing agents. They come in usually by express to large cities like Montreal and Toronto where there is a substantial Sunday distribution, but not in the case of the smaller communities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did not the
Prime Minister suggest that he wished to amend the resolution?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was just going to suggest that I would amend the resolution or amend the bill. I move, Mr. Chairman, to substitute the word "four" for the word "two" in line five of the resolution and the figure "50" for the figure "20" in the same line, and to strike out all the words after the word "cent" at the beginning of the sixth line. The resolution will then read:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to provide that the advertising portion of newspapers and periodicals transmitted for a greater distance than forty miles from their place of publication, or of which the publication is of greater frequency than once a week, shall be subject to postage of four cents a pound where the space devoted to advertisements exceeds 50 per cent.
The officers of the department tell me that the effect will probably be a deterrent to trying to unload upon the postal service of the country a larger burden than it should carry.

Tariff Board Act


Alan Webster Neill: It seems to me that as the resolution reads it would include weekly newspapers. It says:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to provide that the advertising portion of newspapers and periodicals transmitted for a greater distance than forty miles from their place of publication

That covers the weekly newspaper. Then there is another class, "or of which the publication is of greater frequency than once a week." The weekly newspapers are frequently transmitted for a greater distance than forty miles from their place of publication in the west where the distances are great.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will let that question stand until the bill is before the committee I shall show him what the facts are.
Resolution as amended reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 98, to amend the Post Office Act.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the bill also in the name of the Prime Minister through a mistake?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill follows the resolution'. My friends seem to think there is something very strange about this. As a matter of fact when I found it was in my name I spoke to the Postmaster General, and he said to go on with it as it stood. I will ask the Postmaster General to take the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: No, we are quite satisfied.


Mr. JACOBS:: I think the Prime Minister is doing very well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the house would give the bill its first and second readings to-day I would not move the bill into committee until I get the answers to the questions that have been asked because I want to be sure myself with respect to them.


Charles Marcil: I would like to have the
Postmaster General here. The other day in the absence of the Prime Minister a bill dealing with radio was brought in by the acting minister, and the minister in charge of radio was left to one side. Now an act affecting the post office is brought in by the Prime Minister, and the Postmaster General is not here. The Post. Office is one of the most important departments. It reaches every man, woman and child in Canada. There is no corner of Canada which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General, and I think he should be here to answer the numerous complaints that are prepared for him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They would not be discussed until his estimates are up, in any event. Let us be fair about this thing.


Charles Marcil: He was not here when his estimates were called, and now he is not here when the bill has been called.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure that there is
no reason why hon. gentlemen, in their political anxiety, should not be fair. The Postmaster General will be only too glad to answer questions regarding the conduct of his department when his estimates are called, as they will be this evening or this afternoon if it is preferred. He will be here to answer for himself. So far as this bill is concerned I have explained the circumstances in which my name was put on, and I agreed that, it should remain there. If hon. gentlemen will agree to the bill being given a second reading this afternoon I will let it stand without moving it into committee so as to be able to answer the questions which the leader of the opposition and other hon. gentlemen have asked me.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. BENNETT moved the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



TARIFF BOARD ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Tariff Board Act, chapter 55 of the statutes of 1931, to provide that the salary of the chairman shall be $15,009 per annum; and that any member of the board who has served for a period of ten years, and is, on completion of such period, of the age of sixty years or over, may be granted an annuity equal to one-half of the annual salary of such member.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The purpose of this
resolution is to provide that the chairman of the board, who was a member of the high court of justice of the province of Ontario and who left that position to accept the position of chairman of the board, shall be placed in substantially the same position financially as he was had he not done so. The chairman did not seek the office; the office sought the chairman. I need hardly say to this committee that the appointment of a chairman to this board was a matter of
Tariff Board Act

very great difficulty. To secure one with judicial qualities of mind, and who would commend himself to all those who were concerned in the matters with which he had to deal was not the easiest matter in the world. I consulted in many quarters as to where a judge might be obtained because I believed it was desirable that the chairman should be one who had judicial qualifications.
Mr. Justice Sedgewick was not disposed to accept the position; he took some time to consider it. After consulting with some of his friends he was finally prevailed upon by his sense of public service and duty to accept the position. He was appointed judge in December of 1930, and had been on the bench something over two years. He is now of the age of fifty-five years, and was something over fifty-three at the time of his appointment to the bench. After taking some time to consider the matter he finally concluded, as an act of public service, to accept the position. He desired however that his financial position should not be worse than it would have been had he remained on the bench. This resolution is an endeavour to give effect to that purpose.
I think perhaps the only amendment would be that of changing the word "sixty" to "sixty-four," because it is desired to have regard for the fifteen years of service that he would render if he were on the bench, to secure an annuity. Two of those years are now passed and do not count for anything. We would provide that if he serves ten years as chairman and has reached the age of sixty-four or over, he will receive the annuity mentioned in the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The resolution as it reads relates to the chairman of the tariff board, irrespective of who he may be?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister's remarks had reference to the present chairman, Mr. Justice Sedgewick. Probably the resolution should not be limited in its application in the first place to the individual mentioned. However, other and quite different circumstances may arise on obtaining a successor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite appreciate the point which the right hon. gentleman has made. As a matter of fact it has given me much concern as to whether or not that would be the proper thing to do. If the committee is of the opinion that it is proper, under the *circumstances, to place the name in the resolution, instead of leaving it as it is, I am

perfectly content. I thought, however, that it was better under all the circumstances to put it in the form in which it appears and to change the figure "sixty" to "sixty-four" so that it could refer to no one else except the present chairman, he having put in something like two years and three months on the bench.
It may be that it would be thought desirable to make a change hereafter, but I believe the explanation I have given and the circumstances under which this condition has arisen might obviate the necessity for putting the name in the bill. However if the right hon. gentleman would like the change, I would not oppose it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was not
advocating it. I was drawing attention to the right hon. gentleman's remarks because I had objections quite apart from the one he has mentioned.


Paul Mercier: What was his salary in Ontario?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He received $9,000 from
the dominion and $1,000 from the province.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
states that it was not fair to ask the present chairman of the tariff board to prejudice his financial position by accepting the chairmanship. I should like to know in what way his financial position would be injured by accepting a position with a higher salary. A salary of $15,000 a year is much higher than the salary he was paid as a judge of the supreme court of Ontario. I should like to learn from the right hon. gentleman how the present chairman would have suffered by accepting the position at the statutory salary?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I put it this way: Any
person who occupies a position of judge of the high court of justice of Ontario, who has his home and is established in the city of Toronto and who under ordinary circumstances, if his health is good, would be entitled to keep that position until he had reached the age of seventy-five years, and to retire upon an annuity of two-thirds of his salary, with a likelihood of promotion, so far as he was concerned, on the bench, would not be as well off financially by accepting the chairmanship, as if he had remained in his former position. That view was supported by business men whom he consulted, and with whom he discussed the matter as to whether or not he would be wise in making a change at this particular time in his life. Nothing but a desire for fairness to himself and his family induced him to accept it under conditions such as indicated in the resolution.

Tariff Board Act


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot agree with my
right hon. friend. Mr. Justice Sedgewick drew a salary of $9,000 from the dominion, and $1,000 from the province of Ontario. He could not retire and be superannuated, except for cause, illness or inability to fulfil his duties of office. That superannuation would have been at the rate of two-thirds of his salary as a judge, or $6,000 per year. Under the resolution before us there is provision for a salary of $15,000 a year. Then after ten years, even though he be only sixty-two or sixty-three years of age-[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Ernest Lapointe: -he would be entitled to one-half of his salary, namely $7,500. It certainly is an improvement in his position. I desire to discuss this matter briefly irrespective of who is to be the incumbent of the position. I have no doubt that the present chairman is well qualified and may be a very good chairman of the tariff board, but I desire to protest against the practice which seems to have established itself in recent years, namely that of taking a judge from one of the high courts, placing him on some board and giving him a salary much higher than that received by the chief justice of the high court of the province from which he came, or judges of the appeal courts. It is a salary even higher than that received by judges of the supreme court of Canada. I do not believe that a man occupying the position of chairman of the tariff board must have better qualifications than one occupying the position of chief justice of the province of Ontario, or a justice of the supreme court of Canada. I do not think it is fair to the other members of the judiciary. Also I object to it on another ground. I do not think it makes for the respect which is owing to the bench that judges should appear as aspirants to these new positions being created in the way of tariff board, railway board, radio board and other similar boards, at higher salaries than their brothers on the bench. I desire to protest against this practice and I am opposed to this resolution.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For the same reason that the 'hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has just stated I desire also to register my protest against this legislation. I find here according to section 8 of chapter 55 of the statutes of 1931 that pensions are provided for these people on the tariff board:
Every member who has served on the board for a period of at least ten years may be granted an annuity for the term of his natural life equal to one-fourth of the annual salary received by him during such period, and if he
has served for any period less than ten years but more than fire years, he may be granted an annuity equal to one-fifth of the annual salary received by him during such period.
Then subsection 2 states:
The chairman of the board shall be paid an annual salary of twelve thousand dollars, and the other two members shall each be paid an annual salary of ten thousand dollars.
And the secretary is to be paid $6,000. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the country will support our contention that at the time those salaries were fixed and these pensions provided we were dealing most fairly and even generously with the people sought for to serve in those high positions. I understand that Judge Sedgewick is a very prominent man, I have had occasion to meet him myself, and I would not say anything disparaging of him, but, being elevated to that high position, if this bill is passed he will receive a higher salary than any judge of the supreme court, higher than any judge in the land. I think in years past we have made a mistake in paying such big salaries as we have. For instance we increased the salary of the Auditor General from $9,000 to $15,000. I think it was a mistake. I think a judge of the court of appeal is entitled to a high salary, but if we now put the salary of this gentleman at $15,000 we are giving him as high a salary as the chief justice of the supreme court of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada. We must not forget this, that the tariff board is only a fact-finding body, which moves only at the instance of the government, the Minister of Finance. They are not in the position of administering justice as judges sitting in any appellate court in Canada, who move because they are seized with cases that come before them from all parts of the land. This board is nothing more than a tool in the hands of the government. I think we are paying too much in increasing this salary to $15,000 a year. I want to register my protest most strongly, more especially in view of the fact that in all big business concerns at present it is the practice to reduce salaries as much as possible. And what did we see on the 30th of March last? This government which is asking us to-day to increase this salary to $15,000 passed an order in council at the instance of the Minister of Finance requesting all departments of the government to keep within bounds and seek to reduce expenses and not incur any expense unless absolutely necessary for the better administration of the country. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he thinks i't is absolutely necessary that we should increase this salary $5,000-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only $3,000, not $5,000.

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If he thinks it necessary to increase the salary $3,000 to have better service from this gentleman who is going to sit on that board?
Progress reported.



SOLDIER AND GENERAL LAND SETTLEMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Amount required for soldier land settlement advances, for advances under the British family schemes recoverable from the British government, for the cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement, and for the cost of administration of soldier settlement staff performing investigations for the war veterans allowance committee, $1,173,600.
Edward Joseph Garland: Last evening when the bill went through I was unfortunately called out of the chamber and therefore was not able to present the case in connection with the suggestion I made to the minister that he should take into consideration the possibility of wiping out the whole soldier settlement board administration and turning the land over to the settlers. He was kind enough to provide me with figures which strongly support the idea I have in mind. Although I am not at present advocating it, as naturally the fullest information is not at my disposal. I find that the cost to the country to date is as follows:
Live stock revaluation	..	..	$ 2,927,869	99Land revaluation	
7,479,343	75
Thirty per cent reduction
(some years ago). 11,296,632	03
Interest exemption in 1922..	10,269,108	87
Total of exemptions. .. $31,972,954 64
The administration costs during that period amounted to nearly two thirds of that amount, or $21,709,929.35.
I pause at this point to direct the attention of the house to that enormous cost of administration of the Soldier Settlement Act. The cost to date, as I have said, is $21,709,929 and on top of that is entailed a loss to the country of nearly $32,000,000 or a grand total of $53,682,883.99.
The case would not be complete if I were not able to show that the total collected did not reach that amount. The total amount collected in the whole period is only $50,968,482.79, so that we have collected $3,000,000 less than the cost to the country. I was informed by the minister yesterday that the total amount outstanding is $63,753,000 in round figures.
Now let me ask this question: If it cost $21,709,000 for administration to collect $50,-

000,000 when the prices for agricultural products were comparatively high, certainly much higher than they are at present and higher than prices are likely to be for some time to come, how much will it cost to collect the $63,753,000 outstanding? Yesterday I think the government demonstrated good sense and tolerance in regard to the condition of the settlers, and this house did itself justice in passing the bill which was brought in at that time, but the whole question must be dealt with by this government or by the government which wilt immediately follow it-and I can assure hon. members that it will not be of the same political stripe. We must consider whether this whole act is to be continued. For my part I feel that the government would be well rid of a white elephant and the country would escape appalling losses on the transaction at present prices if the land were turned over free to the settlers. Then we could do away with this whole board and save this cost of administration. I am not sure whether the minister discussed this point yesterday in dealing with the question; if he did so I am sorry I did not hear him. I understand that the-original cost of land and equipment was given as $117,000,000, and that the interest lost has amounted to about $2,688,000. Now I should like to know the total interest arrears to date.


Mr. GORDON:: In connection with soldier settlers, as interpreted by the act, and civilian settlers the interest arrears amount to $4,175,820.63.


Edward Joseph Garland: I take it
that the two items are combined and there is no way of separating them?


George Gordon: I have not the separate
items.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is a recommendation I should like to make to the minister. I noticed that in his replies to-several questions, especially dealing with statistics, he included both activities. I seriously suggest that an attempt should be made to separate the costs as between the general land settlement and the soldier settlement, because they are two entirely different matters. One was started in order to absorb the demobilized soldiers; it had in view a definite and praiseworthy objective. The other was a settlement scheme, partly British and partly Canadian, and I think the minister would be well advised to take into consideration separating the two accounts so that next year we may get the exact figures.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I did carry on an investigation about a year and a half

The Royal Assent
ago along the lines suggested by my hon. friend; I thought it would be advisable to separate the two classes of settlers. I found, however, that the expense in the accounting branch would be very considerable, and in fact would outweigh any advantage that I could see resulting from a separation, although I readily understand that there would be an advantage in having that information available.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think it
is unfair to both branches, because in turn each branch is blamed by critics of the other branch. For the sake of peace within the ranks of the settlers themselves it would be advisable to separate the items. Perhaps the department knows that the soldiers do not like to have these costs jumbled up in this way, so that no one knows whether or not the cost of administration in connection with soldier settlement is unnecessarily high. In my opinion that cost has been absurdly high; it has been out of all proportion to the service rendered. It seems perfectly ridiculous that it should cost $21,709,000 to collect $50,000,000. I think the items should be separated, even though it may cost a little more.


George Gordon: I am not prepared to take the position that the cost has not been high. Of course it has been too high; that was abundantly apparent to me in 1930. I could not understand why it should be so high, but, as the hon. member knows, that cost has been reduced by about half so that to-day the cost of administration is less than one per cent, which compares very favourably with the cost of administration of loan companies handling similar business. I hope it can be held at that ratio, and it may be possible to make the cost even lower.


Edward James Young: Is that one per cent of the amount collected or of the total debt?


George Gordon: That is comparing the
amount of the investment with the administrative cost.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does that
mean one per cent of $117,000,000?


George Gordon: No, one per cent of
$63,000,000. No one needs to labour the point with regard to the cost of administration. I do not say this in any endeavour to stir up political matters, but we found field supervisors who had driven the cars of the board across the continent on their holidays, and all that sort of thing; we found men employed by the board who were of absolutely no value. In the reorganization
the endeavour was to select from the officials those with actual experience in pioneer settlement and agricultural work, and a review of the personnel of the board at present will show that almost one hundred per cent of the employees are returned men. In almost every case the men in charge have had very considerable experience in agriculture as well.
The history of this effort is well known to every member of the committee. Whether or not it was a proper effort to be made at the time perhaps does not matter now in discussing the situation as we find it, but I believe there should be a constant reduction in the cost of administration. I do not know that I can promise that there will be a very great reduction in each succeeding year, but it should be reduced to the point where the staff will be able to take care of land settlement generally, and the administration of these lands will be practically incidental. I have a very high regard for those who are at present employed as officials of the board; I believe hon. members will agree that politics did not enter into the reorganization at all.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting The Canadian Anthracite Coal Company, Limited.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Offensive 'Weapons).
An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An Act to amend the Penitentiary Act.
An Act to incorporate Devonshire Jockey Club.
An Act respecting The Nipissing Central Railway Company.
An Act to amend The Canada Grain Act.
An Act to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
An Act respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Bank Act.
An Act respecting the Inspection and Grading of Hay and Straw.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1934.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in 'the chair.
Amount required for soldier land settlement advances, for advances under the British family schemes recoverable from the British government, for the cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement, and for the cost of administration of soldier settlement staff, performing investigations for the war veterans allowance committee, $1,173,600.
George Gordon: As I had just pointed out, the cost of administration has been reduced very considerably, and at the present time, as I said, it will compare favourably with that of loan companies and others carrying on similar work. When the bill was before the committee yesterday I promised the hon. member for Comox-Albemi that I would put on Hansard the receipts and cost of administration in the fiscal year 1929-30 together with the total expenditure for that year. The figures are as follows:
Total	revenue	$4,570,190	99Total	expenditure	
2,435,255	38
Perhaps it might be desirable to put on record the figures for the next year so that they will make a continuous picture of the board's operations. These are the figures for the fiscal year 1930-31:
Total	revenue	$2,382,243	28Total	expenditure	
2,182,591	85
The plan of reorganization of the board did lot of course come in until the following year. During the years 1928 and 1929, many seizures were made. I have not had an opportunity or 'the time to inquire into the causes and the justice of that course and therefore I shall not undertake either to commend or to criticize it, but it was so generally the practice that the law existing at that time was changed so as to give the settler the right to apply to the judge of the district or county court in order to secure relief in such cases. The main reason 'the receipts have fallen off may be found in the fact that it is and has been the policy of the government, during this time of depressed prices, to encourage the settler to stay upon the land and, as I have said before in this chamber, not to adopt an attitude that might prompt him in discouragement to abandon his holdings. The receipts have fallen off because we have not adopted an attitude of severity with respect to collections. Of course we all hope the collections will come in more easily in the future than they have in the immediate past.


William Thomas Lucas: Have there been any foreclosures during the past year?


George Gordon: My information is that
there have been no foreclosures except in the case of absentee settlers, but there have been some quit claims. I am told that there may be half a dozen foreclosures across Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: Could the minister turn to
page 4704 of yesterday's Hansard and explain the difference between the figure of the total administration cost for the year 1929-30, which is there given covering both soldier land settlement and general land settlement as a total of $1,362,121.86, and the figure below that which reads: Controllable expenditure, $2,435,255.38? The minister just now gave the figure of $2,435,255.38 as the expenditure; would he explain the difference between the figure of $1,362,121.86 and that of $2,435,255.38?


George Gordon: I should have broken up
that item. The total expenditure includes advances as well as administration costs.


Alan Webster Neill: Advances can hardly be called expenses of administration. The minister a few minutes ago gave the expenses as $2,435,255.38. The figures should be $1,362,121.86.


George Gordon: If we break up the figure
of $2,435,255.38, the cost in 1929-30 for administration was $1,362,121.86, and the advances amounted to $1,073,133.52. That makes the total.


Mr. REID:: Can anything be done for those who sold a portion or all of their farms to another party and where that has been returned on quit claims, making, in some cases, a greater debt owing to the board by the original soldier settler than he contracted for in the first instance? There are quite a few such cases in British Columbia. Since I came to Ottawa this session, I have had at least three brought to my attention.


George Gordon: I shall be glad to look into the situation generally and see if anything can be done.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I have listened to discussion coming from this part of the house, especially with reference to the cost of administration in relation to the amount of collections, and I am just a little afraid that in face of that criticism the tendency under present conditions will be to try harder than ever to enforce collections. I have no objection to enforcing payment where it does not reduce the standard of living of the soldier settler below what is reasonable. I may say

Supply-M ines-C oal
that in cases which I have brought to the attention of the director or the minister, they have taken a very reasonable attitude, but settlers are constantly writing to tell me that they have so many bushels of grain, for instance, and that they have signed an agreement to deliver a certain proportion to the board; one man, for example, writes that if the agreement which he has signed is enforced he will be left with S234 with which to provide a living for himself, his wife and ten children for a year.	[DOT]


George Gordon: We would not enforce collection in such a case.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I sent him a copy of Hansard containing a statement made by the minister, and I suppose he took the matter up with the officials of the board at Edmonton. I have not heard from him since, so it is possible he has reached a settlement in the meantime. I submit that under present conditions, when practically every farm product in western Canada, at all events, is being sold at a loss, it does not matter whether it is wheat or oats or cattle or hogs, regard should certainly be had to the question of leaving the soldier settler sufficient for a reasonable living, provided of course that he is doing his best to see that the property and all his assets are kept up in first-class condition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
To provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the lost of administration thereof, $2,000,000.
Edward James Young: 
Edward James Young: How is it? You are going to force people to buy Canadian coal to give employment to Canadian miners, but in order to do that you are going to reduce the people's purchasing power by $2,000,000.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: And you increase the miners' purchasing power.


Edward James Young: By how much?


Edward Joseph Garland: You can tell us.


Edward James Young: You reduce the purchasing power of the people of this country by $2,000,000. My friend says that you increase the purchasing power of the miners by the same amount. In that case there would be no result.


Ernest Lapointe: Things would be even.


Edward James Young: No, they would not be even, because when you prevent that amount of coal from coming into this country, you shut up within this country $2,000,000 worth of our products which would otherwise go out to pay for that amount of coal-products which the constituents of my hon. friend from Bow River have a surplus of to sell. You have reduced our foreign market for our surplus products. You have reduced the purchasing power of the people of this country, and you have forced the government to raise $2,000,000 of taxation when they do not know how to balance their budget. I cannot see any justification for the item. I do not know why it was ever instituted. I say that it has no business there whatever, and I move that it be struck out.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: Shall the resolution carry?


Alan Webster Neill: There is an amendment before the chair, Mr. Chairman, and if we are going to pass the amendment without any discussion I would certainly want to put in a word of protest against it. The hon. member for Weyburn puts the argument that is so well known for his point of view, but I would remind him of the fact that a prominent feature of the Conservative policy adopted at Winnipeg in 1930, which platform was boiled down to eight outstanding items was that such compensating adjustments would be made so as to ensure justice to the various sections of Canada under the above mentioned policy. This is one of those compensating adjustments which we require to afford a meagre measure of justice to some
475G
Supply-Mines-Coal

of the coal fields in the west, and for that reason I would certainly oppose any motion to strike out the item. Of course, I know the government has no intention of striking it out.


Edward Joseph Garland: It would be out of order to strike it out, but quite in order to reduce it.


Alan Webster Neill: We do not want it reduced by even one dollar. It is all very well to indulge in fiscal-


George Gordon: Technocracy.


Alan Webster Neill: -fiscal theories, which other things being equal might be all right, but we are dealing with conditions under which there is a high tariff in this country. As I said before, this must be considered as one of those compensating adjustments which helps the consumer who has to buy high tariff priced goods. I assume that the minister is not willing to make any remarks upon that phase.
I would ask him this question. When this item was up before on March 30, some five or six weeks ago, the minister said that only the day before he had spent a couple of hours with the heads of the mining companies, both east and west, looking into the whole situation in the hope that a solution might be found, favourable to them, of course. Can the minister tell me if any such solution has been found?-because I have heard no word of it. I have the press reports under my hand, and they indicate that nothing was arrived at, and the report given out by the principal coal operator on his way home was to the same effect. I wonder if the minister can give us any definite information or hold out any prospect of any policy in the immediate future looking towards an increased bonus, or the imposition of dumping duties to keep out British coal, or possibly some measure of reciprocity with the United States, or whatever his policy is. If he has anything of the kind that will be of assistance to our coal mines, now running three days a fortnight in some oases, it will be very gratefully received.


George Gordon: During the last two and a half years I have had many conferences with the coal producers with respect to this most complex problem. Those who come from mining areas are well aware of the fact that in the last twelve years, so far as coal mining in Canada is concerned, the whole picture has been entirely reversed. Twelve years ago we had a consumers' problem; to-day it is a producers' problem.


Edward James Young: It is still a consumers' problem. People do not know how to pay for their coal.
(Mr. Neill.]


George Gordon: Of course, I am speaking broadly, so far as the fuel situation of Canada is concerned. Many factors, some of which have been worldwide, have contributed to a contraction in the consumption of coal. If one cared to look at the figures for the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Poland or other large coal producing countries, he would find that in the consumption of coal Canada stands in quite a favoured position, although it is a fact that consumption has very considerably dropped off. Other substitute fuels have contributed to a reduction in consumption. We have had milder temperatures during the last two winter seasons, and this factor has contributed to the lack of production and consumption of coal in Canada. Railroads both here and in the United States have greatly reduced the amount of coal they consume. These factors, along with some others, have placed the coal miner in a most difficult position. As the hon. member for Weyburn probably would say, it may be better not to support the production of coal in Canada if such production cannot be justified on a strictly economic basis.


Edward James Young: Hear, hear.
Mr.-GORDON: There are many arguments, however, in favour of the proposition that that viewpoint should not prevail. If we placed ourselves again in the position we occupied between 1918 and 1923, and were paying as high as $27 a ton for anthracite coal-as I have done-then the consumer would find that the efforts the previous government made, and which we have continued in a larger way, are giving the consumer a protection he never had before. The figures cannot be denied; they are plain and their effects are self-evident.
We were entirely at the mercy of one source of fuel, namely, Pennsylvania anthracite. To-day there are many competitive lines of fuel. It is the desire of this government and, I believe, of the members of the committee generally, that this or any other government should take such action as it can take, -by way of assisting the coal mining industry, which will permit the carrying on of that industry at least in the mines of Canada which are best able to carry on at a cost per ton which is reasonable and which reflects efficient mining effort. If one of the coal mining communities shuts down by reason of the closing of the coal mines, the people dependent upon the industry will find themselves in a very difficult position. Perhaps among all the various members of our population there are none so helpless as the coal miner, if I may put it that way, in turning to any other vocation. That has been the

Supply-Mines-Coal
history of coal mining since historical records of the industry have been kept. As I say, it is a difficult situation. The hon. member for Weyburn said he intended to express the views that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth would have expressed.


Edward James Young: Should express.


George Gordon: I thought the hon. member said "would". Had he said "would express", then I would say that the principle underlying this assistance was one of which the hon. 'member ,for Shielbume-Yarmouth was certainly an outstanding proponent and advocate. Holding the views that I do with respect to bonusing industries which cannot struggle along on their own feet, it is difficult at times to subscribe to the principle here involved. Yet, with respect to the coal mining industry of Canada I believe any government would be justified in giving such relief as would permit efficiently operated mines to continue. Because, as I said a few moments ago, if we close our coal mines in Canada and revert to the position we were in ten or fifteen years ago, when we were relying upon a source of supply from one country, the consumer will be back just where he was before and will have to pay the price demanded.


Edward Joseph Garland: Or through the eastern combine.


George Gordon: Quite, the eastern-and
western-combine, if one cares to turn to those subjects. Whether or not there is a combine within the meaning of the act, in the east or in the west, has yet to be determined. Competition unquestionably reduces the price of coal to the consumers of Canada. I do not wish to labour this point. However, that is one of the problems with which this country has been and will always be confronted. It is a challenge to the wisdom of those who laid down the political boundaries of the country, and it is again an acknowledgement that the Infinite Being did not place nature's resources where we poor humans could take advantage of them with the least possible effort. It challenges the ingenuity of anybody to make the Canadian coal fields available to industrial centres. The government is doing the best it can. Conferences I have held with coal producers and consumers have not resulted in any solution of the problem.


Edward James Young: No, they have not.


George Gordon: I am quite prepared to
admit that. I have not heard any suggestion from anyone that I consider would be a solution of the problem of keeping the coal mining industry on its feet and going. As I say, no solution has been arrived at; I doubt very much if there is any complete solution, because there is certainly a limit to the extent to which one can resort to the treasury for moneys to be devoted to such purposes. No doubt there is a limit. I trust the government will not exceed that limit but will at the same time give such assistance as in the eyes of the taxpayers of Canada will be justified.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I really was
sorry-and I do not speak sarcastically-to hear the reply of the minister. If ever there was a case of asking for bread and getting a stone, it was this. His remarks, with which because of their obvious truth, we must all agree, would have been very suitable in giving a lecture to the Young Women's Christian Association, or something of that kind. But in dealing with a condition as vital and desperate as that which we have in the west,
I do submit his remarks were inadequate. Really, on my word of honour, I did hope that he had at least some hope for us in the west. He says he has no solution of the problem, and that no one has ever offered any.


Edward James Young: I offered one just now.


Alan Webster Neill: Would any friend who is afflicted with fiscal fanaticism mind letting me handle this? I know he is unique in his own sphere, but we are dealing with the world of reality, hungry miners and starving women, and we cannot feed them with fiscal fanaticism. Now the minister says no one could present a solution. I am not here nor is it my business to present a solution for the whole of Canada; that is the minister's problem, but in some small measure I may be able to present a solution for the miners that I represent. I submit that there is a way by which the immediate troubles affecting the coal mines of Vancouver island at least may be relieved, namely by putting a dumping duty on British coal subsidized by the British government, brought out largely as ballast, and under conditions that call for dumping restrictions if ever such restrictions are justified.
I want to speak, now, for a moment, of another matter. When this vote was up before I called the attention of the minister, as will be found at page 3572 and following pages of Hansard, to the manner in which the coal problem had been dealt with in Great Britain. I pointed out that they had discovered or developed a new form of fuel known as colloidal fuel, a mixture of oil and coal dust,
Supply-Mines-Coal

which enabled coal dust to be used in a way that it had never been used before. They had some process that prevented the heavier particles from sinking, and it gave promise of creating an enormous demand for a very low grade of coal and to compete with fuel oil. I also pointed out, having got this information from the British press, that this process had been developed to the stage where the British admiralty, always a most conservative body-if you make a deal with the British admiralty you have got to show you have the goods and continuity of supply of that quality and price-had made a contract for twelve months with some local firm, I think, in England, for the supply of fuel developed from coal for use on one of the British warships, a destroyer calledi the Westminster. Since then I see they have also adapted it for use on aeroplanes. Everyone knows that aeroplane gasoline must be of the very best quality, and if the British have developed an oil from coal that can be used in aeroplanes it certainly points the way for us to follow as a means of solving the question of the use of this coal. The day has gone by when we can dig and sell it "as is," as run of mine. We have to put it in a form to meet the competition of fuel oil and other competing fuels. I suggested that the government might have put this information before the coal miners of Canada, and asked them if they had any bulletin of the kind. The minister replied:
Obviously the hon. member has not read the annual report of the mines branch, which deals at great length with the subject to which he has made reference. . . .
Naturally that coming from the minister was supposed to make me feel squashed by the dignity and weight of his authority, but, I could not remember anything of that kind' in the report. I thought perhaps I had missed it, so I looked it up. I have the report here. It consists of fifty pages, and when the minister said that the subject I referred to had been dealt with in the report, at great length, how many pages would you expect to be allotted, in a pamphlet of fifty pages, to a matter that was dealt with "at great length"? Would you say fifteen, twelve, ten, or what? Or would it be like the man who was striving to save the people of Sodom from the vengeance of Jehovah? Perhaps even one page would justify the expression "at great length": But what are the facts? There is no reference whatever to the term "colloidal fuel." Reference to low temperature carbonization occurs in two instances, one less than two lines, and the other two and a half lines; that does not deal with the matters I was speaking about, the practical use of this fuel to the extent 1
IMr. Neill.]
indicated on British warships. One is simply a casual reference, and the other merely a statement that scientific men had continued work on the development of the new F.R.L method for the low-temperature carbonization of coals. But the British people have gone far beyond that. I suggest that it was a wholly improper statement to make, that the subject had been dealt with' at great length, when the only reference thereto was as I have indicated.
This subject of colloidal fuel and the production from coal of gas or oil sufficiently fine to be used in British warships or aeroplanes belonging to the navy is certainly a subject of practical constructive importance, one to which it would well become us to pay the very closest attention with a view to stimulating its development in Canada. I do not believe that even my hon, friend from Weyburn would object to spending public money on developments along these lines, because it would be helping the coal industry to help themselves. Once turn run of mine coal into products such as these and a vast market is opened up, and perhaps the coal mines would not need government subventions thereafter. I am quite sure I would have the support of the hon. member for Weyburn in that regard. As I say, these are constructive ideas leading to permanent improvement of the industry, and it is in that respect I complained about the coal mines branch. I do not blame the minister wholly; he is only the head of it, but the coal mines department is slack in looking after these developments.
The minister also said, and I have no doubt he was correct, that the principal coal operator on Vancouver island had written to him that he regretted my taking this matter up, that he was getting along much better without my interference. A case of butting in! Well, I did keep out of the matter until patience and abstention ceased to be a virtue. I left it to the minister and to the coal operator on Vancouver island to adjust it. Coal was coming in last year and in the early months of this year to a dangerous extent, but I did nothing; I was waiting, partly to be asked to take the matter up and partly to give them an opportunity to get together, as he said he was doing, and find a solution. If I did butt in it was only when I was asked by a representative elected body from the coal mine that is in my district, and when I found that there was nothing doing. And what did I do then? Did I take any unlawful or improper action by way of butting in? I hardly think it. I took the regular line; I wrote to the minister under date of January 23, presenting the matter reasonably and temperately

Interest Act-Mr. Coote
to him, and the answer I got under date of January 31 was in part:
I cannot say at the moment just what steps may be contemplated to deal with the situation.
That was in January. Three months later, on March 29, the subject came up again and I did feel that I was justified in asking what if anything had been done or what was contemplated. The minister on that occasion said he had had a meeting just the day before. A week later I found in the press under a name known to be close to the government, an intimation that it was not anticipated that anything would come out of the negotiations, which was proved to be all too true by the statement the minister made this afternoon. Then I find that Colonel Villiers, the largest coal operator on Vancouver island, gave an interview in Winnipeg on his way home; he said the minister had expressed his views in the bouse, and that was all there was to it. He also remarked that he employed 2,000 men at present on a part time basis, and he stated:
They are fine, stout hearted fellows and deserve much credit for the fine way in which they are making the best of difficult times.
I entirely endorse that statement, but for the very reason that they are fine fellows and are making the best of present conditions it is more necessary than ever that the coal operators, the minister and the department exert themselves in an endeavour to find a solution to this very difficult problem. It is all very well to say they are fine men; that hardly meets the situation, which is getting worse. I have a letter here from a very prominent man in one of the coal mining towns on the island, a well known Conservative; he says that during the last fortnight in March the mine worked for three days. So I say matters are getting worse. I have before me the record of the coal output for March of this year. As compared with March of 1932 the coal output of Vancouver island dropped from 70,391 tons to 49,663 tons, a drop of 25 per cent. In view of this ever decreasing production on Vancouver island is it not time for me, even at the risk of being told that I am butting in and that I lack propriety and dignity, to stir up the dead ashes and try to find some solution, or at least get some action?
I have already suggested some steps that might be taken. Great Britain subsidizes her coal; the exchange is against us, and it is convenient to bring coal in ballast as a result of the conference agreements. These are all factors which enter into the situation, and I suggest that the time has arrived when we should apply those dumping duties that have
been so readily and quickly and gladly imposed by the Minister of National Revenue in matters affecting indutries in Ontario. They hardly need to wait a day to get that dumping duty slapped on. We have seen these dumping duties applied with such haste that they have had to be removed after two or three days because it was found that they did not meet the situation. Now I should like to deal with another matter, and perhaps at this time we might call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



INTEREST ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Coote for the second reading of Bill No. 81 to amend the Interest Act.
George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of traversing the ground covered in the debate on Friday evening, but I would like to say a few words in reply to some of the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes):	It seems to me that the
attitude taken by the minister might be summed up in this way:	he sympathizes
with any person who has to pay interest rates of any size with commodity prices at the present levels, but he feels that nothing can be done about it. His attitude would lead us to believe that there is just so much money in Canada, a fixed sum, and therefore the borrowers will have to do the best they can under the circumstances. It is the duty of the federal government to see that there is sufficient money available at all times for the carrying on of industry and trade and commerce. There should also be sufficient available for the payment of interest charges as these charges enter largely into the cost of conducting every business and industry. Money is of no use unless it circulates and if the government takes the attitude that industry must be carried on with the money now in existence, it should take steps to see that the money now in Canada is circulated and at rates of interest which industry can afford to pay. If the minister would put a tax on unspent balances, the money in the country would soon be put to work. The minister states that capital is floating and that if it cannot secure the rates of interest
Interest Act-Mr. Coote


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite correct.
I said that a percentage of the reserves of the insurance companies, to be decided by the minister, should be invested in these four per cent securities.


George Gibson Coote: I accept the correction of the Prime Minister. I think he proposed a very proper practice when he suggested that a certain percentage of the reserves held by the banks and insurance companies should be in-

vested in that four per cent issue. I should like to read briefly from his proposal. He said:
Therefore I propose that the Minister of Finance should, after creating his four per cent consolidated Canadian securities, provide by legislation that a percentage, to be hereafter determined, of the revenue of the insurance companies, amounting to a net total of over $110,000,000 this year, and from the deposits of the Canadian people in our savings banks, amounting approximately to at least another billion and three-quarters, should be utilized for the purpose of paying off this $100,000,000. This four per cent security I would maintain at all times at par-a very simple process.
I think the Prime Minister made a very useful suggestion at that time, one which the government of that day might very well have acted upon. The Minister of Finance referred to the bonds of Alberta and British Columbia which he said were selling on a basis to return 6.6 and 6.45 per cent respectively. I want to say without any mental reservation that no province in Canada can afford to pay such rates of interest. It was current gossip at that time that the provinces were held up by the bond houses and told that if they would not accept the offer made at that time they would not be able to sell their bond issues at all. It is to be regretted that the Dominion government did not tell the money authorities at that time that they must take up those bond issues at a lower price. Either that, or the provinces should not have floated any issues. However, the provinces were helpless and they had to accept the bids made by the bond houses or do without.
I think it all comes back to the fact that in 1931 the Canadian government floated the national service loan at a price which returned over five per cent. When that loan was issued the price of all other bonds outstanding in Canada was depressed. Bond prices fell almost immediately afterwards. Practically every financial institution in Canada had millions invested in these bonds and the depressed prices had a serious effect upon their balance sheets. Later on in the year the government passed an order in council authorizing the banks and insurance companies to value their securities at higher prices than those at which they were quoted on the market. There would have been no need for that action had the government insisted that the national service loan be taken up at four per cent. Then the provinces could have easily financed their needs at five per cent. In 1927 the Prime Minister did not hesitate to say that he would insist upon the banks

Interest Act-Mr. Coote
and insurance companies investing a certain percentage of their reserves in the bond issue at four per cent, and I think he should have insisted upon the same thing in 1931. In 1931 commodity prices had fallen off by at least thirty per cent as compared with those prevailing in 1927. Yet every province in Canada has been compelled to pay interest rates much higher than they paid before.
The minister then went on to say that setting a maximum rate of interest would interfere with control of credit and interest in Canada by a central bank. I would say that when the minister establishes a central bank in this country he can repeal this legislation if it should have become law. Further than that, may I say I have asked for years that a central bank should be established. If we had had a central bank properly established and operated, the government would never have had to pay five per cent interest in times of low commodity prices. If we had had that central bank I would not be bringing in this bill to-night. But the question in my mind is: Is the government going to establish a central bank, and, if so, when is it going to be established? I have waited until practically the end of the session to bring in this bill. I hoped the government would take some action to raise commodity prices, to bring about lower interest rates. I hoped the banking committee might before this have recommended that some action be taken in regard to interest rates on existing obligations. But nothing happens; the committee does not report. The government does nothing; it does not establish a central bank or do anything to raise commodity price levels. Are we to sit here doing nothing and see our people left at the mercy of the money changers? Last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) said:
No agriculturist, no industrialist and no merchant can afford to pay ten per cent interest for the money he uses in his business; it simply cannot be done; normal business will not permit of that rate of interest. Moreover, no bank can afford to take a loan at ten per cent, because it is too risky.
Then again he said:
But I lay down the principle that a rate of interest around eight or ten per cent makes successful operation of the ordinary business activities impossible and unprofitable.
The Minister of Finance said the other night that old established industries in Canada are paying nine per cent. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last year: They cannot do that. The Minister of Finance said that great public utilities with long records of good service behind them are paying ten per 53719-301
cent. Is it not time that we do something about this? The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last year that business cannot pay these rates and we know they cannot. Evidently something should be done about the matter, but the Minister of Finance does nothing. He says:
It is idle to suggest, even with all the "isms" that are afloat to-day, that there is any other method whereby the rate of interest can be determined than the age-old law of supply and demand.
Well, we could take some steps to increase the supply. In the last three yeare the supply has been lessened by $700,000,000 and this house has done nothing about the matter. If we would increase the supply by the $700,000,000 that has disappeared in the last three years, we would be doing something. If there is anything in the argument of the Minister of Finance that there is only so much money; that we must pay that rate of interest and that the rate is determined by the law of supply and demand, let us increase the supply; the demand, we will take it for granted, remains the same, and according to the minister's argument, the rate will come down. I think that naturally follows.
Let us look for a moment at what is being done in the United States. In a dispatch in the Ottawa Journal two or three days ago, I find this:
Inflation bill is passed by the United States house.
These are the chief provisions as listed in the press dispatch:
The president is authorized to arrange with the federal reserve banks and board for the banks to purchase in the open market up to $3,000,000,000 of government obligations, including stock in corporations of which the United States is the majority stockholder.
If the president is unable to arrange this operation, or if it be found inadequate to raise prices to the desired level, the president may.
Direct the issuance of United States notes up to $3,000,000,000 to buy government obligations, and make provisions for retiring four per cent of this amount annually through congressional appropriations.
If our government is prepared to take similar measures in Canada, it can reduce the rate of interest on all government obligations The president is also given power to:
Reduce the gold content of the American dollar by as much as 50 per cent.
Provide for the unlimited free coinage of silver at a fixed ratio with gold.
In addition, the president is authorized to accept silver up to $200,000,000 in payment of war debts during the next six months, valuing the silver up to fifty cents an ounce, to be used as the basis for the issuance of silver certificates.

Interest Act-Mr. Coote

I do not think our government can afford to sit back and say: We can do nothing about the matter. This government could very well take similar measures.


Mr. ERNST:: Does the hon. member's bill apply only in future, or does it apply to past due interest? I want to ask possibly three questions.


George Gibson Coote: I intended to mention that
before I sat down. The bill applies only to future borrowings. The reason that I have not asked that it apply to existing obligations is that that matter was definitely referred to the banking and commerce committee and I did not like to go to the length of asking the house practically to take that matter out of the hands of the committee.


William Gordon Ernst: It was not made retroactive because of the fact that possibly legal opinion had arrived at the conclusion that past due interest was a matter of civil contract.


George Gibson Coote: I would not like to answer the hon. member on that point; I am not a lawyer. I know there are conflicting opinions, but I understand that the majority of the opinions given to the committee by the authorities to whom they sent a questionnaire are to the effect that jurisdiction over interest on existing obligations also rests in the dominion house.


William Gordon Ernst: One more question. With reference to the future, I assume the hon. member will agree with the proposition that capital is fluid. Supposing we fix in this country an interest rate beyond which one cannot go and the interest rate in the country to the south becomes higher; will the money be loaned in Canada or will it be loaned in the United States or any other country where there is a higher interest rate than that in Canada? If that condition arose, what would the hon. member do to meet it?


George Gibson Coote: The Prime Minister has very wide powers under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, and, if necessary, he could correct any situation which might arise such as the hon. member suggests.


William Gordon Ernst: Surely the hon. member, being a free trader, would not agree to the restriction of capital.


William Richard Motherwell: This is second reading, not committee of the whole house.


George Gibson Coote: I am glad to have the hon. member's question and, sir, I do not object, so long as you will allow it, to any question which may be asked in regard to the bill which I have introduced. If the hon. member

will make a thorough study of this question of the movement of capital, he will find there is not in Canada very much capital that can be moved out. Most of the capital that is invested in this- country is invested in factories, plants, railroads and similar assets of one kind or another; there is not very must of what is generally referred to as liquid capital which can be moved out of the country.


William Gordon Ernst: In case a situation did arise where capital could profitably be invested outside of Canada, is the hon. member in favour of an embargo on capital in order to meet such a condition?


George Gibson Coote: That is a situation which I do not think will arise, and I do not think at the moment-


William Gordon Ernst: Suppose it did arise.


George Gibson Coote: I do not think it can.


William Gordon Ernst: But the banks to-day have hundreds of millions of dollars on deposit.


George Gibson Coote: If the hon. member will allow me to put the matter in this way: Were I adviser to the Minister of Finance at any time and such a condition arose, I would say to him: Let those people take their capital out if they know any way of doing so and we will supply the deficiency by drawing on our national credit; we will replace that capital with national credit borrowed from our central bank. I think that is the best kind of capital we could have in Canada.


William Gordon Ernst: In other words, the hon. member would inflate our currency?


George Gibson Coote: That would not be inflation; it would be reflation; it would be replacement of capital taken away with capital raised on our national credit. (That national credit would cost us nothing and we would get rid of capital that is costing us high rates of interest.


William Gordon Ernst: But there is the question of the currency that has gone out of the country.


George Gibson Coote: If we can print any currency that will go out of the country and stay out we shall be that much to the good, but this currency has a habit of coming back to Canada just about two days after it gets out, and we have to redeem it. If we send out too much and it comes back to be redeemed, our dollar would soon be depreciated in outside countries. Then we would get a rise in the commodity price level which the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg himself will admit is badly needed.


William Gordon Ernst: Hear, hear.

Interest Act-Mr. Coole


George Gibson Coote: So the more capital goes
out of Canada under those conditions the better for his constituents and mine.
I have perhaps dealt with this question a little longer than I had intended. Before I leave the position of the United States and the action that has been taken there, I want to draw to the attention of the house the effect which that action has already had in raising commodity price levels in the United States. These figures are taken from the New York Times which I saw in the library to-day. According to Moody's commodity price index in the United States, using the index figure of December, 1931, as 100, on March 31, 1933, which was five or six weeks ago, the index figure stood at 86.3, and on May 5 at 110, a rise of 24 points inside of six weeks. That shows what can be done by a man who is determined to get action. It is a result of the action of President Roosevelt of the United States, and I only wish that Canada had a Roosevelt in power here.
I have introduced this bill more particularly because of the position of mortgagors in Canada. Their mortgages are falling due, and as I said the other night, I have the proof in my files that mortgage holders are forcing people to pay a higher rate of interest now when they are renewing their mortgages. Mortgage companies have been paying dividends of 11J per cent for the past three years. Borrowers on mortgage cannot afford to pay any higher rate of interest now than they have paid in the last three years. Many of them find it almost impossible to pay interest at all, and why they are held up in this way when they have to renew their mortgages is more than they can understand. Because I cannot get action in any other way I finally came to the conclusion that I should introduce this bill. The United States congress has passed a bill to set aside a fund of two- billion dollars for the financing of farm mortgages, and any mortgage holder can go to the federal land bank in the United States and exchange his mortgage up to fifty per cent of the value of the property for bonds bearing interest at the rate of four per cent, which are guaranteed by the government of the United States. The mortgagor then pays to the land bank 4^ per cent, regardless of the rate stated in the original mortgage and this bill has been amended so that small home owners with mortgages on homes valued at $10,000 or less can get exactly the same advantage under the bill as farmers. Are we doing anything to assist mortgagors in Canada? I say frankly that this interest bill is not the 53719-301 i
kind of bill I would really like to introduce into this house, but everyone knows that the rules of the house prevent private members introducing any bill which calls for the expenditure of a dollar. So we are precluded from bringing in many bills which we should like to see enacted here. We have urged the government repeatedly to bring in a money bill of some kind which would give us a little inflation or reflation in Canada. We have asked them for that so often that I am not going to do it any more. We have also asked them to establish a central bank. We cannot bring in a bill for that purpose. I would also like to see established some kind of public finance corporation to make an advance of even fifty per cent against these farm mortgages as well as urban mortgages at a rate of perhaps 3^ or 4 per cent. But as I said, we cannot introduce such bills, and the government so far has refused to do anything at all along that line. As the rules will not allow me to introduce such a bill there is only one thing left for me to do, and that is to introduce this bill asking that a limitation be placed upon the rate of interest which can be legally charged in Canada. I have already said in answer to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg that I do not ask that this legislation be retroactive or apply to existing mortgages. That was referred to the banking committee.
There is, of course, some question as to whether or not this house has jurisdiction. In my humble opinion it has, but I do not pretend to know because I am not a lawyer. I think it is beyond doubt that we have the power to fix a maximum rate of interest for new obligations.
I admitted the other night that there might be a very proper objection taken to this bill in the case of small loans. I think we should allow a service charge to be made in the case of small loans, not because large loans are safer than small loans, for the majority of the losses which have been made in this country have been made on large loans. I think on the average the small loan is the safer, but sometimes the interest charge on a very small loan is so small that a service charge in addition is justified, and I said to the house that I would be very willing to have an amendment made to the bill providing for that if the bill were allowed to go into committee.
There may be another objection in the minds of many members, and that is in asking for a maximum rate of five per cent. I have set that rate in the bill after a good deal of thought. I finally felt that five per
Interest Act-Mr. Coote

cent was as high as people could afford to pay, and if we are going to fix it on that basis I think five per cent is about as high as we ought to go. I have heard some members say that they would agree to the bill if the rate were higher than five per cent. As far as I am concerned I would be glad to have the bill go into committee and let the committee decide what that rate ought to be, although I have set five per cent in the bill. If the house is willing to allow the bill to go into committee, perhaps the committee can agree on a higher rate that might be fixed as a maximum, and then the house can decide on the third reading whether the bill should be passed. But I certainly feel, seeing that we have not taken any action to raise commodity price levels or lower interest rates or make more money available, some action should be taken by this house for the protection particularly of those whose mortgages are falling due. There are many people, of course, with other money contracts, and these money contracts they are, in some cases, being forced to renew for a period of years at a higher rate of interest than in the old obligation. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the bill the most favourable consideration possible by this house.


Peter Heenan: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


George Hamilton Pettit: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I was paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was paired with the hon. member for Halidmand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto North East (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for. Brantford city (Mr. Ryerson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Fizalam-William Perras: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Plunkett,
Price,
Quinn,
Robinson,
Sauve,
Shaver,
Simpson
(Simcoe North), Simpson
(Algoma West), Smith
(Victoria-Carleton), Smoke,
Spankie,
Spence,
Stanley,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds), Stewart (Lethbridge), Stirling,
Sutherland,
Tetreault,
Weir (Melfort),
White (London), White
(Mount Royal).-65.

Supply-Mines-Coal


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur):: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. ST. PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon) Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had 1 voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: 1 was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Lucien Dubois: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Maurice Dupré: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Onésime Gagnon: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF MINES

[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous-To provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof $2,000,000.
Alan Webster Neill: At six o'clock I had not concluded my remarks on this item. This after noon I urged upon the minister to develop or announce a policy which would in some measure tend to rehabilitate the decadent
coal mining industry in British Columbia, and more particularly on Vancouver island. In reply to his request for some suggestions I made one or two which I shall briefly summarize under four headings. The first, and the one which I think holds best promise of a permanent solution of the difficulty, would be that of following the lead given by Great Britain along the line of development. If necessary, money should be spent, because money spent in that way would be used to better purpose than if it were spent for subventions. We would be enabled ultimately to be independent. The money would be spent in the development of methods of presenting the coal in what might be termed modern up to date forms. It could be processed in such ways as colloidal fuel oil, or as gas obtained from coal, so that it could compete with other fuels. As I indicated this afternoon, if such fuel could be used on government warships or government aeroplanes it would develop a great general demand. Secondly,-and this is only a temporary expedient-greater subventions should be granted in respect of the coal mined on Vancouver island. Such subventions should be in line with those granted to other areas in Canada. It is notorious that the subventions granted to Vancouver island are out of all proportion smaller than those granted to other coal areas in Canada. Third, I suggested that before the matter has gone too far, and before it has reached the status of an established industry with large sums invested, we should stop the development of trade with Great. Britain on coal imported into British Columbia under the advantages of subsidies, low exchange and use as ballast. My fourth suggestion was that we might negotiate some form of reciprocity with the United States in connection with coal trade. I made the same suggestion in the house last year regarding, coal and fish, but I did not receive much support from hon. gentlemen opposite. However, the idea seems more popular just now.
None of these suggestions is unreasonable, and if any of them would help they should be accepted. Half of them would, I believe, put the coal mining industry on its feet, so that it would not need to go cap in hand to the government asking other areas and industries to contribute to its support. Had the minister in his speech given us any suggestions along these lines there would have been some comfort for us in British Columbia. I specifically asked what hope he could hold out. However, anyone who reads Hansard will readily see that he had no solutions whatever to offer.
S apply-Mines-C oal

For a moment I should like to turn to another feature of coal mining in British Columbia, concerning a condition which obtains in a constituency I do not represent. On April 5, more than a month ago, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre asked if the attention of the Minister of Mines had been called to the serious condition of the coal industry at Fernie. The whole industry, in fact the whole town, was in the process of being wiped out, owing to the closing of the local mines. The minister replied that the question of what could be done, if anything, had been taken up with the government of British Columbia, upon whom responsibility rested, if there were any responsibility. He went on to say that if it were possible for the government to assist, of course that assistance would be given. The suggestion that the responsibility rested upon the province of British Columbia would apply only to taking care of relief. The minister overlooked, however, or did not seem to realize, the greater responsibility resting upon the dominion of adopting a policy to take care of the situation, especially, as I shall proceed to show, it was the policy of this government which brought Fernie to the desperate point it has now reached. I say that at least in part-and I think a large part-the government policy brought about that situation. Hon. members from the east will understand better if I explain that Fernie is in that part of British Columbia bordering on the United States and practically ninety per cent of its coal output went to that country. The government's policy adopted last year of raising the duty on coal coming into Canada, which automatically raised the duty on coal going into the United States, resulted in the total loss of that foreign trade, which amounted to about ninety per cent of the total. I quote from a well known Conservative paper in British Columbia:
The manipulation of reciprocal tariffs on coal, while beneficial to eastern Canadian coal operators, Fernie mines suffered severely as 90 per cent of its markets which were export, were completely shut off.
Another says:
One of the contributing causes for the railroads doing this-
That is ceasing to take the coal.
-may be assigned to the imposition of increased duty on coal going into the United States, which was put into force as a countervailing duty on Canadian exports. The application of this duty reduced the number of employees at Coal Creek to the extent of 300.
The town, which numbers some 4,000 inhabitants, is practically bankrupt. People will
JMr. Natl.]
have to move away or be kept on relief, because it is just a one industry town.
Now we were told-until I was sick of hearing of it-on every platform in my riding during the last election, that it was not right to take the narrow view I was taking of looking after the interests of Comox-Alberni first. The electors were invited to take a broad national view; a broad national policy was the idea. I predicted at that time, with almost alarming accuracy as it has proved, that that would merely mean the sacrifice of the British Columbia miners for the benefit of Alberta or of eastern coal areas. That is exactly what has taken place. "Wide is the road and broad the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that walk therein"-principally I think because it is the easiest; they follow the line of least resistance. That is what happened in this case.


Edward James Young: Did you say the other road is straight?


Alan Webster Neill: I did not deal with the other road; I leave that to the member for Wey-burn-I wish he were on it now. I do not say the result was the government's fault; they certainly did not do it deliberately, but as part of a national policy which may have secured great advantages for Nova Scotia and Alberta. I do not even say that the policy was wrong, but when they saw the situation that was likely to arise they should have acted on item 8, I think it was, of the policy of the Conservative party in the last election, and provided compensating adjustments. That could easily have been done by increasing the bonus on the Crowsnest coal so that it could have got into some of the central Canadian markets.
That then, is the situation. What are we doing about it? As far as I can make out, nothing. As far as I can make out, we are going to do nothing. The days are passing into weeks, the weeks into months and the months into years, yet we are dallying along the primrose path, taking the line of least resistance. We stop here and there and gather a flower of trite truisms or pick a posy of platitudes; we go on down the path of dolce far niente into the great Never-Never land where it is always afternoon, where the shadows are always long, where people live in a vague, misty haze, a narrow confined area surrounded by nebulous and unsubstantial hopes, where "man never is but always to be blessed." When I refer to the minister in this connection I do not know that that is fair, I should perhaps say his department; and even then I should limit it-I mean the

Supply-M ines-Coal
ooal mines branch of the Department of Mines. They seem always to have the backward look; they are the apostles of precedent, ever looking timorously behind them for some precedent to guide them. But these are days of change; why do they not get out and make precedents? Instead of being, and leaving us to be, the victims of circumstances, why do they not seize the circumstances and compel them to serve their end and ours, compel them to produce a policy that will meet the situation? Why do they not make things happen? The Prime Minister on an occasion in his earlier career immortalized himself, pounded the desk, I am told, and said that either he or the government would make things happen. That is what we want done. To use a vernacular expression, the minister needs to shake up his department and tell them to get a move on. I suggest that his department requires a new motto, a new slogan. The motto should be "requiescat in pace," and the slogan: "yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep." Yes, and it needs only some sympathetic friend to put a lily in its hand; then the coal mining industry of Vancouver island would be in a position to say: Don't it look nat'ral? -and I might add, appropriate.
In my opening words this afternoon I did not go any further than ask the minister if he could give us any suggestion, any encouragement, any hope of any policy or any action in this regard. Had he done so I should have been satisfied and said no more. But anyone who will read the minister's reply will be compelled to admit that surely it is time someone butted in, that someone stirred up the stagnant waters, that-someone endeavoured to galvanize the Dead sea fruit of inefficiency and inactivity into energized action. I am not one of those who say I think the government ought to do something, but is unable to suggest what that something should be. I have suggested it.
What more can I say? I see the Prime Minister is in his seat; I will appeal to him. I wonder if he can hold out some hope of reciprocity with the United States that would help us. I know that any view to which he would give expression would not be an accomplished fact, it would be nothing more than a hope, but even hope, however slight and distant, would be better than the black despair which now hangs over the coal mining industry of Vancouver island and British Columbia generally. I am not speaking for the sake of attacking the minister; I have nothing to gain by that. I am only making an earnest endeavour to galvanize if possible
the government into action, to impress upon the government-I wish I had greater power to express it-the desperateness of the situation, in case happily I might bring the government to a realization of the extreme importance of taking early and speedy action in this matter.


Edward James Young: Can the minister tell us whether in addition to this $2,000,000 that is being provided by the tax payer for the moving of this coal, the railways contribute anything in the form of lower freight rates?


George Gordon: No, there has been no contribution as far as lower freight rates are concerned with respect to coal.


Edward James Young: The regular rate is applied. Can the minister tell us further if all of this money has been spent on freight rates or if some of it has been spent in other ways? How much has gone for administration? Has anything gone for research or any other kind of work?


George Gordon: Out of an expenditure of $1,750,000 an amount of $15,000 has gone for administration.


Edward James Young: And all the rest has gone to the railway companies?


George Gordon: No, to the producers of the coal, but applied towards the reduction of the rate, of course.


Edward James Young: I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the suggestions he made for improving the situation of the coal mining industry in western Canada. He made four suggestions: first that the government lend assistance to devising some way of processing the coal so that it will be more acceptable to the market. Something might be said in favour of that, but our experience with processing coal has not been very fortunate in the past. Some years ago the federal government in conjunction with the Manitoba^ government and1 the Saskatchewan government established a plant in southern Saskatchewan to experiment in the processing of lignite coal with a view to making it more marketable. I think millions were spent in that enterprise. Finally when they thought they had something accomplished they handed the whole plant over to a syndicate of capitalists-gave it to them for a dollar, I believe, the government withdrawing from the field. This syndicate, not satisfied with getting the plant for nothing, then asked the government to buy their output. I know the Saskat-
Supply-M in es-Coal

chewan government undertook to supply their public building with the product at a price profitable to the owners. But still they were not satisfied; I never yet knew any industry built on subventions and grants to be satisfied, and I doubt if anyone else in this country ever heard of such a thing. Feed them on pap, subventions, favours of one kind and another, and they always come asking for more.
The member for Comox-Alberni also suggested increasing the subventions. I say again, when can you satisfy an industry by increasing subventions? The more you give them the more they want. They seem to have only one word in their vocabulary; that is the word "more". No matter what you give them they always cry for more, and these industries are always in distress. Look at what has been done for the steel and coal industry in Nova Scotia, but has there ever been a session of this parliament when they have not been crying for more? Certainly there has not been such a session since I came here. Then the hon. member for Comox-Alberni also suggested that we might stop the importation of cheap coal from Great Britain.


Alan Webster Neill: To the Pacific.


Edward James Young: Why should we prohibit the importation of cheap coal from any country? When Great Britain became the leading industrial country in the world it was largely because she had the cheapest coal. Wheu Germany became a great industrial nation one of the main reasons was that she had great coal deposits within her own borders. When the eastern central United States developed the same industrial enterprises it was also largely because they had cheap coal. Why should we deny our people this essential to the building up of industry? I think it would be folly in the extreme. If Great Britain sees fit to bonus her coal exports, so much the better for us; if she wants to tax her people in order to give us the cheap fuel we need, so much the better for us.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni made one suggestion, however, and because of that I am willing to forgive him all the rest; he suggested reciprocity with the United States with regard to coal. Think what it would mean to this country if we had reciprocity with the United States, even if it were only with regard to coal. Look at the great industrial portion of Canada just across the lakes from some of the richest coal deposits in the world. Coal can be brought in from the United States at a cost of a little over SI. 50 per ton. Then look at the western coast where the coal deposits are on our side of the f.Mr. Young.]
line and the natural market is on the other side. It is reported that the Prime Minister is going to arrange some sort of reciprocity treaty with the United States. One of the very best provisions he could include in that treaty would be reciprocity in coal.


Alan Webster Neill: And fish.


Edward James Young: Yes, and fish if you like.
That would give central Canada the cheap coal from the United States, and it would afford the people of western Canada a market for their coal.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: In that case what
would happen the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia?


Edward James Young: In what condition is the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia at present?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It would be wiped off the map.


Edward James Young: The coal mines in Nova
Scotia are on the seaboard. If we had reciprocity would there be anything to stop the exportation of coal to the United States?


George Gordon: Certainly; they cannot land it in the United States to compete with their domestic coal.


Edward James Young: Is it not true also that United States coal is more suitable for the purposes for which it is required?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No.


Edward James Young: Is it not true that the people of Nova Scotia burn United States coal in their stoves?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No.


Edward James Young: Yes, it is true; they prefer it. If the people of Nova Scotia persist in bringing coal from under the sea when they can get it cheaper somewhere else I do not know that it is the duty of this government to encourage them in that uneconomic practice. This afternoon the minister spoke of the high price he had to pay for United States coal at one time, and he said he did not want to bring about that condition again.
I also paid those high prices, but I know- and I think the minister knows-that it was war time, and we were paying war prices. I can also tell the minister that while commodity prices have been going down the price of coal has not gone down to nearly the same degree.


George Gordon: If I might interrupt my hon. friend to say so, the main reason is that throughout the world the wage scales of coal

Supply-Mines-Coal
miners have not been reduced, and I do not think the hon. member would suggest that they should be reduced.


Edward James Young: Then the minister says that the coal miners are getting better wages, that they are the only basic producers whose wages have not been reduced?


George Gordon: They have been reduced, but not to the same extent.


Edward James Young: Why should they be reduced when we are voting 82,000,000 out of the treasury to assist that industry?


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps their wages have not been reduced but their working hours certainly have been cut down. In one case men have been working only three days in a fortnight, and I should say that was quite a reduction.


Edward James Young: Yes, but perhaps if they were working at a lower rate they would get more work. The hon. member for Comox-Alberai spoke of hungry miners; that is what he is thinking of. I am thinking of shivering consumers, people who cannot buy coal in a country where they need it, people who cannot buy fuel and who do not know where to get the money with which to keep themselves warm. Here we are taxing ourselves to the extent of $2,000,000 extra in order to keep coal out of this country. The minister says he is afraid of a monopoly. What is he doing? He is closing one source of supply in the United States; he has closed another source in Russia and now it is suggested that he should Close still another source in Great Britain and deliver us into the hands of the Canadian coal producers. This afternoon the minister made reference to an eastern and a western coal combine, but now his proposal is to deliver us into the hands of these combines. If he is afraid of a monopoly why deliver us into their hands?
Then there is another point to be considered. If we were getting in coal from the United States the boats carrying grain down the lakes could bring coal back; they would have a cargo both ways, and the result would be lower freight rates on wheat. But when you prohibit the importation of coal from the United States the boats have to come back light, so they must make enough going down to pay for both trips. The result is higher rates on wheat and higher prices for coal. Because of this legislation the farmers of the western provinces, and particularly the farmers of Saskatchewan, will have to sit at their doors and see trainloads of coal passing by going to the eastern provinces, on which they are paying the freight rates though they
get no assistance in connection with their own coal, for which they have to pay the full rate.
The remarks of the minister this afternoon bring up the question as to how far it is the duty of a government to guarantee that industry shall never change. When new methods come into being or new commodities come on the market to compete with those we have been in the habit of using, is it the function or the duty of the government so to arrange things that these new commodities shall not have a chance, by forcing the people to continue to use the old? Let us consider for a moment what would have happened a country whose government always assumed the attitude that they must never allow any change or any progressive thing to happen. What would have happened to a country if, we will say, when printing was first invented they had promptly proceeded to bonus the old fashioned writers in order that the old methods might not be done away with? Supposing when the spinning jenny and loom were invented the same country had promptly proceeded to bonus the old fashioned method of making cloth by hand; what would have happened? What would have been the result if, when matches were invented, they had put a subvention or bounty on the manufacture and use of flint and steel? When steamboats were invented what would have happened if they had started to pay subventions or bounties on boats propelled by oars, or if when railroads were invented, in order to encourage the old industry they had granted subventions on ox carts in order to keep us travelling in that way? When electric lights were invented what would have happened if governments had said, "We will stick to the old tallow candles and force the people to use them"? Where would we be to-day if, when the binder was invented, the government had decided to pay bounties on the old scythes or if, when the thresher was invented, they had decided not to use this modern invention which might throw somebody out of work and had put a bounty on the old fashioned flail? What would have happened if a nation had consistently followed that policy? You may say it could not have happened, because no nation could have survived under those conditions, and that is quite true. Any nation that attempted to do so would have passed on its way long ago, like the mammoth and the dinosaur, and would have been replaced by something more modern.
So I ask the question, Mr. Chairman: Is it the function of the government to preserve the obsolete in industry and say to the people
Supply-Mines-Coal

that no matter what new thing may come along they will see that the existing industry is not harmed? Would it not be much better to say, "If you cannot compete with this new process your industry is out of date and you had better get out of it"? That is the only true law of progress and it is not the function of government to stand in the way of progress and perpetuate the obsolete. It seems to me that the only way to help any industry is to allow it to make progress and expose it to whatever competition the world provides.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Would that be correct with regard to the wheat industry of western Canada?


Edward James Young: Yes.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Then you should have received better prices than you did receive in the past year.


Edward James Young: Are you going to raise prices by your tariffs?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: We have raised
them already.


Edward James Young: You put on a duty of
thirty cents and the price went lower than ever. For several years past every government in the world has been bending every effort to try to bolster up the price of wheat. The net result of all these efforts has been lower prices than ever. This afternoon I made a motion which I understand was out of order; I -moved that this item be struck out entirely. I am now going to make one which is in order; I move tha-t it be reduced to one dollar.


George Gordon: I shall not take up the
time of the committee at any great length in connection with this item but I would like to make a few observations on what the hon. member for Weybum has said with respect to this industry. In the first place, the hon. member advocates the removal of duties on coal and claims that this action would result in Nova Scotia coal being burned in the eastern United States. I suggest that the hon. member look at the prices prevailing in the consuming markets along the Atlantic seaboard in the United States. He will find that it would be impossible for those states to provide a market for Nova Scotia coal. The hon. member then argued that by taking off the tariff the coal from British Columbia could go down to Washington, Utah and other western states and provide a solution for the whole problem.


Edward James Young: No, I did not say that.
TMr. Young.]


George Gordon: An examination of the
cost of producing coal at Bellingham will show that the general costs are much lower than those of British Columbia, including Vancouver island.


Alan Webster Neill: The Seattle coal is very inferior.


George Gordon: The Bellingham coal may be inferior but the Utah coal certainly is not. I have reviewed this matter and I feel sure that that market would not be available to us.
I do not know* that I would care to quarrel very much with -the theory advanced by the hon. member of making every industry and every vocation, public or private, stand upon its own feet and get along without assistance. When -time has permitted, I have listened to the debates in this house and I have come to the conclusion -that it all depends upon where a man lives or where his interest may be when it comes to deciding to what extent he will Stamp with his approval an invasion of the public treasury. I did not hear the hon. member for Weybum stand up-he may have done it-and deplore the paving of a bonus on wheat.


Edward James Young: He did, though.


George Gordon: If he did, then I compliment him upon his consistency. During the debates which have taken place in this house upon tariffs, bonuses and things of that character, there has been disclosed an attitude of silence by hon. members when such matters touch their particular geographical locality or something in which they are interested.


Edward James Young: I might tell my hon. friend that we have coal deposits in my constituency.


George Gordon: Yes. I understand the Truax Traer property is located in my hon. friend's constituency. We find the hon. member for Comox-Albemi impeaching the government for everything it has done with respect to the assistance given to the coal industry on Vancouver island.


Alan Webster Neill: For what they have not done.


George Gordon: I do not expect anything else because that has always been his attitude ever since I have had anything to do with the administration of the Mines department. From year to year I have had occasion to examine in-to the difficulties facing this industry and, as I have said before, I realize that there is a limit to which the government can go in giving assistance to the coal or any other industry. As I said a moment ago, I am not quarrelling with those who condemn the

Supply-Mines-C oal
bemusing of industries and things of that character, but we must realize that there are industries which are vital to the life of this country, particularly during times like these. If these industries cannot prevail without something more than sympathetic interest on the part of the government, if they are left to get along on their own at a time like this, then I would fear greatly for the tens of thousands of workmen who are dependent upon them for their livelihood. The hon. member for Coimox-Alberni has always adopted a consistent attitude with regard to these matters. Perhaps that is his duty, occupying the position he does in this house. I have discussed this question with those most vitally interested, with those who have huge investments on the island and although it may not be the fault of those at present in control of the industry, the fact is that the past history reveals that the expenditures and expansions which have taken place were not to be commended. I have had many conferences with those in control of this industry. Is it possible that they are not interested in their mines? Of course they are. Is it possible that they are not doing their best to make their mines pay? Of course they are. But it is equally true that in common with the rest of the world, Canada's consumption of coal has been going down for almost four years. However, as I said this afternoon, the figures disclose that Canada has not suffered as much as other countries. I had a conference with the operators of Vancouver island over three years ago. They asked for certain assistance which would enable them to maintain their men in employment. That assistance, which may be in definance of the theory advocated by the hon. member for Weyburn, was granted by the government. Unfortunately they did not properly forecast the future, and the consumption of coal fell off. As everyone knows, they again approached the government asking for further assistance and this was granted with respect to 'bunker and export coal. The export market is mainly in South America because in order to ship in the United States they would have to meet the Same duty which we impose. It was the considered view at the time of those in charge of those operations on Vancouver island that the assistance given by the government to those mine owners would enable them to keep their workmen employed and to maintain that industry on its feet. Again consumption fell off and to-day they are having an extremely difficult time.
When I made reference a few weeks ago, when this item was before the committee, to
the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I did not do so or intend to do so in a way that would cause him to feel aggrieved; if I did,
I am indeed sorry for it. But when this matter was engaging the attention of the Canadian Collieries Limited and myself, I received unsolicited a letter from the general manager. I shall not place it on Hansard, but it was a letter to which I made reference before. In the view of those who are in charge of the coal mining industry on Vancouver island, the efforts of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni were not helpful and they so state in their communication to me. They may be wrong and his efforts may have been very helpful, but that was their opinion. I have it from the producers of coal on Vancouver island that as a result of the assistance which the government has given them, they have been able to keep their miners working at least on part time. It is true that they are having great and serious difficulties.
So far as the importation of British coal is concerned, that has amounted to only some 9,600 tons. That in itself is not of any great importance.


Alan Webster Neill: In two months.


George Gordon: Yes. I do not care to
dwell on that any further.
Since I have come into the house the hon, member for Comox-Albemi has not dealt with me in any particularly friendly way in connection with any of these coal matters. On almost every occasion, with his facility of expression and his subtlety in debate, he has turned his attack on me and he has never failed, when matters in connection with the coal industry have come up, to go the whole length in condemning anything the government sought to do. I have no doubt this industry and the predicament in which the workers find themselves are close to the heart of the hon. member, but not more so than to my own. I am just as keenly interested as he is in these workmen or in any other workmen in this country who under the stress of the times find it difficult properly to maintain themselves and their families. I do not think there is in the house a member who has not been and is not giving his earnest attention to all these questions which are so baffling; and I do not believe it comes with good grace from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to arrogate to himself every possible suggestion of sympathy towards those who may be suffering. I listened, of course I had to listen, to his sepulchral address to-night; and he did extremely well, but so far as I am concerned
Supply-Mines-Coal

I intend to continue to pursue the present course, which is that this government, as need arises, will to the best of its ability give such support as it can to the maintenance of the coal mining industry and the miners at work in it.


Edward James Young: I have a suggestion to make to the minister. I want to suggest that he carry his policy to its logical conclusion. He argues that he can increase employment by taking money out of the pockets of the taxpayers and paying it to men to mine coal, when we could get just as good or better coal elsewhere at a lesser price. I have not the slightest doubt that he can take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country and pay it to a certain class, thereby keeping that class employed; but what would be the effect on the whole of Canada? Will 82,000,000 in the hands of the coal miners give any more employment? Will it create any more purchasing power when it is in their hands than it would in those of the people from whom the minister takes it? It will not; in fact, that purchasing power will thereby be decreased by $15,000 because it takes 815,000 to distribute that amount.
But if the minister can do that, can he not do this: Let him build a roof over the whole of Canada and shut out the sun, because the sun is the greatest competitor of our coal miners; from the sun we get heat and light free. He could employ every man, woman and child in this country building such a roof and after this was done every Canadian coal miner would be working overtime to keep us warm. In this way the minister would have solved the unemployment problem; but what would be the standard of living of the people of Canada? This is only giving them any kind of useless work the government can invent for them to do. But what we want is fuel to keep us warm, houses to live in, clothes to wear and food to eat. The minister is taking money out of the pockets of the people who need it and who know better than he does how to spend it, and putting it into the pockets of some other people who should be in some other industry. Is it any kindness to any man to keep him engaged in an industry at public expense when that industry will not support itself? Certainly it is not. The man will always have to come to this parliament with his hat in his hand asking for a handout. It is no kindness to a man to maintain an industry on that ground. The

minister cannot do better than accept the amendment I have moved that this item be reduced to one dollar.
Amendment (Mr. Young) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Post Office-Outside Service-Salaries and allowances, $15,381,845.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $14,161,500.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for payment of compassionate allowance 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, and payment of $205 to S. R. Kirk, $1,076,030.
Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. Postmaster General a question?
(Translation): Would the hon. Postmaster General be so kind as to inform the house whether he has brought a sample of Mr. Amedee Lesieur's rural mail boxes?
Hon, ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation): The proper sample to place on the table of the house is this one. I, therefore, deposit a photograph of these boxes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, this seems to me more like a picture. I shall therefore broach another subject. I shall be brief.
On May 5, 1933, " Le Droit " published the following speech of the hon. Postmaster General, which was also broadcasted, on that date, in Montreal:
All agree that Society and the State have never been so much in need of leaders and organizations directed by men, peace makers, having a true conception of the national spirit and requirements. It is in the hour of need that the country must depend on the patriotism of its citizens.
The Minister continues:
To serve other interests than those of the bonne entente existing among the citizens linked by birth to Canadian traditions, would mean, the prostitution of its fundamental conception and the proclamation of its unworthiness. This entente can only be reached through a correct interpretation of what constitutes mutual respect, right and justice; by contact with one another and congenial means, by mediation well planned, an opportunity well chosen, an honesty of purpose and then with a firmess favourably impressive.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: Quite so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Post Office-Outside Service
The minister as a business man.
The last yearly total revenue (gross) of the post offices where inquiries were held in connection with political partisanship of postmasters, since August 1930, amounted to $289,-630.17:-their last yearly net revenue-after deducting salaries of postmasters, allowances and expenditure for mail transportation-was nil (sic). (Order of the House, November 21, 1932.-Laid on the table January 30, 1933. Kef. No. 104; S.P. 203).
The sum of $44,499.05, which is the cost of the inquiries held for political partisanship, has therefore increased the actual deficit of these post offices. Problem: On how many bags of sugar will the tax of $2 have to be paid to cover said amount?
Let us summarize: voluntary resignation or dismissal after receipt of threatening letter, 19; post offices closed, 606; change of site, 96; dismissal for political partisanship, 522. Total of those beheaded since May, 1930, 1,243.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: I trust that yours is still on your shoulders.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am luckier than my hon. friend, the member for Lake St. John, because he has no head.
I often heard the hon. Postmaster General state that he was a follower of Macdonald. I hardly can credit this statement because in answer to an inquiry from my hon. friend the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thau-vette) he said he had dismissed a Mr. Adelard Menard, of St. Justin Station, who had been appointed by Sir John A. Macdonald. Since he dismisses a postmaster appointed by Sir John A. Macdonald, how can he contend to be his disciple?
I wish to point out another fact. After that we shall examine a very interesting case in which His Majesty, King George Y, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the hon. Minister of Pensions (Mr. MacLaren), the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) play a part, and also with reference to future appointments by the Civil Service Commission.
I was greatly interested in an article published by a Quebec newspaper, with reference to the different part that was played by the hon. Postmaster General and his predecessor.
The first question I wish to put to the hon. Postmaster General is whether he will state what was the total amount of postal stamps sold in connection with excise?


Arthur Sauvé: I understand that the hon. member for Temiscouata has further remarks to make; I shall answer after, if possible, the questions he may ask.
Mr. POULIOT (Translation); At present, Sir, I am putting a serious question to the minister, and, in order to proceed with method, we must advance step by step; I need beacons. !Mr. Pouliot.]
For the last two years the act in connection with excise stamps has been changed. Previously, we were obliged to use special excise stamps; now the act permits us to use postal stamps. I beg of the hon. Postmaster to kindly inform the house what has been the increase in the revenue of his department since the act was changed, namely, since we are allowed to place postal stamps on cheques, promissory notes, etc.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation); We have no statistics in that connection, it is impossible to keep any. The quantity of excise stamps sold by the Post Office department is unimportant. The sale of these stamps takes place specially in rural post offices. In Montreal very few excise stamps are sold in post offices. The hon. member has had too much experience and is too anxious to show his good will and intelligence to make such a statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: The question of stamps is most important. If the hon. Postmaster General had not the sale of stamps under his control he could not show any returns. It becomes a most important question when one contends that the hon. Postmaster General deserves a great deal of credit because he has succeeded in making both ends meet, while I wish to prove to the house that what he has gained in the sale of excise stamps the department of National Revenue has lost. I shall not insist any further as the hon. Postmaster General does not seem willing to answer.
There is another very important question. I know that the hon. Postmaster General will admit that there are now fewer employees in the Post office department. Will the hon. Postmaster General corroborate this stater ment that there are now fewer employees than in the past?


Arthur Sauvé: I did not catch the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the
hon. Postmaster General inform the House whether there are fewer employees now in his department than there were in July 1930?
Mr. SAUVE (Translation); Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since the
horizontal cut of 10 per cent, does the Post office department pay less in salaries than in July 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: As the committee is aware, we pay 10 per cent less.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, sir,
if the hon. Postmaster succeeded in balancing

477 a
Post Office-Outside Service
his budget, this year, it is because, he sells, to affix on cheques and promissory notes, postal stamps which replace excise stamps and that the revenue which the department of National Revenue would receive is now collected by the Post Office department. Secondly, there are fewer employees than in July 1930, and, thirdly, it pays less in salaries. That is why the hon. Postmaster General is able to balance his budget, at present.
Mr. SAUViE (Translation):	The hon.
member is aware that the department, this year, has reduced its expenditure by $1,122,725; he will not deny the fact.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not
wish to contradict the hon. minister; I simply wish to put questions to him.


Arthur Sauvé: We	have
reduced expenditure by $1,122,725.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the
hon. Postmaster General inform the House whether that amount comprises the cut in salaries and the other expenditures?


Arthur Sauvé: Ares, it includes the cut in salaries and the other expenditures.


Jean-François Pouliot: What does
the cut in salaries amount to and what do the other expenditures also amount to?


Arthur Sauvé: Will t.he hon.
member postpone this question until tomorrow; I shall then be in a position to give him these details.


Jean-François Pouliot: As long as
the hon. minister will give me these details, to-morrow, I shall be quite satisfied. His request is only fair and I shall be very pleased to wait for this information.
The hon. Postmaster General, sir, made a grand speech at the Viger Hotel, on September 9, 1932. I shall read the report of "Le Devoir" of that date. The incident took place after last session and his idea was to explain the change made in the Civil Service Act as it affected the Post Office department. The following is what he stated-he was right, and he told the truth that time:
The only amendment provides that post offices with a revenue less than $3,000 shall come under the control of the Postmaster General, however it is still stipulated that preference must be given to veterans who, according to the inspector's report, receive 60 per cent or more of the marks for efficiency. It is the new Article 57a of the act as amended.
A very prominent newspaper from Toronto, the "Globe", for which I have great consideration, published the following excerpt, on October 21, 1932:
Air. Sauve Still Dumb
Hon. Arthur Sauve has not yet chosen to tell parliament, the Canadian Legion, or the country at large why he permitted, or perhaps perpetrated, a gross injustice in the case of the Shelburne postmastership.
A war veteran, Mr. James Hill Kennedy, was appointed postmaster at Shelburne after regular examination by the Civil Service Commission. He was later ordered by the Post Office Department to report for duty on a specified date. Naturally, he resigned his civilian job in order to take up his duties at the post office. Mr. Kennedy's employers filled his old position. But tw-o days before the date he had been ordered to start work the Post Office cancelled its instructions. To this day no explanation has been made for the crude actions by Air. Sauve's department. A resolution passed by the provincial convention of the Canadian Legion was ignored.
There is, of course, no mystery about the matter to those who know what actually occurred. Air. Sauve cannot tell parliament that a war veteran was cheated out of the appointment because the hungry hounds of patronage had once again put decency to flight.
Apparently it is nothing to Air. Sauve that the laws of Canada were flouted at Shelburne. Apparently his philosophy is that when the law interferes with machine politics the law should be treated as a mere scrap of paper. Apparently, also, it is a matter of no importance that the lawlessness by the Postmaster General's department not only deprived Air. Kennedy of his public appointment, but deprived him of his private position as well. At least, Air. Sauve has not stopped halfway.
I do not wish to insist, sir, on the Shelburne case which seems very interesting although sad; however, I came across certain information in questions passed as orders for returns on November 2, 1932, and tabled on January 31, 1933, order of the House No. 69 S.P. No 219:
Returned soldiers who have applied for positions of postmaster since August 1, 1930, 335, of whom 282 were successful, and those appointed number 208.
That means 74 returned soldiers were not given positions or were replaced by civilians. The Sully case is especially an interesting one. It is the case which I alluded to a short while ago where reference is made to His Alajesty, George V, the Governor General for Canada, the right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Pensions and the hon. Postmaster General. I have a number of questions to put to the hon. minister in this respect. The drama comprises a number of scenes. To depict the first scene one would have to go back to the days of the great war; we would have to view, on the walls of the House of Commons, the paintings hanging in the Upper Chamber, the red chamber as the Senate is called. There we witness scenes of Flanders; we discover soldiers in the woods of Flanders; it is on that battlefield that King George V went to raise the spirit of Canadian soldiers

Post Office

Outside Service
Among them, was to be seen a brave soldier by name, Isidore Jean, who had done his bit in the trenches. He bore the regimental number 2245410. One amongst the hundreds of thousands that were there. When His Majesty, the King of England reviewed the Canadian troops, he smiled on Jean as he passed by, and Jean treasured this gracious act of His Sovereign as a token of good luck. On his return to Canadian soil, Jean reposed his faith in the hon. Postmaster General and the right hon. Prime Minister; this induced him to put in an application for the position of postmaster. His file contains numerous documents:
S.P. 142. March 1, 1932; S.P. 142A. April 4. 1932; S.P. 142B. April 4, 1932; S.P. 172, November 21, 1932; S.P. 172B, March 15, 1933; Total 173 pages.
We shall go no further back than March 15, 1933, because it is the date the last return was tabled. There are so many extraordinary things in that file that I will request the hon. Postmaster General to kindly give us some explanation, shortly. Two candidates aspired for the position of postmaster at Sully, a charming parish located in the county of Temiscouata, close to the borders of New Brunswick and Maine.
Andria Tardif, postmaster (temporarily from January 20, 1932. and permanently since October 20, 1932) is a labourer who has not done his military service. (S.P 142A, p.4). Nothing in the files tabled proves that he has a better education than the veteran Isidore Jean. According to the reply of Mr. Sauve (Hansard, page 334 October 18. 1932), Jean and Tardif have received the same education.
The only difference is that Tardif is a civilian and Jean a returned soldier. I am not going to repeat the excerpt taken from the speech delivered at Place Viger Hotel, last year, by the hon. Postmaster General. What first strikes us in these returns, after recalling the service of Jean at the front and the solemn statement of the hon. Postmaster General, at the Place Viger Hotel, in Montreal, is that the department replied, on various occasions, to Jean that the appointment would have to be made by the Civil Service Commission.
On October 24, 1931, there was an inquiry held over the Charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster J-B. Plourde, of Sully.
On November 4, 1931, the Deputy Minister acknowledges receipt of a letter from Mr. Isidore Jean, attached to it were letters of recommendations by the parish priests of Sully and Riviere-Bleue, which were referrred to the department by the secretary of the Minister of Pensions and in which Mr. Jean

applies for the postmastersbip at Sully. Mr. Gaboury adds:
The recommendations on your behalf have been noted by the department; however, as you are aware, no doubt, the permanent appointment in this case is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
On November 4, 1931, the Postmaster General submitted to the Governor General in Council a memorandum recommending the dismissal of Mr. Plourde.
On November 10, 1931, Mr. C-E. Dube, of Riviere-du-Loup, writes to Mr. Sauve, as follows:
When the appointment is made permanent, should Mr. Jean be chosen by the Commission, I shall conform myself to the decision graciously.
On November 23, 1931, Mr. Gaboury again writes to Mr. Jean:
I have noted your application, however, I must inform you that if a vacancy occurs in that post office, the permanent appointment of the new incumbent will be entirely under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
The deputy minister again reiterates that the appointment is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. There is something very strange about this matter, sir, and you will hardly be able to repress a smile. On January 20, 1932, Mr. Underwood writes to Mr. Green as follows:
The Postmaster General has authorized the suspension of Mr. J. B. Plourde, postmaster of Sully, who, according to the findings of an inquiry, was guilty of political partisanship during the last Dominion election.
He is found guilty, but he is not punished, he is simply suspended. You will note Why he was suspended instead of being punished.
The District Superintendent is instructed to place the office in the temporary charge of Mr. Andrea Tardif, on the usual understanding that his temporary employment will not give him any special claim to the position when it becomes vacant.
The permanent appointment will rest with the Civil Service Commission.
Another official of the Post Office department repeats the same thing. May I inquire, sir, from the Postmaster General why the previous postmaster, after being found guilty, was simply suspended instead of being dismissed?


Arthur Sauvé: I first wish to state that when I said that the Sully case came under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. I simply stated the truth. The hon. member for Temiscouata well recalls the fact that in the course of last session an amendment to the Civil Service Act was adopted by the house, placing under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General all post offices with revenues not exceeding $3,000 per

Post Office-Outside Service
year; the Sully post office came, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General. It is then, aeting under representations made by citizens of Temiscouata, also of Sully, with reference to Mr. Jean, I authorized the Inspector General of post offices-not the local inspector-to examine the candidate, Mr. Jean, and a report was received that he had not the required education and qualifications to fill the post of postmaster. That is why he was not appointed postmaster.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not the question that I put to the minister. He goes much further than my question, he robs me of the facts of my case. I wish to inquire from the minister why Mr. Plourde, the late postmaster was suspended and not dismissed. There are 1,200, 1,300 or 1,500 postmasters who were dismissed. I wonder why Mr. Plourde was suspended instead of being dismissed. That is the direct question which I put and I should like to have some explanation from the minister.


Arthur Sauvé: The reason was, it was asserted, that the inquiry held by Mr. Achille Jolicoeur, on October 24, 1931, was not complete. It was pointed out that certain charges had not been proved against the accused, namely, that the postmaster had participated in a political triumph, in 1931; that he had made use of his official position to actively favour the liberals. It was asserted that these charges had not been proved against him.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not satisfactory. Does the hon. Postmaster General assert that he did not take an immediate decision with reference to Plourde? Does he contend that he suspended Plourde without finding him guilty? We have 'here a letter from Mr. Underwood to Mr. Green which states:
The Postmaster General has authorized the suspension of Mr. J. B. Plourde, postmaster of Sully, who, according to the findings of an inquiry held, was guilty of political partisanship during the last Dominion election.
He was found guilty and suspended. Why did he suspend Plourde after finding him guilty? Did this happen in many cases?


Arthur Sauvé: I have no further details. If there are others I shall 'be very pleased to give them to-morrow to the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is my second question. I would request the two officials here assisting the hon. Postmaster General to kindly make a note of the information required as I have no doubt that the 53719-302
hon. minister will endeavour to answer my questions, to-morrow.
On November 4, 1931, the hon. Postmaster General submitted his memorandum to the council, to the effect that Plourde had been found guilty of political partisanship. Why did the Postmaster General not get immediately in touch with the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Sauvé: I beg pardon,
I did not quite catch the hon. member's question.


Jean-François Pouliot: On November 4, the hon. Postmaster General submitted his memorandum to the council, to the effect that Plourde had been found guilty of political partisanship. Why did the Postmaster General not get in touch with the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Sauvé: The 'hon. member for Temiscouata will admit that we have not only one case to deal with in a department where there are over 12,000 postmasters. Naturally, we seek our information from the various officials, either inspectors or district superintendents. We are obliged to consult these officials, heads of districts, previous to arriving at a definite decision.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is so,
however, on the other 'hand, I wrote to the secretary of the hon. minister on April 25, to request him to produce certain returns, and I added: "Moreover, the day the hon. Postmaster General submits his estimates, kindly request him to bring to the house all the returns relating to postmasters of the county of Temiscouata, especially those of Sully, Notre-Dame-du-Lac and St. Arsene."
To-day we are discussing the Sully affair. The hon. Postmaster General knew that I would bring up this matter. We wish to find out how his department is managed and whether a uniform policy is followed in connection with postmasters. It should be an easy matter for the hon. minister to give me an answer without obliging his officials to work all night in order to concoct an answer for the following day. It seems to me that the hon. minister who was notified that we would discuss these cases to-day, should be ready to pass the test and answer the questions submitted to him. He should be in a position to justify his acts from A to Z.
Is the minister going to reply or will he have an answer prepared by others, for tomorrow, to the third question which I put to him and to which he gave no satisfactory answer-he admitted, himself, that he was unable to give an answer.



Post Office-Outside Service


Arthur Sauvé: I shall give
every explanation possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Plourde was found guilty of political partisanship; he was suspended. W'hy was he not dismissed? The answer is very clear, it is because one of the candidates to the position, a person by the name of Jean, was a returned soldier, and the hon. Postmaster General did not care to submit the case to the Civil Service Commission, because he feared that Jean would be appointed in preference to Tardif. That is why he did not notify the Civil Service Commission of the vacancy existing in that post office. If Mr. Plourde was suspended instead of being dismissed, it is because the hon. Postmaster General did not wish to submit the case to the Civil Service Commission. He will have no need of replying to this question to-morrow; that is the answer he would have given, had he answered candidly and sincerely this evening.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Chairman-*


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sullivan.) (Translation) :: I would request the hon. member to withdraw the words he has just uttered.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, what are the words I have uttered and which you find unparliamentary?


John Alexander Sullivan: The last words uttered by the hon. member are unparliamentary.


Jean-François Pouliot: What are
those words?


John Alexander Sullivan: Ask the stenographer to read
them.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall tell
him, sir. I contend that I am not a dishonest man and it is not the member for Temis-couata who can tarnish my reputation here this evening.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my utterances are not parliamentary, I withdraw them graciously. I will say: that is the answer which the hon. Postmaster General would have given had he taken the trouble of examining the returns before coming to the house. Is that not parliamentary, sir?


Arthur Sauvé: The 'hon. member for Temiscouata accepted my offer, namely, that I would furnish him with all information to-morrow. Why does he further insist? Is it to insult me?


Jean-François Pouliot: Poor martyr! Aurora, the child martyr!


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall say
something very unpleasant to the member for Matane (Mr. Larue) if he persists. I shall put him in his place, it will not take long.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: Very well, fire
away.


Jean-François Pouliot: First, I shall point out, Sir, that I had no intention to tarnish the reputation of the hon. Postmaster General. I never had that intention no more than to show disrespect for the rules of the House; however, we are entitled to know what is transpiring at the Post Office Department, and it is not because a member, whose voice is never heard, pounds the cover of his desk that I shall desist.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: That desk cover may, perhaps, have more intelligence than the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall be very lenient towards the hon. member, because it is his maiden speech.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: That is not so. Silence is more impressive than your utterances.


Jean-François Pouliot: We shall have to deprive him of his nipple: "Baby wants his Castoria."


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: I would prefer to have a nipple than to show a lack in intelligence.


Mr. COTNAM (Text):: Address the chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking to the chair all the time.
(Translation): On January 30, 1932, Mr Gaboury writes to Mr. Jean:
I am instructed by the hon. Mr. Sauve to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of the 29th renewing your request to be appointed postmaster of Sully.
May I state in reply that the arrangements made are of a temporary nature and that the permanent appointment comes under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Gaboury again reiterated to Mr. Jean, returned soldier, that the permanent appointment came under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and this took place in January, 1932.
Pursuant to the usual practice, this vacancy will be advertised in the near future, at Sully, the applications of candidates should reach the office of the Postal District Administrator of Quebec within the time limit specified on the notice.

Post Office-Outside Service
On February 1, 1932, Mr. Green, Postal Superintendent, writes to Mr. Underwood:
Postmaster Plourde of Sully suspended. Departmental authority 20th January asks transfer to Andrea Tavdif be deferred pending discussion of partisanship with Postmaster General. Stop. Are we to proceed nevertheless?
On February 1, 1932, replies to Mr. Green:
With reference to his telegram of the 1st February the District Superintendent is requested to proceed with the temporary transfer of the Sully post office to the charge of Mr. Andrea Tardif as instructed.
Document 172, November 21, 1932: On May 18, 1932, an order in council (P.C. 1178) dismissed J. B. Plourde as postmaster, four months after being suspended, on January 20, 1932, in order that the case might not be submitted to the Civil Service Commission.
Hansard contains the following, page 3413, May 20, 1932:
Mr. Pouliot (Translation): I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General a question in connection with the Sully post office. I have been told that the postmaster in charge there had not been dismissed but suspended. I would like to know whether the hon. Postmaster General intends reinstating Mr. Jean-Baptiste Plourde as postmaster at Sully?
Mr. Sauve (Translation): f understand a returned soldier by the name of Jean is a candidate. B5s name is before the Commission.
Note.-I am addressing myself directly to you Sir-that the hon. Postmaster General stated on May 20, 1932, that the name of Jean was before the commission.
Mr. Pouliot (Translation): I would also ask the hon. Postmaster General and if his answer is favourable that will be my last question in connection with this file, if the Commission is aware of the vacancy, if the Commission published the necessary notices so that the appointment of the postmaster be made with the least possible delay.
Mr. Sauve (Translation): Certainly.
On June 1, 1932, that is ten days later, Mr. Foran, Secretary to the Civil Service Commission, writes to Jean-Frangois Pouliot, M.P.:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 30th of last month-
Ten days after the hon. Postmaster General had made his statement in the House.
-and in reply I wish to state that the Postmaster General did not request the Civil Service Commission to fill the vacancy in the post office at Sully. .
That is the hon. Postmaster General states in the House, on May 20, that the name of Jean is before the commission, and on June 1, ten days later the secretary of the Civil Service Commission states that the name of Jean was never submitted to the commission. Why did the hon. Postmaster General not state in the House, on May 20, 1932, that Jean-Baptiste
53719-302J
Plourde had been dismissed by an order in council, two days before, instead of leaving the House under the impression that he was still suspended? I beg of the hon. minister to explain.


Arthur Sauvé: If I gave
that answer, at the time, it is because I had not the information mentioned by the hon. member. Sometimes, an official information in the department only reaches the minister a few days after it is received. I had no intention to induce the hon. member in error, he may be certain of that. I gave the information which I had at the time.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why did the hon. Postmaster General state, in the house, on May 20, 1932: "I understand that there is a candidate by the name of Jean, who is a returned soldier." His name is "before the commission" since the secretary of the commission admitted that the hon. Postmaster General had not requested the Civil Service Commission to fill the vacancy of postmaster at Sully for which Mr. Jean had put in an application?
I would ask the hon. Postmaster General whether Mr. Foran, the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, lied or whether Mr. Foran told the truth when he stated that the name of Mr. Jean had never been submitted to the commission?


Arthur Sauvé: I .am not
called upon to state whether Mr. Foran is a liar or whether he states the truth. What I state is that when I made this statement, I was so informed and I had no intention to mislead the house at the time, because my statement was based on the information received, on the notice received. I had been notified that the name of Mr. Jean was before the commission. If it were not, in no way did I interfere.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the hon. Postmaster General inform the committee who told him that the name of Mr. Jean was before the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Sauvé: The officials of the department I presume. The incident took place over a year ago, surely the hon. member will not urge that I should remember the names, because there are numerous officials, numerous persons who communicate with the minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. Postmaster General, I presume, does not contend that Mr. Foran did not tell the truth when he stated that the name of Mr. Jean had never been submitted to the Civil Service Commission?

Post Office-Outside Service
Mr.	SAUVE	(Translation):	I	do	not
wish to accuse Mr. Foran, I would not want to show discourtesy towards him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no doubt as to the hon. Postmaster General's great courtesy.
Mr.	SAUVE	(Translation):	I	am	not
in the habit of doing so.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not doubt that the hon. Postmaster General is the essence itself of politeness; however, I wish to put the question in another way: Does the hon. Postmaster General state to the committee that Mr. Foran for one reason or another, perhaps with the very best intentions, did not state the truth when he said that the case was never submitted to the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Sauvé: That is not what I mean.


Jean-François Pouliot: On May 24, the hon. Postmaster General had, however, written to the member for Temiscouata, the following letter:
Your letter of May 21, received in connection with the post office at Sully. I wish to inform you that the question of the permanent appointment of, the new postmaster is now under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. I issued orders to advise the commission to that effect.
That is, four days after the statement which the hon. Postmaster General had given to the house and the country, he wrote to me personally that he had issued orders to submit the question to the Civil Service Commission.
On what date, sir, did the hon. postmaster issue such orders? Has the hon. minister that date before him?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member must have it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not the file, I have only the returns tabled in the house. It is quite different.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member will recognize that it is impossible to bring all the files of the department in case questions might be asked. There are more than one file.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not what I alluded to. I say that I wish to have the complete returns in connection with Sully, Notre-Dame-du-Lac and another which I mentioned in a letter. The hon. Postmaster General has no excuse for not having these returns here, inasmuch as his secretary gave me to understand that these returns would be brought down.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What
secretary.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no complaints to make against the secretary. I simply state what transpired between the Post Office Department and myself. When the hon. member for Berthier Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) becomes a minister, we shall also have questions to put to him.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Thank you.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is quite
possible.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Or
Senator.


Jean-François Pouliot: Or Senator.
Immediately after prorogation, I shall request that favour for the hon. member.
Mr. ST. PERE (Translation): What luck!


Jean-François Pouliot: Was the
order issued by the hon. Postmaster General transmitted to the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Sauvé: What order?


Jean-François Pouliot: The order to submit the case of the Sully post office.


Arthur Sauvé: Probably.


Jean-François Pouliot: Probably I
That is not what Mr. Foran says. He states that he never heard of it.
On May 31, 1932, Mr. Coolican notifies Mr. Plourde that he is dismissed. Yet, Mr. Plourde, suspended since the preceding autumn, was not, notified before May 31 of his dismissal.
On June 12, 1932, Mr. Jean wrote to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett):
I have a letter from you, dated October 5, 1931, which informs me quite clearly that as regards the application in question, returned soldiers have ,a preference over all other candidates, pursuant to the Act. I depend on your kindness for protection.
This is a letter bearing the heading of the Prime Minister's Office and dated Ottawa, October 5, 1931. In the left comer, there are the following words: (Text) To be brought to the minister's attention please. (Sgd) A. W. Merriam, Private Secretary.
(Translation)
Mr. Isidore Jean,
Sully, Temiscouata, P.Q.
Evidently a copy was forwarded to the Postmaster General.
Dear Sir,
I am instructed by the Prime Minister to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 25.

Post Office-Outside Service
You are aware no doubt that the position of postmaster comes under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, The vacancy for such positions are announced by the Commission and the candidates must address their requests within the limit of time specified in the notice. Returned soldiers are always given preference over other candidates, pursuant to the Act.
The Prime Minister confirms exactly what the hon. Postmaster General stated himself, and which is, moreover, perfectly true.
I would therefore suggest that you address yourself directly to the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, at Ottawa and the Postmaster General, who has complete juridiction over his department.
At all events, I am immediately forwarding your request to him.
Sincerely yours.
(Signed) A. W. Merriam,
Private Secretary.
Fyle 142B.
April 4, 1932.
So that the attitude taken by the Prime minister's secretary on the former's instructions, was perfectly correct. He informed Mr. Jean of two things: the first, was that returned soldiers were given preference, and, the second, that these appointments were under the control of the Civil Service Commission.
Let us see what happened. At the request of the right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Postmaster General appointed Mr. Jean, returned soldier. On June 21, 1932, Mr. Merriam wrote to Mr. Sauve:
(Text) The Prime Minister has directed me to forward to you the attached letter addressed to him by Mr. Isidore Jean and which is self explanatory.
_ Mr. Bennett has promised to bring it to your immediate attention.
(Translation)
Here we have the Prime Minister who instructs his private secretary to write to his colleague, the hon. Postmaster General, and cates the case of Jean, returned soldier, which is self explanatory. And the secretary adds that the Prime Minister has promised to bring the case to the immediate attention of the Postmaster General.
On June 30, 1932, reply of the hon. Postmaster General to Mr. Merriam:
I duly received your communication of the 21st of June enclosing a letter from Mr. Isidore Jean, returned soldier, who has applied for appointment to the vacancy at Sully, P.Q.
As the Civil Service Act gives preference to returned soldiers in the matter of these appointments, I have given instructions for the transfer of the Sully post office to the charge of Mr. Isidore Jean.
That was very good. It was done under the personal instruction of the Prime Minister himself, given through his secretary.
On June 30, 1932, Mr. Underwood notifies Mr. Green, Posit Office Superintendent, at Quebec, of the resignation of Mr. J.-B. Plour-de and the appointment of Isidore Jean, returned soldier.
On July 2, 1932, Mr. Green writes to Mr. Tardif to notify him of the appointment of Mr. Jean. The same day Mr. Green writes to Mr. Jean:
I have received instructions to put you in charge of the post office at Sully, county of Temiscouata.
I would ask you to inform me when you will he ready to take charge of the post office, so that an inspector of the Postal service may be sent to effect the transfer.
The preceding letter is very important. On July 4, 1932-this letter also is very important-Mr. Jean replies to Mr. Green:
In reply to your letter of the 2nd inst., relating to the transfer of the post office at Sully, county of Temiscouata, I shall be ready to take charge of it on July 9 of this week.
Then, this recommendation of June 30, is confirmed, Mr. Jean is notified by the superintendent of Post Office of his appointment, the letter inquires when he will be able to take charge of the post office, and Mr. Jean replies: I shall be ready at the end of the week. What happened? On July 4, 1932, the Postmaster General writes to Mr. C. E. Dube:
As you are aware, the recent amendment to the Civil iServiee Act, places that post office (Sully) under the jurisdiction of the department, however, at the same time, it strictly instructs the department to give preference to veterans of the Great War.
In connection with the Sully case, there is on fyle an application of Mr. Isidore Jean and as the latter 6eems sufficiently qualified...
The minister finds him qualified.
I cannot do otherwise than to authorize his appointment conforming to the stipulations in the Act. I have given instruction to that effect and the transfer will take place in the course of the present month.
All is well, up to then; but the hon. Postmaster General is like Louis XIV, who said: "I feel two men in me." "There is the good man and then there is the bad man. I have just referred to the good one, and the other, it is not precisely the bad one, it is the easy led one, one who has not the back bone to put his foot down and resist people who wish to lead him astray." He thinks that it is not the proper thing to do, and intends to resist. He sides with one and then another, finally he finds himself in a mess.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: He is a good fellow.

Post Office-Outside Service


Jean-François Pouliot: Nevertheless, here is an important statement made in the presence of the minister to the effect that Jean is sufficiently qualified. It is very important. Two days later, after the letter Mr. Sauve had written on July 4, 1932, something very strange happened, and a memorandum from the Postmaster General to his Deputy Minister is discovered:
(Text) Re Sully. Please suspend all action towards transfer to Isidore Jean pending further instructions.
(Translation): He also is suspended; it is the post office of suspension: Mr. Plourde, the ex-postmaster is suspended; Mr. Jean is appointed, he also is suspended; everybody connected with that post office is suspended.
Why has Mr. Sauve suddenly decided to suspend all action towards the transfer of the post office to Isidore Jean, contrary to the Civil Service Act and the recommendation of the Prime Minister?


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to
thank the hon. member for Temiscouata for his last kind words. He will admit that I acted in good faith, that I wish to give to the returned soldier Jean all his possible rights. I recognized that he should be given preference. However, as to his qualifications he did not fulfil the necessary requirements, since later on, the inspector of the department reported that he was not qualified. However, my desire was to appoint him and the hon. member has well brought out that point. If he was not appointed after all the means I took to do so, it is because, I repeat it, people with a serious turn of mind, of whom some are known to the hon. member, made representations to me, asserting that the returned soldier Jean was not sufficiently educated or qualified to hold that post. Furthermore I did not rely only on the reports of the district inspectors to obtain my information, but I sent the Chief Inspector, Mr. Fortier, who is well known on both sides of the house for his qualifications in such matters, in order to ascertain whether the returned soldier Jean was qualified to take charge of the post office at Sully. The report, I repeat, was not favourable to Jean, and I therefore acted accordingly.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. Postmaster, sir, is again robbing me of my statement; he is in too great a hurry. All that I wish to find out from the minister is what happened between July 4, the date of the appointment of Jean, and July 6, the day he suspended Jean, and why he suspended him before receiving the report of Mr. Fortier, to whom he referred just now?


Arthur Sauvé: After the
representations made to me, I wished to find out, before putting him in charge of the post office, whether he had the necessary qualifications.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, why did the hon. Postmaster General write to Mr Dube, on July 4, 1932, as follows:
As the latter seems sufficiently qualified, I cannot do otherwise than authorize his appointment, pursuant to the stipulations in the Act.
The hon. Postmaster General has a too serious turn of mind to state of a candidate that he is sufficiently qualified when he is not.


Arthur Sauvé: That was my opinion at the time.


Jean-François Pouliot: But that opinion must have been based on some fact?


Arthur Sauvé: The chief inspector convinced me to the contrary by his report. I was first of the opinion that he was qualified and I therefore wished to be fair to Jean-not only conform myself to the act but also be fair towards him. And the hon. member proved this point just now. It was only after representations were made to me by persons from Temiscouata, stating that they knew well the returned soldier Jean, the hon. member and the people of that beautiful county, that I thought it proper to send the Chief Inspector. That covers the whole case.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is, at the time the hon. minister suspended the transfer to Jean, he had no knowledge yet whether Jean was sufficiently qualified or not, and when he wrote that Jean seemed sufficiently qualified he was hesitating what action to take. Is that what the hon. Postmaster General wishes to convey?


Arthur Sauvé: No that is not what I mean-hesitating what action to take. My intentions were of the best, only, when I stated that I thought him qualified, I was in good faith, I really thought he was.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why did
the hon. Postmaster General cease to think so, two days after?


Arthur Sauvé: It was because the Chief Inspector had reported that he was not.


Jean-François Pouliot: The report
of the Chief Inspector is dated July 22, and this took place on July 6, 16 days before. The

Post Office-Outside Service
bon. Postmaster General could not guess what the report would contain before the Chief Inspector had interviewed Jean, at Sully.


Arthur Sauvé: Previous to July 22, I repeat it, representatives were made to me and the hon. member for Temis-couata is aware of the fact-


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not
aware of it.


Arthur Sauvé: -that representations were made by persons worthy of belief and respectable, it was then that doubt must have entered my mind as to his qualifications; it was also at that time that I decided to send the Chief Inspector.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since they
were persons worthy of belief and respectable, I hope the hon. Postmaster General will have no objection to giving their names.


Arthur Sauvé: Among others, Mr. Dube, mayor of Riviere-du-Loup, a candidate at the last election, who is a highly thought of gentleman, enjoying the confidence of the citizens of the county of Temiscouata -and the hon. member has often borne witness to this fact.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a
question of discussing the personal qualities of an individual, the point is to find out how this affair happened. Now, we know. The cat was let out of the bag. The fact is that the minister, after writing to Mr. Dube, on July 4, 1932, that he had decided to appoint Mr. Jean because he was a returned soldier and sufficiently qualified, after receiving a letter or telegram from Mr. Dube, on July 6, to the effect that he should not be appointed, suspends him. I wish to thank the Postmaster General for his explanations. They are perfectly satisfactory. I was aware that those were the means resorted to, however, they were not on file. The moment the hon. Postmaster General completes the returns by his explanations, I am quite satisfied.
On July 6, 1932, telegram from Mr. Cooli-can to Mr. Green:
(Text) Re Sully: Suspend action on transfer to Isidore Jean. Wire reply.
That was most pressing, things had to be done by telegrams.
On July 6, telegram from Mr. Green to Mr. Coolican:
(Text) Re Sully: Transfer will be deferred as directed.
Things are moving fast. The Chief Inspector of the Post Office department is more exacting than the Postmaster General. The Chief Inspector in going to Sully had a duty to fulfil. He thought: I shall do my duty conscientiously. That is, I shall see that Jean fails, I shall follow my orders. He had received instructions before leaving Ottawa. That he had received instructions, is less astonishing to me, because the minister heretofore has explained what transpired.
Since August 1930, the Chief Inspector of the Post Office department has received instructions, in only two cases, to verify the qualifications of candidates applying for positions of postmaster, and in each of these cases, it bad reference to returned soldiers residing in the province of Quebec. He reported on the case of Isidore Jean, of Sully, on July 22, 1932, and on that of L.-A. Champagne, of Action Vale, on July 28,	1932 (Hansard
October 31, 1932, and November 8, 1932.)
I shall now point out to the hon. Postmaster General how very sad it is to note that the people who are ill treated by his department are French Canadians from Quebec and moreover, returned soldiers.
The only two candidates that were ill-treated, in the whole of Canada, are two French Canadian returned soldiers of Quebec, whom he had examined by the Chief Inspector of his department and, with special instructions to see that they failed in their examination for the position of postmaster.
I think that it is most regrettable. As a French Canadian it rouses me. I repeat it, I think it pitiless.


Arthur Sauvé: Do not laugh at it yourself!


Jean-François Pouliot: That does
not prevent me to state that I think it is, nevertheless, very sad.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Do not
shed tears.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. M. H. Fortier, Chief Inspector, contends that Mr. Jean is not educated enough to take charge of the post office, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Sauve had written to Mr. C. E. Dube, on July 4, 1932, that Mr. Jean seemed to him sufficiently qualified. (Letter cited on page 39 of returns).
Report from Mr. Green to Mr. Sauve, February 20, 1933.
Upon receipt of his appointment Mr. Jean... further hired the services of Miss Irene D'Auteuil, a clerk in a local store, who for that reason lost the former position and could not secure employment since and is living with the Jean family.
Post Office-Outside Service

(Translation):	No answer from the minister. On July 26 Mr. Green writes to Mr. Sauve:
Re Sully. P.Q.: With reference to departmental letter of the 30th ultimo, appointing Mr. Isidore Jean to the postmastership of the above named post office, the District Superintendent quotes hereunder a telegram, received yesterday, from Mr. Isidore Jean:
(Translation)
Will you he kind enough to inform me whether there has been any change since you notified me to prepare the post office? It has been ready for the last three weeks.
(Text): This telegram was not acknowledged. That is, Mr. Jean had been appointed postmaster of the post office at Sully; Mr. Green notified him and asked to be informed when he would be ready. Mr. Jean answers: I shall be ready. No news. Mr. Jean again writes and Mr. Green notifies the Postmaster General that he did not answer him. Most likely Mr. Green expects an increase in salary for his action.
In his report, July 20, 1932, the chief inspector of the Post Office Department states that he examined Mr. Jean and the Post office in charge of Mr. Tardif.
First, is it true that Mr. Tardif attends to the post office himself? I am putting the question to the minister.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Temiscouata was entirely satisfied of my answers just now. Does he wish to start over again?


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon.
Postmaster General replies differently, while I proceed step by step. Mr. Fortier, the chief inspector of the Post Office Department states that he submitted Mr. Jean to a test and that he examined the post office in charge of Mr. Tardif. What I now wish to know is whether Mr. Tardif, himself, attends to the post office.


Arthur Sauvé: I believe that he attends the post office himself, because the chief inspector reports on his administration and states that he is quite qualified to carry on.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not what the inspector states; he said that the post office was well taken care of. That does not mean that it is Tardif who attends to it. I wonder whether Tardif is really in charge.


Arthur Sauvé: I believe so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was it
Tardif who did the work?


Arthur Sauvé: I am certain, because Tardif is the postmaster.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon.
Postmaster General has been misinformed. The minister requires from Mr. Jean the "necessary qualifications to personally attend, efficiently, to the post office affairs." (Letter from the Deputy Minister to Mr. Jean, November 17, 1932, S.P. 172-B, P. 24).
Why did the Postmaster General not give instructions to the chief inspector to also make a complete report on the qualifications of Mr. Tardif, like in Mr. Jean's case? Did the chief inspector put Miss Irene d'Auteuil to a test? He makes no statement on her qualifications.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Temiscouata is a brilliant lawyer, an author, and he knows perfectly well that it is Mr. Tardif who is responsible for the administration of the post office at Sully.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am pleased, sir, to hear that Mr. Tardif is responsible for the administration of that post office. However, he is not the one who attends to it; he hardly knows how to read or write.
Moreover, it is not a question as to whether they hold a university degree or are doctors, both are poor country folks who have had an elementary education, and the only difference between them is that one went to the war and the other did not; therefore, the Postmaster General acted contrary to the 'Act. That is all what the returns show. Now, the Postmaster General feels uneasy. On July 28, 1932, Mr. Underwood writes to Mr. Green:
Was the transfer stopped by telegram or by correspondence, and will the District Superintendent please send to the department a copy of the telegram or communication forwarded to Air. Jean, as well as a copy of any correspondence you may have received from Air. Jean in reply.
Their conscience began to prick them; things did not seem above board, everything was going wrong.
On July 29, 1932. Mr. Green replies to the minister:
When the Assistant-Deputy Postmaster General's telegram was received, on the 7th of July, Postal Inspector Beauchamp was on his way to make the transfer. He was reached by telephone at St. Pascal and told to defer proceeding to Sully; and, that is all. Nothing wras written to Air. Jean other than our memorandum of the 2nd July.
This happened when he had been informed that he was appointed postmaster and had prepared himself.

Post Office-Outside Service
On July 30, 1932, Mr. Green writes to the Postmaster General:
With reference to our memorandum of yesterday's date, I have to advise that Mr. Isidore Jean has just been in this office and inquired, respecting the telegram, as to when he is to get the office and was told that the matter was under consideration at Ottawa.
Jean had already been appointed since July 4, 'he wanted information. No news! This letter was written one week after the Chief Postal Inspector had found that Mr. Jean's education was lacking, and twenty-six days after Mr. Sauve had written to Mr. Dufoe that he thought Mr. Jean sufficiently qualified. On October 4, 1932, the aoting deputy minister wrote to the member for Temiscouata:
Re Sully: The Chief Postal Inspector was recently instructed to examine the qualifications of Mr. Isidore Jean, a veteran of the great war, who is a candidate for the position of postmaster at Sully.
According to the report of this official, Mr. Jean has not the necessary qualifications to properly take charge of the administration of this post office and would have to depend on his assistants.
Under the circumstances, in making the appointment, at Sully, the minister intends to leave in charge the present incumbent, against whom there are no complaints.
Would it not be fitting to have a chief inspector of ministers, who would judge their qualifications to these high offices and who could make a thorough investigation of the Post Office department itself, reporting to the Canadian Press.


Arthur Sauvé: That is not included in the report.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it is a passing comment which I am making-it is a note at the foot of the page.
On October 17, 1932, the Rev Mr. David Roussel, parish priest of Sully, wrote to the hon. Postmaster General:
Mr. Isidore Jean, of Sully, has the necessary qualifications to take charge of the post office.
During all that time Jean remained under the impression that he was postmaster, he had been preparing himself.
On October 20, 1932, the deputy minister replied to the parish priest the Rev. Mr. Roussel:
At the request of the hon. Mr. Sauve, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 17, recommending Mr. Isidore Jean for the position of postmaster at Sully. In reply I wish to state that your representation on his behalf have been noted.
They were so well noted that the same day, October 20, 1932, a memorandum was sent to the general superintendent, as follows: Go ahead with permanent nomination at Sully, Mr. Tardif as postmaster.
(Sgd.) L. J. Gaboury.
Instructions were forwarded on the same day by Mr. Underwood to Mr. Green. Eight days later, October 28, 1932, Mr. Jean writes to Mr. Sauve:
It is very strange indeed, that after preparing the post office four months ago, I am still waiting for the transfer.
The other person had been appointed but Jean was unaware of the fact.
After being found qualified and relying on your promise, I firmly believe that you will keep your word. After the numerous outlays to which you have put me-being very poor. To answer my country's call, I have given the best of my strength and courage and, then, when the question of reward comes up, I am forsaken. After giving your word, I do not think that the absurd fancies of a few persons will change your mind. Anxiously waiting. Please have the transfer made.
My last letters remained unanswered, I would therefore request you to reply to this one.
Three weeks later, the deputy minister notifies Mr. Jean-at the request of Mr. Sauve-that the Postmaster General found it necessary to make another appointment. From June 30, to October 20, 1932, the returned soldier Isidore Jean was postmaster, at Sully, without, however, performing his duties or drawing a cent of salary; on the other hand, he was only notified on November 17 last that the post office would not be transferred to his house.
That is, from June 30, to November 17, he was put to considerable expense in order to take over the post office.


Mr. MERCIER (Translation):: Was he
reimbursed for the expenses incurred?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know. We shall soon learn.
Since section 10 chapter 40 of the Act, 1932, has been passed, to the effect that the provisions of the Civil Service Act-with the exception of the preference to be granted to returned soldiers-are not applicable to positions of postmaster whose post offices do not show a yearly revenue exceeding $3,000, the appointment to these positions are no more made by the Civil Service Commission, neither are the dismissals by order in council, pursuant to section 52 of the Civil Service Act. Does the department interpret the terms of the Act as meaning net or gross revenue of post offices?


Arthur Sauvé: How?


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the department interpret the Act which places post offices whose yearly revenue does not exceed $3,000 under the control of the Postmaster General, according to the net or gross revenue of these post offices? Must a post office bring
47S6

Post Office-Outside Service
in a net revenue of $3,000 to come under tihe jurisdiction of the minister in connection with appointments and dismissals or is it only a gross revenue of $3,000 that supplies the basis?


Arthur Sauvé: Net revenue.
Mr. POl.'LIOT (Translation): That means more post offices.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: And a well dusted post office.


Jean-François Pouliot: Can the hon. Postmaster General prove that Tardif is better educated than the returned soldier Jean and, if so, on what does he base himself?


Arthur Sauvé: I rely on the report of the Inspector General.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Inspector makes no mention of it.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.
Mr. POULIOT , (Translation):	Nowhere
does he refer to the personal qualification of Mr. Tardif. I shall send over the report to the minister and if he finds in that report something to that effect-
I shall read the whole report:
Ottawa, July 22, 1932.
Conforming with oral instructions received I proceeded to Sully, last week, in order to find out whether Mr. Isidore Jean, returned soldier, and a candidate, had the required qualifications to fill the position of postmaster of the post office herein under mentioned.
Mr. Jean informed me that he had no experience in office work, his occupation having always been that of a labourer. At present he is employed as sexton in the church here. I prepared a simple test consisting of addition and multiplication problems, and I ascertained that Mr. Jean, who left school at the age of 12, found it very difficult to solve these problems. After working almost five minutes to add seven amounts varying from $8.72 to $973.11, I found that his addition was wrong.
As to the multiplication test Mr. Jean found it difficult to multiply 13 by 10. He informs me that should he be appointed he would secure the help of his sister in law, Miss Irfene Dau-teuil, 17 years old, who, up to 10 months ago, was a domestic servant. Since then she has been employed in a general store, at Sully. Her occupation, however, consists in selling goods; she has never had any experience in bookkeeping or office work.
Owing to the little education of Mr. Jean, most of the important office work, such as making up cash accounts, statements in connection with post office orders and probably also issuing cheques, would have to be done by the assistant. He, therefore, cannot be considered as qualified for the position of postmaster and the result of the test shows that he would be unable to verify the work of his assistant and could not discover errors which might be made through negligence or otherwise on the part of hi6 assistant.

I took advantage of my visit to Sully to examine how the post office is kept by Mr. Tardif, and I can state that I found everything in good order.
He, however, does not state that it was Tardif that keipt it that way or that he was qualified. That is, it was Tardif's wife who was responsible for the good order of the post office. The report was concocted to prevent Jean from being appointed and have Tardif take his place. It is shameful that the Postmaster General should stoop to persecute such unfortunate people of the province of Quebec.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member stated that there was no report against Jean; that is one.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not wihat I stated. I inquired on what the hon. minister based himself to state that Tardif was better educated than Jean.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation) All is included in the report: Jean is not qualified and cannot take charge of the post office; the other is in charge of the post office and no complaint is made that his post office is badly administered. I therefore, concluded that he was better fitted for the post than the other.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: He is a sexton recommended by the parish priest.


Arthur Sauvé: Jean?
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation); Yes; he is a sexton recommended by the parish priest.


Jean-François Pouliot: If Jean found it difficult to solve the problems which were set for him by Fortier, it is possible that Tardif would have been unable to find that 2 and 2 make 4.
On November 16, 1932, Mr. Jean writes to His Excellency the Governor general that the department refuses to reimburse him the large amount he spent and for which they were responsible since they had made him prepare premises for a post office. On December 27, Mr. Sauve writes to Mr. Jean that His Excellency the Governor general forwarded to him his letter of December 16 in connection with the position of postmaster at Sully. He adds:
As to the question of reimbursing you for the outlay you made in preparing premises for the post office, I wish to state that if you will forward a detailed account of this outlay, I shall see what can be done.
Now, the postmaster general was disposed to look into the matter.

Questions
Mr. Jean writes to His Majesty the King George V:
I beg of your Majesty to see that justice is done to me, and you will have an opportunity of discovering how brutally the Canadian government treated me.
He now places his grievance at the foot of the Throne.
Hoping Honourable Majesty, that you will take an interest in my ease as you did when you visited our regiment.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Did he write that?


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly, he wrote that. He is far better educated than Mr. Fortier, the chief inspector.


Arthur Sauvé: I think that it is from the pen of another author.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would then like to know who wrote it. That young man is capable of writing such a letter; yet, the inspector says that he is not qualified 1 On January 7, 1933, Mr. Jean forwards to Mr. Sauve, the detailed account of his expenditure, and adds:
I purchased a house for which I paid $650; at present no one will offer me $400 for it. Moreover, I hired a girl to look after the office, whom I have been paying $10 per month, for five months. $50 is quite an amount.
Detailed account for the post office at Sully:
2,675 feet of wood at $20 per	m. ft.	$53	502 windows at $7	
14	001 glass door	
10	00Paint	
2	50Nails	
5	005.000 shingles at $2.50	
12	50Roof paper and wainscoting..	..	14	00Labour, salary	
42	00
Interior
Purchase of Office fixtures	.	.	..	30	00Paint and varnish	
7	251 table	
2	75A letter box in the door	
1	00Total	$194 50
(Signed) Isidore Jean.
Sully.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Was he reimbursed for this outlay?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not
know. That is what I wish to find out from the minister. Will the estimates of the hon. Postmaster general be further considered tomorrow?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly, if they are not passed this evening.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not on your life. I should like to receive answers to the questions I put to the minister. Even were
I agreeable to it, I could not possibly allow them to carry, because the minister promised to answer my questions, to-morrow.


Arthur Sauvé: I could give these answers to the hon. member, just the same, to-morrow. This practice has often been followed. There are precedents.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no. The reason I have brought these facts before the house, is because I want French Canadians in Quebec to have fair play; in order that the rights of my compatriots in Temiscouata be recognized throughout Quebec and Canada; in order that all be placed on an equal footing; in order that the poor devil who has incurred expenses, for which the Port Office department is responsible, be fairly dealt with by the minister; moreover, in order to guard the minister against those who call themselves his friends.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You will admit, sir, that expenses were incurred, a transfer agreed upon, which later was cancelled. This man was put to expenses. Was that amount reimbursed to him? It would only be fair, because after all, having received instructions that the transfer would be made, he had his premises fitted up.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation); As far as I can remember a certain amount was offered to Mr. Jean and he accepted it. I think the question is being settled.
Mr. ST. PERE (Translation): He compromised.


Arthur Sauvé: Quite agreeably.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: This is an era of compromise.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, May 10, 1933